Statistics, Terrorism, Lack of Access to Health Care
by Nick Farr on January 27, 2010
in Economic Theory, Future Shock
“What I hope the president does… is talk about jobs, debt, terror and if he stopped right there it’d suit me fine, because if he focused on those three and got them in a better direction, then we could deal with health care.”
- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) via NPR
In a fit of anger upon hearing this, I tweeted:
“Lack of access to health care kills more Americans every month than terrorists have in our nation’s entire history.”
- Me, via twitter
Admittedly, this is a very bold claim. And I stand behind it.
The presumptions I’ve made in making this claim take into account the following assumptions which, depending on your point of view, are refutable:
- “Americans” means US Citizens on US soil.
- “Terrorists” means those who apply the calculated use of violence to achieve mass casualties against US citizens in order to forward political goals.
The thing about statistics is that you could game either body count either way. You could immediately throw out the study I reference, using a 2002 Institute of Medicine study which puts the total at less than half of the study I quote.
You could also pile on to assume that Terrorist attacks are any random act of violence leading to death, in which case the reverse claim could be made.
In looking at Terrorism, I’m using a much narrower focus. The “terrorist” I speak of is the kind that we’re supposedly fighting in this War on Terror. This precludes things like hate crimes, campaigns by the KKK, and many other uses of systematic violence with political motives. It also precludes attacks on those working for the military, law enforcement or those attacks committed abroad. I’m talking about organized terror groups acting specifically against civilians in the US along political lines. All that being said:
Deaths attributable to Lack of Access to Health Care: 44,789 Annually, (approx. 3,732/month)
Deaths attributable to Terrorism in US History: 2,910 (Running total)
- 9/11: 2,668
- 1995 Oklahoma City: 168
- 1920 Wall Street Bombing: 38
- 1910 Los Angeles Times Bombing: 21
- 1993 WTC: 6
- 2001 Anthrax Attacks: 5
- Unabomber: 3
- 1996 Atlanta Olympic Bombing: 1
Which basically means there’s 822 terrorist deaths left to go before my statistic fails. Any other attacks I forgot?
I think you should remove the “by foreigners or foreign agents” in your definition of terrorists, as Oklahoma City, The LA Times Bombing, the Anthrax attacks, the Unabomber and the Atlanta bombings were all done by US nationals without ties to foreign entities.
[Reply]
Nick Farr Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 16:02
@cjp, Good call. Thoughts on the amended definition to be more fitting?
[Reply]
This is incredibly revealing. I’m definitely going to bring this up tomorrow in my Mass Media Analysis class, as we are currently studying Marxist thought and Semiotics when applied to media analysis.
Why do we not have healthcare, and why is the government is not launching a war on cigarette manufacturers? (440,000 die per year from smoking in the US). Why is there not rioting in the streets over these issues? Because the media has trained us to look at deaths in context A differently than deaths in context B, because those at the top are not concerned with lives, whether they know it or not.
[Reply]
I think some clarification on why the KKK is not included is warranted. What excludes them? What makes their methods, motivation, or targets so different from the groups you have included?
They used bombs
Their motivation was to cause social or political change (well… it was more to prevent change)
Their targets were civilians (both african-american and whites)
I’ve been thinking about this and I’m going to agree that the KKK is properly excluded. I’ve always thought of the following 3 requirements for terrorism:
1. Use of the violence against civilians
This important to ensure a distinction between a terrorist and revolutionary.
I don’t think there is any dispute the KKK fits this description so far.
2. With a goal of causing a specific social or political change.
We have to draw a distinction between self serving crime and terrorism. I don’t care how much firepower you rob a bank with, if it is for your own wealth then its not terrorism.
In many cases the KKK was targeting civl rights workers and those who attempted to excersize their civil rights. Ensuring that a specific chunk of the population is incapable of excersizing their rights qualifies. So the KKK still fits.
3. By a group that is not part of a government
I think its important to draw this distinction that a government does have a right to conduct warfare and police its territory. Misuse of these rights falls under different labels than terrorism. For example, use of a military to delibrately attack civilians is a war crime. (I personally believe that the concept of ‘State sponsored terrorism’ is a contradiction in terms)
I think the fact that the KKK was so deeply ingrained in political bodies of certain regions means that they were a part of the government. If you look at some of the more important federal laws enacted you see a distinct pattern emerge. Many of them really exist to move the cases out of the hands of the KKK influenced local jurisdiction and into federal jurisdiction.
So the KKK draws a very fine line here and its very likely that they are on both sides of it depending on where you are in their history.
[Reply]
Nick Farr Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 12:11
@NUXI, Very well argued. Perhaps instead of saying “by a group that is not part of a government”, you might say, “by a group that is not part of the dominant political order.”
I agree there are many instances of organized terror that the dominant order at the time has inflicted (and, arguably, continues to inflict) upon those not part or aligned with the said order. But, of course, I had to exclude those or the argument as a whole falls apart.
Thanks for commenting!
[Reply]
Nick, how many people are killed by HAVING access to medical care?
“New research shows more than 250,000 people died from medical mistakes in the two years between 2004 and 2006.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/09/ltm.03.html
More than twice as many deaths as from the lack of care.
[Reply]
Nick Farr Reply:
January 28th, 2010 at 12:08
Hey BobCat–are you going to Shmoo this year?
You’re actually pointing at another reason the system needs patching. The current system actively punishes those who attempt to admit and correct mistakes, for fear that doing so might lead to a big payout in a malpractice lawsuit. This is aside from how much money malpractice insurance siphons from the system.
[Reply]