DAR
Actually it does. So says the National Academy of Science, the most prestigious science organization in the country.

Bigd: “…the coffee table magazine cited the studies.”>>

DAR
No, the coffee table magazine cherry picked one study (Kronick 2009) which the quote from McWilliams above, rebutted.

Bigd: Are they wrong?>>

DAR
Often studies disagree. Often they are put together or funded by those with an agenda. That’s why it is best for us non experts to look to an independent umbrella science organization with the highest credentials and have them consider all of the peer reviewed studies and draw their conclusion. That’s what the National Academy of Science did. That’s what your coffee table magazine did not do and wouldn’t even be capable of doing if they wanted to.

D.

And the coffee table magazine cited the studies. Are they wrong? Are they not peer reviewed? Are they in error because they were cited by a coffee table magazine?

That would indicate that global warming studies are not valid if cited in a coffee table magazine. Makes no sense, does it?

DAR
What a ridiculous and entirely irrelevant thing to say. Did you know many more right handed people die than left handed people? For pity sake.

Bigd: “…and lack of coverage does not increase the risk of death.”>>

DAR
Actually, I get the Atlantic and I had already read that article. It was a fluff piece written by a non-expert full of weasel words and it certainly did not conclude what you claim here.

The study I have referred to several times is the National Academies which references 18,000 here. This is the most conservative estimate, several others are much higher.
You are NOT going to knock down peer reviewed science of this caliber with an editor hacking a pop piece together in a coffee table magazine!

As one commenter on that article noted at your link:

***
“You haven’t incorporated Ezra Klein’s and McWilliams critiques to adoption of “immediate” mortality as an adequate measure of health insurance coverage.

Quoting from McWilliams:

. From the sizable observational literature, McArdle selects just one negative study to suggest insurance coverage may not affect mortality (Kronick 2009). Yet several other observational studies that controlled for an equally robust set of characteristics have consistently demonstrated a 35-43% greater risk of death within 8-10 years for adults who were uninsured at baseline and even higher relative risks for older uninsured adults with treatable chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension (Baker et al. 2006; McWilliams et al. 2004; Wilper et al. 2009).”

More here.