isn't this a good argument for single payer????
first of all, the problem of being uninsured, or underinsured, would have to affect the middle-class and become a voting issue. the squeeze on the middle-class is well underway. last week, for instance, the commonwealth fund released an important new study
on the uninsured. in 2001, researchers found that 28 percent of americans with annual incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 were uninsured for at least part of the year. by 2005, 41 percent of this income group fell into that category
Jan 12, '07
So, what you've pointed out is that being uninsured is statistically significant across all income levels.
You've just pointed out a key flaw in the number of uninsured that is nationally tallied: because of EMTALA and the like, many people, in all income brackets, CHOOSE not to be insured.
I didn't say everybody. It is enough however, to artificially raise the actual number of uninsured to make it a completely misleading statistic vis a vi actual need.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 12, '07