Uninsured patients increase in number....

  1. from the census bureau.
    income climbs, poverty stabilizes, uninsured rate increases
    real median household income in the united states rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report released today by the u.s. census bureau. meanwhile, the nation's official poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent. the percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people).
    these findings are contained in the income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the united states: 2005 [pdf] report. the report's data were compiled from information collected in the 2006 annual social and economic supplement (asec) to the current population survey (cps).

    the trend lines are disturbing for both wages and access to health insurance.
  2. Visit HM2VikingRN profile page

    About HM2VikingRN

    Joined: Apr '06; Posts: 11,159; Likes: 11,316

    50 Comments

  3. by   KellieNurse06
    And sadly our country gives billions of dollars to other countries to "help" them.................:trout: .......those billions could give uninsured & homeless people help......................jmpo
  4. by   HARRN2b
    We do not care about our own. We only care what looks good politically. Helping our own does not look as politically good to the rest of the world. Also note prices of gas are coming down. Does anyone else think that this is a political strategy. What in the world has really changed. Gas will continue its decline until November. Everyone will say, what a great job GB has done and vote the repubs back in office. They play us like a fiddle!
  5. by   CseMgr1
    Quote from HARRN2b
    We do not care about our own. We only care what looks good politically. Helping our own does not look as politically good to the rest of the world. Also note prices of gas are coming down. Does anyone else think that this is a political strategy. What in the world has really changed. Gas will continue its decline until November. Everyone will say, what a great job GB has done and vote the repubs back in office. They play us like a fiddle!

    :yeahthat:
  6. by   RGN1
    Well we have an NHS in the UK & a good welfare state & all that encourages, unfortunately, is sponging off the state. Living on benefits is a way of life for some people here & they think the state owes it to them.

    Trouble is when someone does run into bad times - like we did some 12 years ago & needs a helping hand just for a couple of months that bone fide person can't get squat!!

    I don't pretend to know the answer but trust me helping your own too much can cause more trouble in some ways - also you get a flux of incomers from aother countries who seem to be able to get benefits etc almost straight away. I have no idea how they do it but do it they do, in their droves.

    I think people should have help, guidance & if needed some monetry incentives to help them get back on their feet but if they choose not to try & better themselves then it's tough. At least you can then target the money where it's really needed - i.e. people who have had a bit of bad luck & need some help to get things right for them again.

    If you send money to help abroad then it might help this world become a better place. I don't think sending money to poorer countries actually has much impact on what is spent at home by any government. Again though this money needs better targetting so it doesn't end up lining the pocket of some warlord or similar!
  7. by   emsrn1970
    First, I would really like to see how they arrived at that number just like the supposed 3 million homeless in this country, and people having to choose between food and medicine and my favorite someone working three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. Secondly, there are so many government (tax payer funded) programs out there that just about anyone could qualify. A lot of young healthy people choose not to receive health care coverage by choice. They are healthy and would rather spend that money on other choices. Many people are homeless as a choice or have drug and mental health issues and this is a direct cause by JFK deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill. I am always skeptical of these numbers.
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from emsrn1970
    First, I would really like to see how they arrived at that number just like the supposed 3 million homeless in this country, and people having to choose between food and medicine and my favorite someone working three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. Secondly, there are so many government (tax payer funded) programs out there that just about anyone could qualify. A lot of young healthy people choose not to receive health care coverage by choice. They are healthy and would rather spend that money on other choices. Many people are homeless as a choice or have drug and mental health issues and this is a direct cause by JFK deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill. I am always skeptical of these numbers.
    I guess that the census bureau isn't a reliable source.
  9. by   BBFRN
    Quote from emsrn1970
    First, I would really like to see how they arrived at that number just like the supposed 3 million homeless in this country, and people having to choose between food and medicine and my favorite someone working three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. Secondly, there are so many government (tax payer funded) programs out there that just about anyone could qualify. A lot of young healthy people choose not to receive health care coverage by choice. They are healthy and would rather spend that money on other choices. Many people are homeless as a choice or have drug and mental health issues and this is a direct cause by JFK deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill. I am always skeptical of these numbers.
    This isn't a direct cause of JFK's Community Health Act, if that's what you're talking about. there were many other initiatives after that, like those under Reagan that re-routed federal funding meant for the mentally ill, etc. that compounded that particular problem.

    And BTW, most of the uninsured here in the U.S. are the working poor- many of them with 2 or more part time jobs, where benefits aren't offered or aren't affordable. The problem is more complex than people just choosing to be uninsured.

    I'm wondering how you are coming up with this conspiracy theory when you live in Canada, and aren't experienced the healthcare crisis here under managed care?
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from lgflamini
    This isn't a direct cause of JFK's Community Health Act, if that's what you're talking about. there were many other initiatives after that, like those under Reagan that re-routed federal funding meant for the mentally ill, etc. that compounded that particular problem.

    And BTW, most of the uninsured here in the U.S. are the working poor- many of them with 2 or more part time jobs, where benefits aren't offered or aren't affordable. The problem is more complex than people just choosing to be uninsured.

    I'm wondering how you are coming up with this conspiracy theory when you live in Canada, and aren't experienced the healthcare crisis here under managed care?
    Thanks for taking the time to address the mental health issues!
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Four key issues stand out, if you read the report:

    #1 the standard error is +/- 0.2 for both 2004 and 2005 statistics, and a difference is reported of 0.3 - that is within the standard of error (+/- 0.4 aggregate). So, it's an unfair statement to report a rise in uninsured when the data itself reports a change that is within the standard error.

    #2 they CHANGED the way they reported the statistics between years, which will change the methodology by which they arrive at each year's numbers, and that skews any relationship BETWEEN the numbers.

    #3 They changed those that use the Indian Health Service from 'insured' to 'uninsured'. That adds more to the uninsured category AT THE SAME TIME it decreases the insured category. And that is even though their gov't funded coverage didn't change in the meantime; the only thing that changed was HOW it was reported.

    #4 They count any period of uninsured for the previous year as 'uninsured' EVEN IF the respondent IS insured at the time of the survey. That would have included ME and my children as I changed jobs within that two year period and was uninsured a total of 1 month out of the 24. (and I had the possibility of retroactive COBRA as a backup during that month.)

    If you don't use statistics correctly, and ignore the margins of errors, you can make them say ANYTHING you like. In fact, by using their very own statistics, the only thing that CAN be said is that the numbers do not show any STATISTICAL change. That IS what a 'margin of error' means.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 4, '06
  12. by   Fuzzy
    I'm uninsured. I don't want to be. The healthcare system in this country is broken and it needs to be fixed. It's easier for an illegal alien to receive healthcare than a person who is working. Something is wrong with this picture. The people who don't want change are already covered by a wonderful healthcare plan provided by our tax dollars. I say we vote them out.

    Fuzzy
  13. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Fuzzy
    I'm uninsured. I don't want to be. The healthcare system in this country is broken and it needs to be fixed. It's easier for an illegal alien to receive healthcare than a person who is working. Something is wrong with this picture. The people who don't want change are already covered by a wonderful healthcare plan provided by our tax dollars. I say we vote them out.

    Fuzzy
    I doubt seriously that, if not for their gov't jobs, most politicians wouldnt have health insurance.

    And why do you suggest that Congress should be 'voted out' because people don't have health insurance? Because they haven't passed a law so that I can underwrite the insurance of others with my tax dollars? Oh, I agree that illegals shouldn't be on the dole.

    But , generally speaking, I think being uninsured IS a choice. There is no reason why an abled body person cannot do well enough in this nation to provide for themselves, and that includes health insurance. And a disabled person is already covered by our laws. The problem is generally the poor choices people make. People choose not to go to school. People choose to have kids at 16 before they can get themselves established. People choose a standard of luxury over neccessities, for example, computers and cars over health insurance. Even being uninsured as a student is a choice. Most unis offer a gap coverage plans for students, or, if young enough, allow you to stay on your parent's plan, or, like me, you could work in a job WHILE you go to schoool that pays insurance. It is a choice. That's not an indictment of you. I'm just saying, why should I have to pay for the poor choices or lack of planning of others?

    The War on Poverty and the concept that able bodied persons need help that robs them of the incentive to help themselves is a failure. 40 yrs and 3 trillion dollars later and relative poverty levels are the same. I DON'T want to vote out politicians for the expressed goal of putting ones in that give ever more of my taxdollars to enable poor choices. There is a term for that: co-dependency. Generally, that's not considered healthy, for anybody involved.

    I think we were designed with amazing abilities. And I think those abilities are best expressed in a gov't that basically leaves us alone. That might mean more responsibilities for some to manage their own lives, but it means more rights to what IS rightfully ours as well.

    A gov't that is your parent is a gov't that has autonomy over you. And quite frankly, I'd rather have that money in my own hands so that I can be a parent to MY kids and not to countless millions of others that do not truly need my parenting skills or resources.

    Fuzzy, this isn't aimed at you, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you have chronic health problems: but THAT is what I'd rather limit my taxdollars to actually pay for. Chronic poor health is one thing. Chronic poor choices is another. Any gov't funded plan should really distinguish between the two.

    I'm a bigger fan of mandatory health insurance. Not a mandate that I pay for others, but a mandate that they provide their own, with automatic payroll deductions and group plans not limited to employers. See the Massachusetts plan.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 4, '06
  14. by   pickledpepperRN
    Health Policy Malpractice

    Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs. One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success — but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn’t fit their conservative agenda. The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it’s expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003....

    ...The key to the V.A.’s success is its long-term relationship with its clients: veterans, once in the V.A. system, normally stay in it for life.
    This means that the V.A. can easily keep track of a patient’s medical history, allowing it to make much better use of information technology than other health care providers. Unlike all but a few doctors in the private sector, V.A. doctors have instant access to patients’ medical records via a systemwide network, which reduces both costs and medical errors.
    The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector — which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy — has shown little interest....

    ...The commander of the American Legion has proposed letting elderly vets spend their Medicare benefits at V.A. facilities, which would lead to better medical care and large government savings.
    Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: “Conservatives,” writes Time, “fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector.” ...

    ...Medicare Advantage (HMO) plans cost the government 11 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. Oh, and mortality rates in these plans are 40 percent higher than those of elderly veterans covered by the V.A....

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.ht...1WQ5DQ3B-TQ51Y

close