Numbers Point to Problem Created When Legislation Driven by Headlines
By Chris Patterson
Another horrifying announcement from our newspapers a few weeks ago - millions of Americans are uninsured. It's so often repeated, we no longer have to ask what people are going without. This is about health insurance.
Most articles began with alarming statistics, as the Austin American-Statesman did: "The number of Americans who lack health insurance climbed by nearly 6 percent in 2002, to 43.6 million, the largest single increase in a decade, according to figures to be released today by the Census Bureau."
Such stories, and agitated editorials that followed, are geared to evoke cries of outrage for the victims. We are led to believe that this "crisis" is "growing" and, like random urban violence, not one of us may be spared.
Editorial pages have been calling on legislators - state and federal - to do something, and do it quickly. They call for more laws, more spending, more taxes, more government.
We need to breath deeply, calm down and look at the facts.
The National Center for Policy Analysis, based in Dallas, recently examined the numbers of "uninsured."
Almost three-fourths of the newly "uninsured" are people who are making over $50,000, according to the NCPA report, and simply choose not to purchase health insurance. While this decision says many things about the cost of medicine, it does not mean that people without health insurance are poor and desperate for help.
Since 1993 the number of uninsured in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased 114 percent, according to the NCPA. On the other side of the economic divide, the study finds the number of uninsured with annual incomes below $25,000 fell by 17 percent.
The NCPA uncovered some facts that don't make it to the newspapers. For example, young adults are less likely than other age groups to have health insurance, while those over 65 are almost all insured. Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 make up some 41 percent of the "uninsured." This makes sense. We all remember the invincible years of the twenties - that is a healthy age and most young people are making the economic decision not to waste their money for insurance they do not need at the time.
Most interesting of NCPA's findings is the length of time people remain uninsured: just under a year in 75 percent of the cases.
The shrillness of many press releases and news stories disguise the fact that many without health insurance are making a rational choice. Trumping feelings over fact, the uninsured are portrayed as hapless victims of hard employers and greedy insurers.
While passing legislation to create more programs that spend more money might make for good politics, they do no good in the long run and often deflect resources from the truly needy.
Perhaps the only accurate conclusion we can draw from headlines is that a great many Americans are opting to take care of themselves in ways not reflected in insurance headcounts. Instead of creating more programs, lawmakers should search for ways to make it easier for us all to plan and pay for our individual health care needs. Rather than raising taxes to slay an illusionary dragon, legislators could reduce the mandates making health care - and health insurance - so expensive for every one.
Chris Patterson is director of research for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan research institution.
In my opinion many of the uninsured are the "working poor" who have health insurance available thru their employers but cannot afford to pay for the insurance and still eat and pay rent. My BIL is a prime example. Single, recently divorced, did not take health insurance at his construction job cause it left to little take home pay. At the age of 37 he had a large anterior mi and has thousands of dollars worth of hospital bills he will never be able to pay. Now unemployed, unemployment benefits soon run out, etc. Bad situation. It can and does happen everday, people in minimum wage or mediocre jobs can't pay for health insurance and still survive, the ones being covered are the welfare recipiants or pregnant unwed moms.
I'm not insured because I'm considered uninsurable by most insurance companies because of pre-existing conditions. I can get on the state insurance plan for big $$$$$ but my paycheck won't let me. I could go on disability but I'd rather work and be a taxpayer. So I'm not insured...just between a rock and a hard place.
I pay 30% of my net income to pay for insurance for myself and my two sons. I am willing to pay it. When people say, I can't afford it, what they really are saying is that they choose not to spend their money on it. I have chosen to spend my money on it.
If people hold left-wing liberal views than they should be proud and wear it like a medal. The most respect that I had for a nurse friend is when she said, "I am practically a socialist, so I don't agree with you." I thought, well good at least she admits that. I can respect that. However, when people believe all the same things that liberals believe and then deny that they in fact, are liberals it is confusing. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I admit proudly that I am a conservative. I hold conservative viewpoints. And, although most posters here are against most of what I say, I still believe in conservative values and principles. In respect to Universal healthcare, I wanted to find out more and research more before I made a decision.
I have posted many fact finders on Canadian healthcare about waiting on average median of 26 weeks for a total knee replacement for instance. We don't wait that long in the US currently even under our HMO's.
So, once I do find information that is significant it is hard to debate statistics and that information. Breast cancer survival rates for instance are significantly lower in Canada then in the US. Why is that? Waits for "elective" mastectomies? Waits for mammography? Wait too long the cancer spreads and death is the result.
Now, that I do understand is problematic. People with disabilities who could collect SSI and government assistance, but who would prefer to work should have an exception made and pro-rated care of some kind.
kitkat
*I admit that I have a bias for persons with disabilities and the situations they find themselves in sometimes.*
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
kitkat, you really ought to try spending 30% of $14,000/yr. (the approximate annual income of someone making seven or eight bucks an hour) and see how far it goes. Sure you can afford health insurance.......as long as you don't buy food, pay rent and utilities, or put clothes on your kids' backs.
I pay 30% of my net income to pay for insurance for myself and my two sons. I am willing to pay it. When people say, I can't afford it, what they really are saying is that they choose not to spend their money on it. I have chosen to spend my money on it.
Yes, some people do not want to spend money on it. I agree. But others really can't afford it, and you don't seem to understand that. They would have to choose between paying their rent or health insurance. Or not having carfare to get to work. Or not having food on the table, or paying for prescription medicine for their elderly father who lives with them (not covered by Medicare). Or heat during the winter. A million more things more pressing than health insurance.
There are a great many people caught in the middle. Too rich for medicaid, too poor to pay out of pocket.
But in your view, I guess they're just pretending that they don't have the money. I bet that they're using that hidden cash to fly to Paris on the weekend, or buy $150 bottles of champagne to serve with their caviar.
Kitkat, I believe that Fergus51's comment about insults was not that you called referred to someone as a liberal and anyone would take offense at that (as you responded in your subsequent post) -- I would be the first to tell you that I am a proud leftist -- but your comment about personal attacks being "the essence of liberalism." In my experience, personal attacks (in the national media (TV and print) and on this site) seem to come more often from conservatives ...
Kitkat, there is a difference in being proud to be liberal (I am 100%!!!!) and being offended at a comment like "typical liberals, they are intolerant". It isn't that you are using the word liberal as an insult, it's that you use an insult as an insult. I see elkpark explained that better than me. Man, she takes the words out of my mouth sometimes.
As far as taxes, I have never paid 50%. My last paycheque was for $2100 and after all my deductions (including union dues, taxes, unemployment, health and dental and our retirement plan) I took home $1489. That means I paid less than 33%, even when you include taxes AND all my other deductions. I don't argue with your logic on taxes, I just know you're wrong.
I just realized that if we account for you paying 30% of your income for health insurance, I actually take home more of my pay than you do. Surprising isn't it?
I pay 30% of my net income to pay for insurance for myself and my two sons. I am willing to pay it. When people say, I can't afford it, what they really are saying is that they choose not to spend their money on it. I have chosen to spend my money on it.
What the h*ll are you talking about?! You ovioulsy have no clue hon....
I do not "choose not to spend my money on it" we dont HAVE any money to SPEND on my insurance. My husbands is covered through his work and we pay for both my kids (about $300 a month as well for both of them and that is the "cheap" insurance)....but please let me know where I can get $300 a month more to cover me? Would you let me know, cause it doesn't come in our paychecks?
So would it be better that I spend my rent money on health insurance? Or what about my food money so that way I am covered but we can't eat? Or hey, I know, I can spend the money I JUST DON'T HAVE!
I can not believe the sheer ignorance of what you said.....
I can get on the state insurance plan for big $$$$$ but my paycheck won't let me. I could go on disability but I'd rather work and be a taxpayer. So I'm not insured...just between a rock and a hard place.
southern rn
235 Posts
In my opinion many of the uninsured are the "working poor" who have health insurance available thru their employers but cannot afford to pay for the insurance and still eat and pay rent. My BIL is a prime example. Single, recently divorced, did not take health insurance at his construction job cause it left to little take home pay. At the age of 37 he had a large anterior mi and has thousands of dollars worth of hospital bills he will never be able to pay. Now unemployed, unemployment benefits soon run out, etc. Bad situation. It can and does happen everday, people in minimum wage or mediocre jobs can't pay for health insurance and still survive, the ones being covered are the welfare recipiants or pregnant unwed moms.