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.
The original article on this thread uses research from The National Center for Policy Analysis. The NCPA mission statement:
"The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strengths of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."
This group's data is glaringly at odds with data from Families USA. This is a well known consumer advocate group. Below from Families USA:
"Tax deductions do little or nothing for most uninsured people. For example, for the 65 percent of uninsured people living on incomes below 200 percent of poverty, setting aside almost $9,000 to pay for health insurance (the current cost of most family polices) is not an economic possibility. In addition, about 36 percent of uninsured people have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. They do not earn enough to owe taxes and therefore receive no help from a tax deduction. Another 29 percent of the uninsured have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level. They would receive, at most, a small tax deduction of 10 percent, which does practically nothing to make health insurance affordable for their families."
Obviously one group is right-wing/republican and the other left-wing/democratic. (Just putting a broad tag on these groups.) My point being, are the numbers from NCPA even accurate???
There are a great many people caught in the middle. Too rich for medicaid, too poor to pay out of pocket.
EXACTLY!! Yes, we are among the too "rich" for Medicaid and too poor for insurance. When we checked with my husband's employer, the cost PER CHILD was $150 a month. We have four children. So we picked up some catastrophic medical on the kids for which we now pay $170 a month total. Hubby is another $175 a month and I'm two weeks away from being uninsured. I paid $2000 last year just in deductibles and copays.
Oh yeah, we need FOOD every month and HEAT/ELECTRICITY. There's the 6 year old station wagon that keeps breaking down, making the trip to work an adventure waiting to happen. I also have the looming $5000 bill for equipment for my special needs daughter (gee whiz...insurance companies don't pay for hearing aids and assistive hearing devices even when it is for an 11 y/o girl).
This is LIFE for many, many people...me, my friends, your neighbors. Yes, I'm a liberal because I can't stand the I've-got-mine! attitude and instead prefer to take the by-the-grace-of-God-there-go-I attitude.
This is a social nightmare and it is just getting worse...
Kitkat, I believe the article you posted is politically motivated by NCPA and inaccurate.
Just as an aside, have you watched Lou Dobbs News Hour on CNN? He has been doing a series of excellent reports for the past few months re: the jobless recovery, the service sector economy and the low-wage/part-time jobs too many Americans have. He also reports on the exporting of over 3 million decent paying jobs in the past few years to overseas. It's tough out there for many families. I'm don't believe you have an appreciation for this.
EXACTLY!! Yes, we are among the too "rich" for Medicaid and too poor for insurance. When we checked with my husband's employer, the cost PER CHILD was $150 a month. We have four children. So we picked up some catastrophic medical on the kids for which we now pay $170 a month total. Hubby is another $175 a month and I'm two weeks away from being uninsured. I paid $2000 last year just in deductibles and copays.
Oh yeah, we need FOOD every month and HEAT/ELECTRICITY. There's the 6 year old station wagon that keeps breaking down, making the trip to work an adventure waiting to happen. I also have the looming $5000 bill for equipment for my special needs daughter (gee whiz...insurance companies don't pay for hearing aids and assistive hearing devices even when it is for an 11 y/o girl).
This is LIFE for many, many people...me, my friends, your neighbors. Yes, I'm a liberal because I can't stand the I've-got-mine! attitude and instead prefer to take the by-the-grace-of-God-there-go-I attitude.
This is a social nightmare and it is just getting worse...
I don't know your situation or anything, but with this being tax time, any co-pays or out of pocket expenses are tax deductable. I think you have to spend maybe 7% of your gross income? you may have already known this, just trying to help if I can...
$1651.00 a month approx (and that is before SSI, etc is taken out)
Health insurance for children: $300
(because we don't qualify for SoonerCare/Medicare for them)
Rent: $400 (and that is *cheap*)
Phone: $30
Electric: $100 (on average, a LOT more in the summer....)
Food for 4 people: $300
Car insurance: $100
Gasoline for work and school a month: $80
Internet (necessary for school for both me and my husband): $30
Household papers (toilet paper, etc) and misc: $50
Diapers: $20
Clothes for the kids, etc $50
So that leaves me about $191 a month (actually less than that, I'm rounding UP since that is before any SSI, etc is taken out). It also is not much to get by each month....things do come up, just this past month my husband tore a meniscus (sp?) in his knee that will need surgery and I had to take my oldest dd to the ER.....our insurance wont cover all that so we will have to pay for a lot of it out of pocket (somehow). SO please let me know where I am "choosing not to spend my money on insurance"???? $191 a month leftover is not much at all, anyone who has kids knows this, things come up every month....tires go flat, oil needs to be changed, medical bills, medicine, car problems, etc
I can't belive how much you generlize people..... And my case is certainly not unique, it is fact of life for many many people.
Actually, if I could get a reasonable health insurance policy I would buy it in a heartbeat. You have no idea how it is to always worry about things like cancer, heart attack, or even a minor illness that could leave me out of work for a week. I'm the sole bread winner in my household. I don't have kids (thank goodness) but I still have bills and responsibilities. In the past, I've had medical emergencies that have left me darn near homeless and definately broke. I can't get state or federal help because I have chosen to work and I make too much money. However, I don't make enough to buy insurance and live at the same time. Everytime, my employer tries to get insurance for us, my pre-existing conditions triple and quadruple the premiums to where no one can afford a policy. We need some kind of reform but it needs to involve the insurance companies, the patient, the medical industry, and the lawyers/congress. I don't even know how one would start to get all of these entities to work together.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that the current system rewards idleness and punishes those who work. I mean if you were on welfare you would qualify for help, but if you work at a minimum wage job full time you may not.
Who are the uninisured? Just about everyone. If you include UNDER insured it really is everyone. I don't care who you are, or how well fixed you think you are, sooner or later you will have a bill that your insurance company will not, and you cannot pay. The best insurance I ever had set their lifetime cap for mental health at $2000. Would that get me a week in a mental hospital? Would that provide a year of psychotherapy? I do not have the option of mental illness. I bet Bill Gates doesn't have insurance, but suppose ole Bill woke up one morning and his empire had crashed down. Do you think he could get medical care? I'd like to know is what those former Enron folks do today if one of their kids gets sick.
I worked in an inner-city ER for over 20 years. Last April I attended a conference of a local organization that attempts to find help for city folks that are underinsured. The panel consisted of three state reps and two state senators. During the Q&A I stood at the mike and told 500 people why we need to solve the mess, not only for my patients, but for me. Since my employer does not provide insurance upon retirement, and all of my doctors are at a hospital that does not take medicare, I will most likely be homeless soon after the first time I get sick during my 'golden years.'
In June last year I wrote some complaints to my boss about my working conditions. I did not realize that I am in an "at will" state and what that meant. My boss could have fired me on the spot for no reason. If she had done that my life would be much simpler now. She chose to suspend me, pending an investigation and send me under armed escort to the crisis center. The investigation was done by a high level security "officer" who had a pre-existing grudge against me. He told me that he had exclusive authority over my case and threatened me that he had found a bottle of wine in "my" locker 3 days after my suspension. Since my psychiatrist no longer sees patients, I had to wait six weeks to see another one to get clearance to come back to work. By that time my insurance had lapsed so I got a bill for $150. My "reinstatement hearing" consisted of firing me for the "wine bottle in locker. I applied for unemployment but since I was fired for "misconduct" I am not eligable.
What really hurts when I became uninsured is what happened to my wife. While we were waiting for "hearing for reversal of termination" we drove out West to a reunion and to visit friends. My wife complained about being DOE many times and I attributed this to her overweight. When we got back to town we went to see our PMD (for 50 bucks, I bet he billed the insurance more than that) and he gave her a free B12 shot and drew a CBC because he thought she looked anemic. Even though she has had no signs of bleeding anywhere, he also gave her a sample of some fancy acid blocker. She was quite freaked out and I tried to reassure her that he was probably just covering his bases. She did calm down after reading about anemia, and when I convinced her that they would call her within 3 days if her H&H were low. 3 weeks later she called the office and was told that her HgB was 6.3 and needed to come back ASAP. I think he was going to tell her to report to his hospital for a transfusion and a GI workup. "Don't worry about the bill this hospital has funds for you." Ha Ha!
When he saw her the next time she had been on blood builders, diet, vitamins and minerals only, NO HERBALS. Her HgB had gotten to a whopping 6.8. I don't know about your hospital, but we transfused at least one unit at 9.0.
So now our option is to buy as many blood builders as we can afford to keep her alive until I have insurance in another job. A new job is not so easy when you have been black-balled in your specialty. I have a few applications pending in areas other that my 20-year specialty, but we may have to relocate in order to find another decent nursing job. We may never get to the bottom of her anemia since the insurance carriers may consider it pre-existing. I think we might have to outpatient self treat her as long as the government doesn't succeed in making vitamins Rx only.
And you have the nerve to tell me about being uninsured? I don't care who you are, you may wake up tomorrow and be in the same boat. If you wind up in my boat I will just give you a BIG LIBERAL HUG. :kiss
The other day one of my friends said it very well. Most people who become liberals learn to be that way by being shafted by the system. :D
Ah let me tell you about health insurance!!!!!!! I am a severe asthmatic--very severe. I have been on and off steroids for so long that I now have osteoporosis (at age 39) and have already had a hip replacement that is now not growing enough bone cells. Talk about pre-existing conditions.
I guess that i am one of the lucky ones because I was 'accepted' for social security disability on the first try. Now my pay has gone down to 1/4 of what I used to make. By the time I pay my insurance and copays for meds I have exactly 26.50 left a month for bills like mortgage. I am lucky because my hubby is able to work 2 jobs to help us keep a roof over our heads.
If something were to happen to him--I am not sure what I would do. I know that my kids come first and I would let my health totally dissolve if came down to being homeless without food to pay for 'insurance'. I am a true statistic not some nameless, faceless, lazy person who would rather spend their money on frivolous things instead of healthcare. Yes, our care would change with universal coverage--but at this point in USA what other choice is there? Our fair city only has two different healthcare choices due to conglomeration of hosp and policies. The rates went up 23% this year. The only ones making the money are the companies who are doing the insuring.
You can argue back and forth for and against--it doesn't change anything for the people like me out there.
I have an RN friend who told me that her employer (a large group of physicians) restructured and decided to offer family health insurance at a cost of over 800.00 a month!!! If you were on a single plan then it was about 40.00 a month. SOOOO, you need to either be married to someone who can financially carry the family or find another job if you have a family. This strongly encourages single only nurses (without kids) to work there. They certainly would never have to worry aabout a mother calling in sick because her child was ill. Also, these RNs make about 30,000 a year.
It's not all about being able to pay for insurance and opting not to. The costs are so high for some that they are willing to take the risk and go without. Maybe unwise but I think younger people or those with alot of other bills will skip the insurance and hope for good luck.
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
Originally posted by kitkat24
AI do not believe that I have called other posts "stupid" or insulted any of you. Although, posts can sometimes offend, I have not personally attacked any of you. Oh yeah, that is a liberals behavior.... sorry... the very essence of liberalism.
Kit kat
"gimme a break gimme a break"
now if that AIN'T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.
dont' stoop to the level of those you accuse of attacking you. You make yourself look bad as well.
Now besides that little tirade, I think we have a bit clearer picture who "the uninsured " really are don't we?????
Oh, the pitiless person with a stick! Always ready to beatup on some person, lower in caste, who might just be getting away with something. And then lets the robbery of trillions upon trillions of dollars by elites go by without hardly any concern what-so-ever. America seems to breed such people like guppies.
Nurse Hardee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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."
:D
Wassington
3 Posts
The original article on this thread uses research from The National Center for Policy Analysis. The NCPA mission statement:
"The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strengths of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector."
This group's data is glaringly at odds with data from Families USA. This is a well known consumer advocate group. Below from Families USA:
"Tax deductions do little or nothing for most uninsured people. For example, for the 65 percent of uninsured people living on incomes below 200 percent of poverty, setting aside almost $9,000 to pay for health insurance (the current cost of most family polices) is not an economic possibility. In addition, about 36 percent of uninsured people have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level. They do not earn enough to owe taxes and therefore receive no help from a tax deduction. Another 29 percent of the uninsured have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level. They would receive, at most, a small tax deduction of 10 percent, which does practically nothing to make health insurance affordable for their families."
Obviously one group is right-wing/republican and the other left-wing/democratic. (Just putting a broad tag on these groups.) My point being, are the numbers from NCPA even accurate???
The opposing groups' websites:
http://www.ncpa.org
http://www.familiesusa.org