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.
I sure hope you weren't insinuating my guppieness? Is guppieness a word? Anyway, I would imagine that most of the posters have a higher income than me. I certainly am not in a higher caste of folks. I do not understand the comment about "getting away with something", as I am not sure what I might be "getting away with". Maybe, I am not understanding the comment.
Nurses in Minnesota at our top St. Paul Hospitals such as United, Regions, Woodwinds, St. Joseph's, St. Johns, and I believe the majority of Minneapolis (Abbott, HCMC, Mercy, North) contract and non-contract, have healthcare offered through their employers at a .4 (under part-time). A .4 employment is not wealthy. A .4 employee RN at these hospitals can elect individual care, family care, or Employee Child(ren) care. What I say is that, though my income is not full time employment, that I still choose to purchase that healthcare as it is a priority in my life.
My children's health and healthcare is important. I would choose that for instance, over cable TV and movie channels, eating out at resturants, internet access, school or college courses, telephone services that include call waiting, caller ID, long distance, call waiting ID, a cellular phone bill, designer clothing, or any other commodity that I could spend my money on that is not a necessity.
So, for nurses in Minnesota it is really a choice if you want a job that does not offer healthcare benefits.
I do have empathy with folks that are employed but do not have insurance offered to them, or have it offered at a cost that is unmanagable due to their low income status such as $5.00 per hour or $8.00 per hour. In Minnesota, there is Minnesotacare. This Minnesota care (MN Medicaid) is even offered to, for instance, 19-year-olds who choose to not go to school, and not work full-time.
I would ask all those that posted on these issues to answer then a question for me:
1. Do you feel healthcare services are your legal "right"?
2. If so, who do you feel should pay for your healthcare?
3. Do you feel you should have to pay anything toward your own healthcare? If so, what should you pay?
4. Do you feel that taxpayers should pay for your healthcare benefits and care?
I think that these are questions that we should ask ourselves. Government is not this "entity" it is taxpayers. I think that we forget to ask ourselves, "Is this justifiable to the taxpayer? Is this fiscally responsible?" If the decision is, yes, it is fiscally responsible then so be it, but we should be able to pose these questions without people being offended by it.
Minnesota: Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, 2001
Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, 2001
Click here to jump to the 50 State Comparison for this topic.
US 58.3 %
MN 61.1 %
Notes and Sources: Show | Hide
Notes: For the Unites States as a whole, the margin of error for the offer rate is approximately 0.33%. The margin of error for state level estimates ranges between 1.4-4.25%.
Definitions: MEPS: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey IC is an annual survey of establishments that collects information about employer-sponsored health insurance offerings in the United States.
NA: Not Available.
Sources: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Cost and Financing Studies. 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component. Table II.A.2: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/MEPSDATA/ic/2001/Index201.htm.
2001 Data for Kansas, New Hampshire, and South Dakota: personal communication with Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Staff, October 2003.
Raw Data: Download a tab-delimited data file for "Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, 2001" or view a list of other raw data options.
In 1992, the state of Colorado enacted the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR is a constitutional limit on government growth at both the state and local level. Increases in government revenues and spending above population growth and the rate of inflation must be approved by voters. The Taxpayers League supports the adoption of a Taxpayers Bill of Rights for Minnesota.
A Minnesota Taxpayers Bill of Rights would benefit citizens, government, and the economy:
Empowers citizens. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights empowers citizens by giving them a direct role in the budget process. This encourages citizens to become more informed and actively engaged in public policy issues.
Makes Government More Accountable to the People. As citizens become active participants in the budget process, there will be increased pressure on legislators and public officials to provide clear information on how money is being spent and to justify that its being spent in the public's best interest.
Introduces a measure of certainty to the business tax climate - attracting investment. TABOR ensures against future tax increases, reducing uncertainty in tax policy and attracting long-term business investments.
Good for the economy. When TABOR was enacted in 1992, then-governor Roy Romer warned TABOR would turn Colorado into an "economic ghost town." The exact opposite has occurred. Colorado's economy is one of the fastest-growing in the nation. The Corporation for Enterprise Development has ranked Colorado #1 among states in economic development. The Progressive Policy Institute ranked Colorado 3rd in its "New Economy Index" which ranks states according to their performance in high-growth emerging industries.
Makes Government More Cost-Efficient & Effective. Restraining government's ability to grow forces government to do more with less by becoming more productive, efficient, and effective - giving taxpayers more bang for their buck.
Redefines government as a basic rather than luxury good. Our current system treats government as a luxury good. Government spending is predicated on how much we can afford to pay, not how much we should be paying. As the economy grows, government grows - increasing spending and creating new programs. TABOR redefines government as a basic good, ensuring that it takes a smaller portion of income as the economy grows.
Smoothes government spending. The problem with our current "ability to pay" system is that it prone to fluctuations in the business cycle. When the economy goes into a downturn, massive tax hikes and/or spending cuts are needed to balance the budget, which in turn hurts economic recovery. By decoupling spending from economic performance, TABOR protects government from volatility in the economy, ensuring against large tax hikes and spending cuts in lean years.
A Minnesota Taxpayers Bill of Rights would empower citizens and promote responsible government - increasing accountability, refocusing government on providing basic goods and making government more cost-efficient and effective.
For far too long Minnesota has been a leader in taxing its citizens, growing government, and creating disincentives for businesses to relocate or expand here. These are just some of the reasons why a Minnesota Taxpayers Bill of Rights is needed for our state.
This legislation proposes a constitutional amendment to limit state spending and require voter approval for future tax policy changes. The amendment would:
Limit state spending to inflation plus the percentage increase in population, limit local government spending to inflation plus the percentage change in net taxable real property, and limit school district spending to inflation plus percentage change in student enrollment;
Require voter approval for any new tax, tax rate increase, extension of a tax due to expire, most new debt obligations, or tax policy changes causing a net revenue gain;
Require the refund of all surplus revenue unless voters opt to spend in excess of the limit.
The Minnesota Taxpayers Bill of Rights is modeled closely after Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights, commonly referred to as TABOR. Enacted by citizen initiative in 1992, TABOR is a truly amazing success story. When 45 of 50 states faced deficits during fiscal year 2002, Colorado had a balanced budget and refunded $927 million to taxpayers. Between 1997 and 2002, these annual tax rebates totaled more than $3.2 billion.
By putting this constitutional amendment before Minnesota voters, we can give those who pay for government the opportunity to directly impact future tax and spending policy. Now is the time. Not only is the elderly population in Minnesota growing at a rapid rate, but Minnesota is also facing an increasing immigrant population, rising health care costs, and state and local government's array of social service programs will make it impossible to sustain spending at current levels. The current rate of spending cannot continue. Just during the four years of Governor Ventura's tenure, the state budget grew from $21 billion in 1998 to $27 billion in 2002, a 27% increase in four years!
It is imperative that we make a serious attempt to reign in the out-of-control spending in Minnesota. The Minnesota Taxpayers Bill of Rights will give taxpayers a needed voice in how their money is spent.
My children's health and healthcare is important. I would choose that for instance, over cable TV and movie channels, eating out at resturants, internet access, school or college courses, telephone services that include call waiting, caller ID, long distance, call waiting ID, a cellular phone bill, designer clothing, or any other commodity that I could spend my money on that is not a necessity.
So, for nurses in Minnesota it is really a choice if you want a job that does not offer healthcare benefits.
Kitkat
Sigh.....You just don't get it Kitkat, or just don't want to get it. Or just want to continue to fan the flames and antagonize people.
How many times does it have to be repeated to you? For many people, buying health insurance isn't a matter of giving up luxury items, like HBO. Or designer clothing. It's a matter of choosing to spend that $800 (which will only partially cover the cost of hospitalization) for health insurance, or using it for rent. Or for buying food. Or paying for a prescription which the health insurance won't cover anyway.
And many people CAN'T get health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. Or the health insurance covers everything but that condition. So you pay $500 a month for insurance, but have to pay out of pocket for doctors, medicine, hospital, etc., for your pre-existing condition.
But I guess this is just a liberal thing, to want to find a way that people can afford healthcare in this country. I suppose that wanting to be able to afford a doctor when you're sick smacks of socialism and heaven forbid...communism! I suppose it benefits a society to have the highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation, the highest rate of unwanted pregnancy, the hightest rate of teen pregnancy, the highest rate of STDs, the highest abortion rate, not enough vaccines available for children, people clogging the ER because they couldn't afford to see a doctor and just waited until their problem got too severe too ignore...I guess we can be proud of ourselves that we are the only developed nation who can boast no safety net for its citizens (but hey, we got money for a trip to Mars!).
This is all so beneficial to us. And if you want to look at it in pure economic terms, it is a lot more costly than providing some type of universal healthcare.
Minnesotans stuck paying the 4th highest tax burden in the nation
Author: David Strom
July 26, 2002
PLYMOUTH--Minnesotans may have been told that their tax burdens have been going down in recent years, but according to new figures released by the US Census Bureau, Minnesotans are still shouldering the fourth highest tax burden in the nation.
That's too high, says David Strom, Legislative Director of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.
According to information released by the Census Bureau, per capita collections of taxes collected in Minnesota total $2722. For every family of four, Minnesotans pay $10,888. The average American pays $1967 in state taxes--which means that the average Minnesota family pays over $3000 more.
"What the census figures show is that despite the modest tax cuts of the past couple of years, Minnesotans are still overtaxed," said David Strom.
"It is unconscionable that Minnesota lawmakers are considering raising taxes. The tax burden in Minnesota is still way too high. Minnesota families still pay over $3000 more in state taxes than the average American family of four. How on earth can the legislature justify raising that tax burden? Will they ever be satisfied?" Strom asked.
The Minnesota State Legislature is still grappling with filling a $400 million hole in the state budget. Some lawmakers have proposed raising gas and cigarette taxes this year, as well as using accounting shifts to fill that hole. Spending has been cut by only about 3% so far.
"Rather than tightening their belts like the rest of us, some lawmakers want to increase the tax burden on Minnesotans. This bit of news from the Census Bureau should shock them back to reality.
The Taxpayers League is Minnesota 's largest taxpayers' advocacy organization. It fights for lower taxes, smaller government, and the principles of free enterprise.
###
****It seems as though more and more taxes are spent and the people are still not happy. And, usually democrats want to spend more and more and more. How much is enough?****
I just don't get it? That seems a bit presumptuous. I believe part of what you say is true. How much more of taxpayers money do you want? How much should we have to pay? Why won't anybody answer that? How much money is enough? Will it ever be enough?
Why do you not examine the systems overseas to see how they have managed??? Although we do have high taxation here it includes the free health care and when you factor in the amount the average person in the USA has to pay for insurance I am much better off financially than many and I do not have to worry about one accident causing bankruptcy.
kitkat, i don't think it's a matter of more money. I pay less than you do in deductions when we include health care. It's about how the money is managed.
I just don't get it? That seems a bit presumptuous. I believe part of what you say is true. How much more of taxpayers money do you want? How much should we have to pay? Why won't anybody answer that? How much money is enough? Will it ever be enough?
Kitkat, I am not advocating a single payer plan. Quite honestly, I don't know what the best plan would be. But obviously, what we have now doesn't work.
Germany has an interesting system in that everyone is covered, there are no uninsured, but it is not a single payer or socialized system. Employers pick up some of the tab, and people themselves can "upgrade" if they want. You can pay into the system if you want more coverage, but no one is left without, and no one will be forced to fork over their life savings if they get sick.
Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Denmark, etc, all provide coverage, but their systems are very different. They all have flaws, but I think that they all work better than what we have here. Again, no one ever has to worry about being wiped out because they're in a car accident, or choosing between rent and healthcare.
As far as your questions about taxes--if we were to have some sort of universal system, taxes do not necessarily need to go up. Money just needs to be managed better. Like, do we need a trip to Mars right now, and does McDonald's need to get government subsidies? Do we need 100 bureaucrats when 10 can do the job quite nicely?
And certainly, we can lower our healthcare costs, which are the highest in the world. For starters, how about reducing the cost of medical school, so doctors don't graduate $100,000 in debt? And doing something about the costs of malpractice insurance?
How about requiring people to pay for the court costs, whether they win or lose a malpractice case? That will be sure to get rid of the frivolous cases, and cut down on bogus settlements.
What about making all hospitals non-profits? Sorry, no $40 million Christmas bonus for you, Mr. CEO. What about streamlining the cost of developing a new drug, so that it doesn't cost $900 million?
What about making contraception coverage mandatory for insurance companies (most don't cover it), and offer it free to anyone? For a small outlay, this would tremendously reduce the number and cost of unwanted pregnancies, possible welfare recipients, costs of possible NICU stays, abortions, and so on. The initial investment in this would be tiny compared to what it costs us right now.
There are so many things that can be done to help fix the system, as well as making people healthier.
A few of the other posters have already said this, but I'll repeat it. It may look like they have higher taxes in other countries, but when you consider what's included, we are paying more out of pocket. A lot more. And many Americans are taxed by both the federal, state and local govt's, plus pay sales tax, and end up forking out as much as a Canadian might pay. And they still then have to buy health insurance.
Kitkat, I think that you are too worried about having to pay for someone else's supposed irresponsibility. This super individualistic Puritanism towards others who are considered lowclass "welfare cheats" usually goes hand and hand with forgiviness for those above, who are often considered heroes as they rip off googles of our money.
If we had a real health system in the US, instead of our current nonsense, we could do things much cheaper. Just instituting a governmental public health program to regulate environmental factors that cause disease can't be done at present, simply because it runs against the profitablity of the companies that dominate US health care delivery.
Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that would be lost in treating asthma alone, for example, if we had a public health program and governmental standards in place. Simply needed is to put in place some simple health regulations that regulate construction (indoor air quality) and outdoor emissions.
The same picture of deliberate sabotage of public health by for-profit delivery systems is evident with other diseases, too. That way, neither you nor I would even have to worry so much about getting treatment, if we weren't getting sick in the first place.
It'll be a glorious day when hospitals in the US start real involvement in public health, instead of pushing commercials about where to rush to when somebody has a heart attack. That can't be done if people are bickering over whether Safeway workers deserve better benefits than nurses might get, or another some such fee-daddle.
I suppose that wanting to be able to afford a doctor when you're sick smacks of socialism and heaven forbid...communism! I suppose it benefits a society to have the highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation, the highest rate of unwanted pregnancy, the hightest rate of teen pregnancy, the highest rate of STDs, the highest abortion rate, not enough vaccines available for children, people clogging the ER because they couldn't afford to see a doctor and just waited until their problem got too severe too ignore...I guess we can be proud of ourselves that we are the only developed nation who can boast no safety net for its citizens (but hey, we got money for a trip to Mars!).
kitkat24
122 Posts
Nursehardee,
I sure hope you weren't insinuating my guppieness? Is guppieness a word? Anyway, I would imagine that most of the posters have a higher income than me. I certainly am not in a higher caste of folks. I do not understand the comment about "getting away with something", as I am not sure what I might be "getting away with". Maybe, I am not understanding the comment.
Nurses in Minnesota at our top St. Paul Hospitals such as United, Regions, Woodwinds, St. Joseph's, St. Johns, and I believe the majority of Minneapolis (Abbott, HCMC, Mercy, North) contract and non-contract, have healthcare offered through their employers at a .4 (under part-time). A .4 employment is not wealthy. A .4 employee RN at these hospitals can elect individual care, family care, or Employee Child(ren) care. What I say is that, though my income is not full time employment, that I still choose to purchase that healthcare as it is a priority in my life.
My children's health and healthcare is important. I would choose that for instance, over cable TV and movie channels, eating out at resturants, internet access, school or college courses, telephone services that include call waiting, caller ID, long distance, call waiting ID, a cellular phone bill, designer clothing, or any other commodity that I could spend my money on that is not a necessity.
So, for nurses in Minnesota it is really a choice if you want a job that does not offer healthcare benefits.
Kitkat