Who are the Uninsured?

Nurses Activism

Published

Who are the Uninsured? October 16, 2003

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.

TexasPolicy.com

It is not the governments responsibility to provide health care to everybody. Nor is it the govs responsibility to require healthcare be offered to everybody. We are Americans. We choose to live in a capitalist society. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it. Live with it or cross that big lake and live with socialized medicine.

I am angry with the American (and often those who are not even Americans) who demands something for nothing and too often gets it. Since they are getting it for nothing, those of us who don't get it for nothing are expected to pay for it making it impossible for us to afford it for ourselves.

I am not talking about immunizations, I agree this should be done as a matter of public health but any other health care, if you can't pay for it, you simply should not get it.

It is not the governments responsibility to provide health care to everybody. Nor is it the govs responsibility to require healthcare be offered to everybody. We are Americans. We choose to live in a capitalist society. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it. Live with it or cross that big lake and live with socialized medicine.

I am angry with the American (and often those who are not even Americans) who demands something for nothing and too often gets it. Since they are getting it for nothing, those of us who don't get it for nothing are expected to pay for it making it impossible for us to afford it for ourselves.

I am not talking about immunizations, I agree this should be done as a matter of public health but any other health care, if you can't pay for it, you simply should not get it.

Dixiedi,

Are you prepared to withold your care to fellow humans and watch them die because they cannot afford to pay it? Why should the greatest country, with the greatest medical care in history have such an inequitable and rediculous system to pay for it?

I interpret your post to mean that if you have no money, you should "simply" die, and quit whining.

Dixiedi,

Are you prepared to withold your care to fellow humans and watch them die because they cannot afford to pay it? Why should the greatest country, with the greatest medical care in history have such an inequitable and rediculous system to pay for it?

I interpret your post to mean that if you have no money, you should "simply" die, and quit whining.

Sad isn't it. I hate to say it, but I have no interest in becoming a socialist society. If we insist that everyone have "adequate" health care wether they can pay for it or not we are saying let's be socialists! I simply don't have any desire to see this country move any further into that direction and if it means I have no health care, then I guess I am going to die when modern medicine might have saved me. Yes, I am willing to die to maintain this country as it is, a capitalist nation.

That happened to a nursing assistant where i work. She worked full time nearly 20 years at the same hospital, paid for health insurance for herself and teenage children.

When she needed surgery followed by chemotherapy for cancer she was terminated after her sick time and vacation were used up. She was too sick to decide whether to purchase COBRA insurance.

Her house was sold to pay for care in the hospital where she had provided thousands of hours providing patient care. Her daughter became an emancipated minor at age 16, moved in with friends and cared for her brother.

My friend died after being prematurely discharged from the hospital. Not from the cancer but from pneumonia and malnutrition.

If she had been on Medicare she would have had some coverage.

SO I ask again, "WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MEDICARE?"

It is not the governments responsibility to provide health care to everybody. Nor is it the govs responsibility to require healthcare be offered to everybody. We are Americans. We choose to live in a capitalist society. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it. Live with it or cross that big lake and live with socialized medicine.

I am angry with the American (and often those who are not even Americans) who demands something for nothing and too often gets it. Since they are getting it for nothing, those of us who don't get it for nothing are expected to pay for it making it impossible for us to afford it for ourselves.

I am not talking about immunizations, I agree this should be done as a matter of public health but any other health care, if you can't pay for it, you simply should not get it.

I read on another thread that you had some very difficult times through circumstances beyond your control. Did you recieve any help?

If not, I think you should have!

I read on another thread that you had some very difficult times through circumstances beyond your control. Did you recieve any help?

If not, I think you should have!

I applied and was refused because SS death benefits and VA death benefits were forthcoming. We did get some food stamps but I lost everything waiting for those benefits to begin.

It was a true hardship but that's the way our system works and even tho the system is not perfect (but could be beter if we quit handing out to those who won't work) and things like what happened to my family do happen (and it's very sad for anyone who goes through it) we still have the best system going and I, for one, do not want to see that change by moving towards a socialist system.

I believe help shoud be available to those who work and only those who work. An individual or family must prove that they are active members of the working class before they are approved for any type of assistance.

That includes single parents. There is no reason why they can not work a few hours a day at McDonalds. If they do that, then they would qualify for assistance.

The liberal bleeding hearts put our money into handouts for those with more excuses than Carter has liver pills and then the resourses are not available for those who should receive them.

I've read stories from a lot of the members here that fit into this same category, it's sad that those of us who will work suffer while those who sit on their butts all day and party all night are reasonably taken care of by the rest of us. It's not right. And as cruel as it sounds, we are wasting our money on them. This is the greatest country in the world, no reason for anyone to sit and watch it crumble into socialism.

That happened to a nursing assistant where i work. She worked full time nearly 20 years at the same hospital, paid for health insurance for herself and teenage children.

When she needed surgery followed by chemotherapy for cancer she was terminated after her sick time and vacation were used up. She was too sick to decide whether to purchase COBRA insurance.

Her house was sold to pay for care in the hospital where she had provided thousands of hours providing patient care. Her daughter became an emancipated minor at age 16, moved in with friends and cared for her brother.

My friend died after being prematurely discharged from the hospital. Not from the cancer but from pneumonia and malnutrition.

If she had been on Medicare she would have had some coverage.

SO I ask again, "WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MEDICARE?"

This is exactly what I am talking about. People who work are denied assistance while those who sit and do nothing are provided with great care in the best teaching hospitals. It's not right!

Dixiedi & noeljan222:

I understand your feelings completely. We the people need to help those who need it and are willing to do their part.

That is a positive goal. I would be proud to have my taxes pay for healthcare and assistance for people to finish nursing school, becoming teachers and so on.

I applied and was refused because SS death benefits and VA death benefits were forthcoming. We did get some food stamps but I lost everything waiting for those benefits to begin.

It was a true hardship but that's the way our system works and even tho the system is not perfect (but could be beter if we quit handing out to those who won't work) and things like what happened to my family do happen (and it's very sad for anyone who goes through it) we still have the best system going and I, for one, do not want to see that change by moving towards a socialist system.

I believe help shoud be available to those who work and only those who work. An individual or family must prove that they are active members of the working class before they are approved for any type of assistance.

That includes single parents. There is no reason why they can not work a few hours a day at McDonalds. If they do that, then they would qualify for assistance.

The liberal bleeding hearts put our money into handouts for those with more excuses than Carter has liver pills and then the resourses are not available for those who should receive them.

I've read stories from a lot of the members here that fit into this same category, it's sad that those of us who will work suffer while those who sit on their butts all day and party all night are reasonably taken care of by the rest of us. It's not right. And as cruel as it sounds, we are wasting our money on them. This is the greatest country in the world, no reason for anyone to sit and watch it crumble into socialism.

What about people who are disabled and can no longer work? If they are injured at work, like a lot of nurses. Or get sick with a debilitating illness? Many disabled people can do some kind of work, but often find it extremely difficult to get hired.

So what about them? If they can't work, should they just be denied any sort of assistance? You have completely omitted this category of people.

Same for the elderly. Should we do away with Medicare, if one is too old to work, or if someone can't find work because of their age? Not easy to get a good job at 89.

What about people who are disabled and can no longer work? If they are injured at work, like a lot of nurses. Or get sick with a debilitating illness? Many disabled people can do some kind of work, but often find it extremely difficult to get hired.

So what about them? If they can't work, should they just be denied any sort of assistance? You have completely omitted this category of people.

Same for the elderly. Should we do away with Medicare, if one is too old to work, or if someone can't find work because of their age? Not easy to get a good job at 89.

Should the children of those disabled and no longer able to work be denied healthcare?

What about the innocent children of those who don't work?

Anyone truly believe the USA is the only first world country that cannot afford healthcare for us, the people?

Again - WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE WITH MEDICARE?

What about people who are disabled and can no longer work? If they are injured at work, like a lot of nurses. Or get sick with a debilitating illness? Many disabled people can do some kind of work, but often find it extremely difficult to get hired.

So what about them? If they can't work, should they just be denied any sort of assistance? You have completely omitted this category of people.

Same for the elderly. Should we do away with Medicare, if one is too old to work, or if someone can't find work because of their age? Not easy to get a good job at 89.

If someone gets hurt at work, or experiences a catostrophic illness during the working years, they HAVE extablished themselves as working Americans. If they have retired, they too have established themselves as working Americans. Therefore, they are the people that should get the care.

Disablility needs to be redefined. There are far too many "disabled" folks sitting around on their duffs when in fact they could work a few hours or more a day.

And don't bring up severely disabled people. You know we are not talking about them. They were either disabled at birth or while minors (therefore they will get care based on the care givers work history) If an adult becomes severely disabled, they have their own work history. You see, the only people we are excluding are those who just won't work cause it doesn't pay them to give up government benefits to make 5 or 6 bucks an hour. Then there's the ones who are just too darn lazy.

Like I said, no work, no benefits.

+ Add a Comment