The Democratic Presidential debate in New Hampshire earlier this week highlighted a bit of confusion about how many people in the US do not have health insurance.
The answer is 44.8 million, including 8 million kids. Read on for the details…
Two of the candidates, Dodd and Kucinich, both overstated the number of uninsured, with Dodd claiming 47 million and Kucinich 46 million. The errors are understandable, as the US Census Bureau had concluded there were 46.6 million without coverage (based on the 2005 census).
However, those stats were based on people who had insurance in their name, which obviously leaves out dependents. Correcting for that mistake gives us the 44.8 million figure.
And as several have pointed out, the 4% difference doesn’t exactly make the problem go away.
A thanks to FactCheck.org for pointing out the issue, and doing the initial fact-finding.
Aubrey, God Bless you for taking this stand and calling it like you see it!
I find it amazing to see these numbers going up and up! The US Census Bureau, which by the way includes illegal immigrants (er, undocumented workers) in their numbers comes up with this number, however when you compare these figures to the number of UNEMPLOYED in the USA (produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) you have a HUGE discrepancy.
Even if every unemployed worker had a dozen dependents you wouldn’t be able to justify 44 million without insurance. Further, as Aubrey states, lets not forget that there are those in our society who are healthy and OPT OUT of having insurance. Perhaps you and I could say this is a poor life choice for these people but they are at LIBERTY to make this decision for themselves! I find it amazing that we feel the need to include these people for their choices in our discussion of “needing coverage” when others in our society who are practicing “poor lifestyle decisions” (I won’t bother to list all the possibilities here for what qualifies in that category)that put them at greater risk without dictating how they should live their lives. Yet, we feel free to offer coverage for those that make the decision to opt out of healthcare.
What happened to our respect for individual Liberty?
Finally, since we know the Census Bureau is including illegal immigrants in their totals, why is it that we should feel abliged to provide healthcare coverage for people who did not even have the courtesy to respect our nations laws when entering the country? Just because you got in does NOT mean that we should have to pay for your healthcare!
I say it again; if the government gets involved it will become a mess.
interesting. Aubrey, you say “Why do we allow some parents to opt-out and have the rest of us to take care of their children’s medical care?” and yet it appears you do not want the feds involved in health care. that’s fine; does that mean you want mandated universal coverage via private insurers?
I’m also curious about your statistics re who can afford insurance and chooses to not obtain it. Could you provide some citations for your numbers?
Opinions are fine, if you want to advocate for a certain position facts supported by evidence are helpful.
I agree whole heartedly with Joe. Aubrey and Dorrence… you rail on “big government”, but you fail to offer a true alternative.
To say, “why don’t we allow insurers to come up with high deductible plans without the difficulty state insurance laws provide?”… The vast majority of the uninsured would be unable to pay these deductibles. This, I believe, would put them/us back at square one.
To Dorrence… to say illegal immigrants should be denied care is ridiculous. I hope you realize that illegal immigrants are one of the foundational components to agriculture in the south. Simply, they do the jobs that we, as Americans, avoid. To say we should refuse illegal immigrants in the ER makes me sick. Should they just bleed to death outside of the hospital? Would that make you feel better?
Andrew, perhaps you should learn to read more carefully before allowing your hands to type. I did NOT say that healthcare should be denied to illegal immigrants, that would be unethical. However, the question becomes who should be expected to pay for such care. I whole heartedly disagree with the position that the taxpayer should be expected to pay for these services. Let the immigrant pay for their care, attach their wages, seize their property. Allow the recourse of the courts to do their jobs, but don’t make them a burden on the taxpayer!! IF the immigrant finds America a hard place to live because they have high medical costs, or because the medical providers sue and take their property or valuables through the courts then fine, GO BACK HOME!
We have to stop pandering to these people who come to our nation illegally. The true problem is our own feelings that we HAVE to care for everyone AND pay for it. We do not! We may have to care for them when the situation is emergent, but we do not have to pay for it.
Finally, yes I rail on the approach where liberals (i.e. neo-socialists) want to make the government the “end all be all solution” for all the ills of society. We have seen over and over again the failures of putting government in charge. What we need is a movement to restore LIBERTY in this country. To allow people to make their own choices again, and succeed or FAIL accordingly. Government cannot and should not be the safety net to fix all ills that man finds himself in! So yes, guilty as charged. I’m proud to be against government growth, and against government intervention in our lives!
Dorrence – once again, I ask you to stop with the pejorative use of labels – leaving aside the question as to what exactly is a “neo-socialist”, these do not advance the dialogue.
As to your continued claim that people are at liberty to decide to not have insurance – that’s correct. but as I’ve noted here many a time, if they buy health insurance they can’t buy food or pay rent. I’m not sure that’s much of a choice. Further, the free market has shown itself completely unconcerned about these individuals, and has not developed any solutions.
I believe there is a role for private insurers, but they are so busy shooting themselves in the head with bonehead policies that they may well find themselves left out of health care reform entirely. And that would be entirely their fault.
Finally, either stop decrying government or start being specific about where it does not work. Your blanket statements are not helpful, nor are they accurate.
Well, here’s one source. It’s only one source, but it’s a good one.
In October 2006, the Kaiser Family Foundation Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured released this Issue Paper:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7571.pdf
The Issue Paper cites Federal Census data reporting that the estimated number of uninsured grew by 1.3 million people between 2004 and 2005, and now stands at 46.2 million, or about 17.9% of the under-65 population. This Paper thus provides additional support for the expressions of concern that “one out of every 6 Americans is uninsured”.
But wait a minute. Statements like that only reflect the average. Even an accurate average says nothing about the distribution of the population. It is accurate to say that “one out of 5” persons on the face of the earth is Chinese but that does not tell you how many Chinese live on your block. Fact is, the overwhelming majority of Chinese live in China. Similarly the uninsured don’t simply comprise “one out of every 6 Americans”. Fact is, the odds of being uninsured are hugely driven by poverty.
The Issue Paper confirms this fact, which prior surveys have also consistently found. And it stands to reason – – the very poor tend not to have regular, full-time jobs that offer employer-based group insurance; they often don’t sign up for employer-based insurance even if eligible, because of the cost; and they can’t afford to purchase individual insurance.
Table 1 in the Issue Paper shows that people below 2X’s the federal poverty level comprised about 65% of all uninsured, non-elderly Americans in both 2004 and 2005. For people below 2X’s the FPL, the rate of uninsurance was 32.3% in 2004 and 33.3% in 2005. This raises some questions for Medicaid. Why is Medicaid failing to meet the needs of so many of our most impoverished citizens??? Aren’t these exactly the people that Medicaid was created to serve?? How can Medicaid be falling so far short of meeting the goals for which it was established??? The KFF Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured does not comment on these questions in the Issue Paper.
If all the nonelderly below 2X’s the federal poverty level could be enrolled in Medicaid, the proportion of uninsured Americans would fall from 17.9% to about 6% of the total population under age 65. (Enrolling everyone below 4X’s the federal poverty level into Medicaid would reduce the uninsured all the way down to 2%).
Seems to me that Medicaid is failing in its purpose as a governmental safety net for the poor, and that public pressure must be brought to bear on the new Congress to fx it within e.g. 100 days of their taking office in January.
Joe, you are correct – perhaps I should not use what you consider to be pejorative terms like “neo-socialist”.
Obviously, the dialogue is furthered much more effectively by using pejorative terms like “boneheaded”.
I stand corrected!
Joe, your KFF statistics are on target. Where you have a misunderstanding is in that Medicaid participants are fully included in the 46.2 million reported in the KFF study. They are receiving services and are not paying for them – in many cases Medicaid is far better coverage than what the average employer provides for those who are working full time.
The uninsured represents those who do not have a commercial insurance plan. This would also include the many working people with access to health insurance, often at 20-25% of the actual cost, but they still aren’t willing to participate – often because they feel they have a better use for their money. Restoring personal responsibility is the number one issue facing this country. Establishing one other thing (government benefit)that removes personal responsibility is destructive to our society
Dorrence- you do not understand the difference between the terms ‘pejorative’ and ‘descriptive’. your use of ‘socialist’ is not helping the dialogue: ideologues use it as a ‘red flag’ for things they don’t like..
I would appreciate it if you would comply w/ my request to clarify statements with facts & refrain from snarky comments.
you have firmly held opinions that you have yet to support w facts and logic.
Joe
Sorry to come late…but Joe, my question to the socialized medicine crew is this: How do they know what I need better than I do? I’m a very healthy 29 year old physician. I’d have a high-deductible “catastrophic” policy if I could…but as it is, I pay several hundred dollars a month for my “benefit” of health insurance. Oh, and I see my family doc every six months, meaning I utilize about $250 or so a year of health care on average. Which costs me over $3000. Why does your average twenty-something need health insurance? They don’t. Or at most, they need catastrophic coverage. Sure, the rest of the country needs us to have insurance under the socialized plans…so we can pay for services we’re not using. Sounds a lot like a subsidy/age-regressive tax to me.
“Johnny” may have gone to medical school, but he doesn’t know anything about economics. INSURANCE is a system for making sure that the cost of unlikely but disastrous events will not be borne by their victim alone. “Johnny” seems to think that “socialized” is a bad word and a bad thing. It is not. We “socialize” the risk of being a crime victim by paying heavy taxes for law enforcement. We “socialize” the risk of developing a serious illness or being terribly injured (and yes, those things can happen to “a very healthy 29 year old physician”)through the mechanism of health insurance. Johnny, I wish you health, but one thing I can guarantee is that you will not always be 29 years old; and there’s a good chance that you or someone for whom you’re responsible will face a health challenge. For a physician, you sound arrogant as well as ignorant. I hope that you’ll develop humility on your own rather than have it foisted upon you by misfortune.