Reply
Thu 17 Jun, 2004 05:35 pm
82 Million in U.S. Lacked Health Insurance -Study
Wed Jun 16, 5:31 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Joan Gralla
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Almost 82 million people in the United States or one in three under age 65 had no health insurance for at least one month in the past two years, a study by a consumer group said on Wednesday.
Nearly two-thirds of those people had no insurance for at least six months during 2002 and 2003, and just over half went without benefits for at least nine months, according to the study by Washington-based Families USA.
Many of the uninsured had middle-class incomes and live in presidential battleground states where a pollster said voters' fears of losing their health benefits could tip the balance.
"The growing number of Americans without health insurance is now a phenomenon that significantly affects middle-class and working families," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.
Among people who earned roughly $56,000 a year to $75,000, more than one in four were uninsured, with four out of five of the uninsured in working families.
The U.S. economy is now adding jobs, but the recent downturn swelled the ranks of uninsured, the group said.
"Over 2002 and 2003 ... we've seen some very high unemployment rates. That certainly played a role in the magnitude (of uninsured)," said Kathleen Stoll, the group's director of health policy.
Hispanics, the nation's largest minority group, had the highest rate of uninsured at just under 60 percent. Nearly 43 percent of blacks under 65 were uninsured and almost 24 percent of whites.
The study involved people under 65 because the elderly are covered by Medicare, the federal health insurance plan.
Texas led the list of states with the highest percentage of uninsured people at 43.4 percent. New Mexico was second with 42.4 percent and California followed with 37.1 percent.
California had the highest number of people without insurance -- 11.9 million. Texas came in second with 8.5 million, followed by New York with 5.6 million.
The presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry called the report "a stunning indictment of his (President Bush's) failure to address the soaring health care costs and difficulties millions of Americans face in accessing affordable, quality health care."
A Bush campaign spokesman was not immediately available.
Pollster John Zogby said November's presidential election was too close to call in several states with the highest numbers of uninsured, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
"You're talking about enough voters to throw the election one way or the other," Zogby said.
Many voters feared losing their health benefits, he said, adding: "People are crystal clear: 'If this country tolerates a lot of people without health insurance, that could be me."'
The report was based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which means it includes citizens and nonvoting residents, said Pollack. "(But) somebody who is not in the country legally is not likely to respond to the Census Bureau questions," he said.
I think that it is a matter of priorities. In life, one has choices. Yes it is true, that some people, after paying for housing and food, have little left for anything else. But I would suspect that those folks are in the minority, and I would suppose that some of them would qualify for Medicaid.
I would wager that many of the people who complain that they cannot afford health insurance, somehow find the money to spend on cars, vacations, beer, cigarettes, and other items that are not necessities.
Last year, I spent $10,000 for my health insurance. No, I am not poverty stricken; I know that there were plenty of other things that 10 grand would buy that would give me greater enjoyment than the health insurance. I chose an expensive health insurance plan (I could have saved some, by picking a cheaper plan) because I considered it vital that it had the features that I considered important, like being able to go to any doctor that I wanted.
I buy clothing and other items only on sale, and when I am on vacation I do not go to expensive places. My husband and I have a history of keeping our cars for 8-10 years.
So, as I said before, it is a matter of priorities. Somehow, in the U.S. there are many people who think of health insurance as an entitlement. I disagree. Like rent and food, it is a cost of living. I think that all families need to factor in the price of health insurance when they plan the household budget.
Yeah. When you cash your fast food worker's paycheck take out enough to pay for adequate insurance. Haw.
edgarblythe- A minimum wage worker is probably able to get Medicaid!
I know a woman, who has recently become unemployed. She dropped her health insurance, because of cost. However, she still had cash to have a massage.
I agree with Phoenix, it is a matter of priorities. The unemployed seem to have money for new cars, new giant TVs, concerts, sneakers, etc. but when it comes to health insurance, somehow, these very people think, that someone else should be footing the bill.
I wonder why!
edgarblythe wrote:Yeah. When you cash your fast food worker's paycheck take out enough to pay for adequate insurance. Haw.
I thought most of the fast food workers were teens , who were covered by their parent's insurance plans.
Should also add, that college students in most, if not all states, must have health insurance in order to stay enrolled in school.
Might well be, we'll have to pay more for our health insurance - but reading this, I'm really glad that we have another system since 1873!
Re: 82 Million in U.S. Lacked Health Insurance -Study
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:82 Million in U.S. Lacked Health Insurance -Study
Wed Jun 16, 5:31 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Joan Gralla
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Almost 82 million people in the United States or one in three under age 65 had no health insurance for at least one month in the past two years, a study by a consumer group said on Wednesday.
Nearly two-thirds of those people had no insurance for at least six months during 2002 and 2003, and just over half went without benefits for at least nine months, according to the study by Washington-based Families USA.
Many of the uninsured had middle-class incomes and live in presidential battleground states where a pollster said voters' fears of losing their health benefits could tip the balance.
"The growing number of Americans without health insurance is now a phenomenon that significantly affects middle-class and working families," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.
Among people who earned roughly $56,000 a year to $75,000, more than one in four were uninsured, with four out of five of the uninsured in working families.
The U.S. economy is now adding jobs, but the recent downturn swelled the ranks of uninsured, the group said.
"Over 2002 and 2003 ... we've seen some very high unemployment rates. That certainly played a role in the magnitude (of uninsured)," said Kathleen Stoll, the group's director of health policy.
Hispanics, the nation's largest minority group, had the highest rate of uninsured at just under 60 percent. Nearly 43 percent of blacks under 65 were uninsured and almost 24 percent of whites.
The study involved people under 65 because the elderly are covered by Medicare, the federal health insurance plan.
Texas led the list of states with the highest percentage of uninsured people at 43.4 percent. New Mexico was second with 42.4 percent and California followed with 37.1 percent.
California had the highest number of people without insurance -- 11.9 million. Texas came in second with 8.5 million, followed by New York with 5.6 million.
The presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry called the report "a stunning indictment of his (President Bush's) failure to address the soaring health care costs and difficulties millions of Americans face in accessing affordable, quality health care."
A Bush campaign spokesman was not immediately available.
Pollster John Zogby said November's presidential election was too close to call in several states with the highest numbers of uninsured, including Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
"You're talking about enough voters to throw the election one way or the other," Zogby said.
Many voters feared losing their health benefits, he said, adding: "People are crystal clear: 'If this country tolerates a lot of people without health insurance, that could be me."'
The report was based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which means it includes citizens and nonvoting residents, said Pollack. "(But) somebody who is not in the country legally is not likely to respond to the Census Bureau questions," he said.
John Kerry, a Senator for 20+ years in Massachusetts, has done nothing to mediate a reduction in the premiums of those with health insurance or to help the uninsured become insured, in the CommonWealth.
If President of the US, Kerry will likewise do nothing to help those, who are poor/middle class and uninsured. Why should he suddenly break his record of doing absolutely nothing, just because he's ( which he won't ) become President?
Miller wrote:I agree with Phoenix, it is a matter of priorities. The unemployed seem to have money for new cars, new giant TVs, concerts, sneakers, etc. but when it comes to health insurance, somehow, these very people think, that someone else should be footing the bill. !
This is the standard slur against the poor. The pair of sneakers I am wearing (made in China) cost less then 12 dollars..The remainder of your charge is equally absurd. Lack of adequate publicly financed health care is one of the major drags on American business. We put the burden on an individuals place of employment which in turn is attempting to transfer that coast to the individual. In those nations that have do have a national health plan, which is the rest of the industrialized world, those costs are spread over the populace as a whole. As a result you have a healthier population and business are relieved of the burden.
Also a national heath plan does not have to cover everything. There is no need for a program that covers health maintenance, emergency and major medical expense, to cover life style choices such as balding or cosmetic surgery (to offer two examples). The State of Oregon had a proposal several years ago for a universal state public health program that set boundaries. There was a list of what would be covered and anything else was the responsiblity of the individual. It failed to pass.
First, sorry for misspelling "cost".
I think it had to do both with unionization and the liability costs of employers .
Acquiunk wrote:Miller wrote:I agree with Phoenix, it is a matter of priorities. The unemployed seem to have money for new cars, new giant TVs, concerts, sneakers, etc. but when it comes to health insurance, somehow, these very people think, that someone else should be footing the bill. !
This is the standard slur against the poor. The pair of sneakers I am wearing (made in China) cost less then 12 dollars..The remainder of your charge is equally absurd. Lack of adequate publicly financed health care is one of the major drags on American business. We put the burden on an individuals place of employment which in turn is attempting to transfer that coast to the individual. In those nations that have do have a national health plan, which is the rest of the industrialized world, those costs are spread over the populace as a whole. As a result you have a healthier population and business are relieved of the burden.
Also a national heath plan does not have to cover everything. There is no need for a program that covers health maintenance, emergency and major medical expense, to cover life style choices such as balding or cosmetic surgery (to offer two examples). The State of Oregon had a proposal several years ago for a universal state public health program that set boundaries. There was a list of what would be covered and anything else was the responsiblity of the individual. It failed to pass.
These are the facts, as I see and I call them. If you want to wear $12 sneakers, that of course , is your business. But you should remember, that with time, you'll develope an orthopedic problem. Than what?
Acquiunk wrote:Miller wrote:I agree with Phoenix, it is a matter of priorities. The unemployed seem to have money for new cars, new giant TVs, concerts, sneakers, etc. but when it comes to health insurance, somehow, these very people think, that someone else should be footing the bill. !
This is the standard slur against the poor. The pair of sneakers I am wearing (made in China) cost less then 12 dollars..The remainder of your charge is equally absurd. Lack of adequate publicly financed health care is one of the major drags on American business.
We put the burden on an individuals place of employment which in turn is attempting to transfer that coast to the individual. In those nations that have do have a national health plan, which is the rest of the industrialized world, those costs are spread over the populace as a whole. As a result you have a healthier population and business are relieved of the burden.
Also a national heath plan does not have to cover everything. There is no need for a program that covers health maintenance, emergency and major medical expense, to cover life style choices such as balding or cosmetic surgery (to offer two examples). The State of Oregon had a proposal several years ago for a universal state public health program that set boundaries. There was a list of what would be covered and anything else was the responsiblity of the individual. It failed to pass.
This is NOT a burden to the employer, but rather a BENEFIT to the employee. If one doesn't want benefits, than perhaps one should work for oneself.
Relative to your comments about "balding or cosmetic surgery", there are cases, where such procedures may be necessary. An excellent example concerns the victims, who survived the attacks fo 9/11/01. Many had to have hair transplants and cosmetic surgery, to repair the damage done to their facial tissues. Their insurance paid for these procedures, as it should have.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:We put the burden on an individuals place of employment which in turn is attempting to transfer that coast to the individual.
Acquiunk- You bring up a bring up a very important point, which I have rarely seen addressed. I could never understand why health insurance developed as an adjunct to employment. Car and home insurance isn't. Life insurance isn't.
Does anybody know the history of how health insurance became so inexorably intertwined with employment?
It's not only required with employment, but as I said above, most colleges require their students to have health insurance. This is a STATE law, so that the hospitals treating ill students don't suffer economic hardship due to nonpayment of the medical expense of treating such students. What do you suppose, it would cost to treat a noninsured college student, who comes down with leukemia, for example?
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Does anybody know the history of how health insurance became so inexorably intertwined with employment?[/color][/b]
It began in 1883 (sorry for the typo above!), when the first ever health insurance plan was introduced in Germany.
Opposite to the USA (where this only applies to Medicare/Medicaid, government health-insurance programs), we have since that time a social health insurance plan. [ The National Health Service in the United Kingdom and the hospitals operated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the United States are examples of the very different "socialized medicine and government medical-care programs", systems, which are usually financed from general tax revenues. (Doctors are employed, directly or indirectly, by a government agency, and hospitals and other health facilities are owned or operated by the government.)]
Seems, the German system was thought to be too expensive ...?
The VA system in the USA has one of the best and most cost effective pharmacy plans, for our Vets.
Miller wrote:
This is NOT a burden to the employer, but rather a BENEFIT to the employee.
Many (9/11 victims) had to have hair transplants and cosmetic surgery, to repair the damage done to their facial tissues. Their insurance paid for these procedures, as it should have.
First much of the health legislation written by congress assume health care will be provided through one's place of employment.
Second, you are quite correct in that example. But I am also loosing my hair. It wounds my ego, but the public should not have to pay to have it corrected.
In the 1960's I was working for a small rural hospital in the north Texas Panhandle. My desk abutted that of the woman designated as the "Medicare clerk" when Medicare went into effect--from Day #1 hospitals needed additional staff to take care of the extensive paperwork associated with the program. This was the first escalation of medical costs associated with Medicare.
(The following I will present as my experienced opinion, but won't take the time to hunt up links to support it:)
Also from Day #1 we were keenly aware that fraud was rampant. Country doctors, salt of the earth, pillars of their communities, could not resist the temptation--they would walk the corridor, glance in the door to a sleeping patient, and move on while jotting down a hospital visit to be paid for by 'free' government money. The doctors suddenly made an awful lot more 'hospital visits' than they did before. The patients never saw those charges so who was to know? (Those on the nursing staff and we in the business office knew, but we were too concerned for our jobs and were too naive and chicken to say anything--in the medical field you simply did not question a doctor.) Consider the cost of this repeated in thousands of hospitals all over the country.
When Medicare costs sharply rose to sharply exceed expectations, the government moved to install price caps--only so much could be charged for an office visit, for an x-ray, for an operation. Greater controls were implemented to restrict the number of days Medicare would cover. The net result was that many of the best doctors refused to take Medicare patients leaving the less able doctors for the elderly, and also driving up costs in all areas of medical care not covered by Medicare. As other costs rose, so did Medicare costs.
We see much of the same kinds of scenario with state administered Medicade plans with the same kinds of results.
Meanwhile the country became much more litigious, outrageous sums are paid in lawsuits, defense costs are staggering, and medical malpractice skyrocketed. All that also became factored into hospital and physician fees. The government has rarely addressed that as a factor in uninsured Americans.
When medical costs escalate, so do insurance premiums until medical insurance becomes too expensive for some Americans (and businesses) to buy.
The bottom line is, when government gets involved in something like healthcare and normal market forces are prevented from working, several things happen:
1. The cost of providing the service increases, often signifcantly.
2. Choices become more limited with waiting lists and more difficulty in obtaining certain procedures.
3. Service becomes more depersonalized.
4. Quality of service declines.
In my opinion, the answer to the problem of healthcare is for the government to be a watchdog for quality, equity, and litigation reform, but otherwise to get out of it as much as possible. Medical savings accounts and/or similar programs could be a valid and useful government initiative--this would ensure that the patient would be watching those bills closely.
But government micromanagement of healthcare is proving to be costly and producing less than satisfactory results.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace