UNINSURED DIP MEANS WE NEED MORE GOV’T?

According to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured Americans declined significantly in 2007. As David Hogberg reports in Investor’s Business Daily:

The number of uninsured fell to 45.7 million last year from 47 million in 2006, largely due to expanded government coverage. That’s 15.3% of the population, down from 15.8%.

But the advocates of government-run health care are determined to see bad news in the report. They claim that the remaining 45.7 million need a government program:

That’s proof, liberals say, of a health care crisis. There is a case for growth in the safety net,” said Kathleen Stoll, deputy executive director of Families USA.

The problem with this reasoning becomes obvious when one looks at the makeup of the uninsured population. The following chart provides an eye-opening breakdown:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

As the chart shows, nearly 10 million of the fabled uninsured are not actual Americans, and a large percentage make more than $50,000 a year. It’s not obvious that the voters want their taxes raised to cover such people.

But that’s exactly what advocates of government-run health care, including most of the people meeting in Denver this week, want to do. They believe universal coverage is a “moral imperative.”

And they ain’t talking about private coverage.

Comments 7

  1. Marc B. wrote:

    David, what would you say is an acceptable number of people who can’t afford insurance – a population say like that of Canada? And what would say is an acceptable number of underinsured people who are not actually able to afford a health crisis? I think we should be told!

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 4:46 pm
  2. Catron wrote:

    Insurance isn’t health care Marc. Everyone is “covered” in your country, yet thousands die every year waiting for tests and surgeries that keep getting bumped from the schedule. See this article.

    Posted 27 Aug 2008 at 8:07 pm
  3. Marc B. wrote:

    ‘Insurance isn’t health care’

    It’s about access to healthcare. Now perhaps you’d like to address the questions I asked you.

    ‘Everyone is “covered? in your country, yet thousands die every year waiting for tests and surgeries that keep getting bumped from the schedule. See this article.’

    No – there is no evidence in this article or any other that ‘thousands die every year waiting for tests and surgeries’ in the UK. Please produce this evidence if you have it. As you well know, nearly all postponed procedures are for non-life threatening conditions such as ingrowing toenails. Meanwhile there is documented evidence in the US for excess deaths due to lack of health insurance.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 4:06 am
  4. Joseph C. wrote:

    “As you well know, nearly all postponed procedures are for non-life threatening conditions such as ingrowing toenails.”

    This borders on incoherent, Marc. Does the NHS have its surgical oncologists moonlighting as podiatrists or something?

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 10:38 am
  5. Marc B. wrote:

    ‘This borders on incoherent, Marc. Does the NHS have its surgical oncologists moonlighting as podiatrists or something?”

    Huh? I don’t understand. The facts are that only about 1% of NHS operations are cancelled, many by patients themselves, and often because the date has actually been brought forward. Catron was implying that many are dying because they do not get operations – there is no evidence that life saving procedures such as breast cancer surgery are not being done, but yes, some non-life threatening procedures are sometimes postponed to make way for more urgent cases, and that’s the same in any country. Many Americans of course live indefinitely with operable conditions because they can’t afford the bills.

    Posted 28 Aug 2008 at 11:33 am
  6. Joseph C. wrote:

    Marc, my point was that your example of delaying an ingrown toenail procedure to “make way for more urgent cases” doesn’t make much sense in terms of health care delivery. Aren’t such toenail procedures done by podiatrists in their outpatient offices? While tumor resections are done by surgeons with far more training in the hospital setting. Different staff and different facilities. So, how do you swap one for the other based on which case is more pressing?

    Maybe it’s just a bad example. I’ll give you that, but so far I’m not following.

    Posted 30 Aug 2008 at 10:50 am
  7. Marc Brown wrote:

    ‘my point was that your example of delaying an ingrown toenail procedure to “make way for more urgent cases? doesn’t make much sense in terms of health care delivery.’

    Yes, toenails are not a good example. I’m referring to cases that require operating theatre time – there will always be a small number of non-urgent cases that are deferred in favour of emergency situations. But you need to contrast any delay in the UK with the situation in the US, where many people cannot get treated at all for conditions such as hernias unless they present in ER or manage to get on charity programs, and of course the growth of treatment overseas is testimony to the unaffordability of treatment at home.

    Posted 01 Sep 2008 at 4:25 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *