VC, good article on the uninsured

[Fieldmouse]

What Do We Really Know About the Uninsured?
We should find out before Obama turns our health care upside-down.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122722921596746391.html
Next year, when Barack Obama becomes president, he will almost certainly move quickly toward some form of government-provided -- and possibly government-mandated -- health insurance. A principal reason for this is the oft-cited figure of 46 million uninsured Americans.
But what does this number mean? And do we really need to remake our entire health-care system to protect the uninsured? Most people have an incomplete understanding of the uninsured population, which can lead to bad policy choices.
Many Americans believe that the uninsured are too poor to purchase coverage and that government programs aren't available to them. But a study published in Health Affairs in November 2006 estimated that 25% of the uninsured were in fact eligible for public coverage, and another 20% probably could afford coverage on their own. If we apply those percentages to today's uninsured population, roughly 25 million people would need assistance in order to get health insurance.
That's a major concern. But the notion that there are 46 million Americans who can't get the health care they need for lack of money or public assistance is a myth.
The other two common misperceptions are that the uninsured don't get health care, and that when they do they're "free riders," i.e., they don't pay for the care they get.
A study published by the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) in April 2000 found that, of the uninsured California residents whose household income was at least twice the poverty level, 50% (about 1.3 million) had received care in the last year for which they were charged, and another 8% had received care for which they weren't charged. The study also found that 89% of these people were either somewhat or very satisfied with the care they received, and that only 15% went to the emergency room versus a doctor's office or clinic when they got sick.
Another recent study, published in Health Affairs in August, had similar findings, and estimated that uninsured Americans will receive $86 billion worth of health care in 2008.
These two studies also provide evidence that disputes the free-rider myth. The CHCF study found that of the 1.3 million uninsured who received care for which they were charged, 80% had paid for it, and almost half of the remaining 20% were paying in installments. The study published in Health Affairs estimated that the uninsured would pay for $30 billion of their health-care costs this year -- more than one-third -- out of pocket.
For the millions of the uninsured, then, who are getting and paying for satisfactory care on their own, foregoing needed care and sticking the public with huge ER bills is a myth.

Most of the proposals under discussion today involve a significant expansion of government programs, a legal requirement for everyone to carry insurance, or a combination of the two. But if millions of people have found ways to access and pay for satisfactory health care without involving an insurance company, is forcing them to buy traditional insurance an effective solution?[/align][/align]Perhaps we should look for ways to encourage the millions of people who are currently eligible for existing government programs to enroll before we expand programs to include people that may not need assistance.
Providing and funding care for those who have truly fallen through the cracks should be an urgent priority. But given the demands on state and federal budgets today, it's more important than ever to tailor solutions so limited resources can provide the most relief possible.
Come Jan. 20, President Obama and Congress should do all they can to separate myth from fact before tackling America's health-care problems.
Mr. Snyder is a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute.

[Fieldmouse]

On top of that article, the insurance companies told government officials that they would drop restrictions on preconditions if Government would mandate everyone to either carry private insurance or government insurance. So how do you do that when today people refuse to pay even $300/month for coverage?

[F3d]

So how do you do that when today people refuse to pay even $300/month for coverage?

By raising taxes for a single payer system that puts the burden on the poor folks too. Btw, poor people aren't the only ones that aren't paying. Some of the middle class try to get away from coverage too until they start having problems. The system is a joke. Half the bankruptcies in the U.S. are medical.

And the number one reason why Obama's plan wouldn't work is because it does nothing to stop the nursing shortage and doctor shortage. Actually, he wants to make it worse by employing more preschool teachers on top of the already crummy education system and in other bs.

Btw, what do you propose then since the poor can pay according to that article? Force all of them to buy insurance or let the free market run its course via allowing people to decide whether or not to buy insurance? If it's the latter, what do you do when they do get sick? Tell them to kick the bucket?

[Fieldmouse]

Btw, what do you propose then since the poor can pay according to that article? Force all of them to buy insurance or let the free market run its course via allowing people to decide whether or not to buy insurance? If it's the latter, what do you do when they do get sick? Tell them to kick the bucket?

I have no problem paying for someone's education to become a doctor or nurse in exchanged for working at free clinics for say 50k/year for 10 years.

[vc1111]

For the millions of the uninsured, then, who are getting and paying for satisfactory care on their own, foregoing needed care and sticking the public with huge ER bills is a myth.

This and other comments in the article posted are flawed. It is not that they "stick the public" it is the all charges are inflated by the uninsured charges which are passed on to the insured.

Also the figures are from a study in the year 2000...since then costs have doubled, presuming a national rate of increase of only 10%...all of which further exacerbates the numbers of uninsureds as more and more people opt out.

Of course, what the article fails to even address is the fact that those uninsured often do not get care when they should because they'll have to pay as much as they can out-of-pocket so they just wait...until the medical condition is worse and the costs are higher. Never mind the fact that they are suffering while they wait. But...who cares about that, right? It ain't you and me, right? After all, we've got coverage, so its their problem, right?

The CHCF study found that of the 1.3 million uninsured who received care for which they were charged, 80% had paid for it, and almost half of the remaining 20% were paying in installments.

That they "received care" and "had paid for it" is to prove nothing. If someone breaks a finger and can pay the five or six hundred out of pocket, that does not by default prove that people can pay for more serious illnesses or injuries and even when they do, the opportunity costs are lost to providers because they almost always make no interest payments...and they once again pass those losses to those who are insured. What about those who have multiple illnesses within a given time frame? How many bills can you carry, even on installments, before you have to decide between feeding the family and making the payments to a number of providers? Do you have any idea what that can do to your credit ratings? Are you aware of how many things your credit affects these days?

How much are the providers losing by way of mitigating the charges? And why should they be forced to subsidize the growing numbers of uninsureds? How is that fair?

Further, there are those who opt out CLEARLY because they cannot afford the cost of insurance for their family and they simply cross their fingers and gamble, hoping they don't incur any major illnesses, impairments, or accidents.

But a study published in Health Affairs in November 2006 estimated that 25% of the uninsured were in fact eligible for public coverage, and another 20% probably could afford coverage on their own. If we apply those percentages to today's uninsured population, roughly 25 million people would need assistance in order to get health insurance.

In one breath he tries to debunk the idea the people can be "too poor" to buy coverage, and in the next breath he states that 1/4 of the uninsured qualify for public assistance for their medical bills. The last sentence above does not even jive with the most generous figures for the number of uninsured people in America today. Clearly this guy plays fast and loose with the numbers.

Can 20% of those now uninsured "afford" health insurance? That is strictly a matter of opinion, isn't it? If you look strictly at incomes, you might draw such a simple-minded conclusion. Of course, the matter if far more complex than that...what if you are already paying for an uninsured accident or illness? Oh, you've got the "income level" at which you might afford it, but you're already in a hole and still digging out. "Probably" could afford health insurance? Gee, that's some real scientific stuff there, eh?

These two studies also provide evidence that disputes the free-rider myth. The CHCF study found that of the 1.3 million uninsured who received care for which they were charged, 80% had paid for it, and almost half of the remaining 20% were paying in installments. The study published in Health Affairs estimated that the uninsured would pay for $30 billion of their health-care costs this year -- more than one-third -- out of pocket.
For the millions of the uninsured, then, who are getting and paying for satisfactory care on their own, foregoing needed care and sticking the public with huge ER bills is a myth.

Lol, and look at the above nonsensical conclusion and use your brain for a moment. He states that the studies "dispute the free-rider 'myth'"...and then goes on to say that they pay for only 1/3 of their medical costs out of pocket. So who in heck do you think pays the other 2/3? Santa Claus????

Oh, it "interesting," alright...if one is interested in watching someone clumsily drawing false conclusions from the facts.

Health insurance in America has never been less "affordable" than it is right now. The insureds are subsidizing the uninsured...big time. We already have a national health insurance program...we are just counting on employers and the self-employed to pay the freight for every one else, including the uninsureds, which is one heck of a fast-growing number, no matter how you look at it.

The present system is failing. The cost continues to spiral upward faster than the rate of inflation year after year, and more and more employers and families are finding they just cannot pay the costs anymore. More and more employers are telling their employees to either pay their own costs in the company plan or go get their own. It is rendering many employers uncompetitive in the global market place. Perhaps worst of all it is particularly insidious because it is an incremental problem shouldered by the few, mostly small businesses and families, who are under-represented in congress.

Just two days ago CNN announced that the average deductible is now $1000 per person...and I'm glad. When everyone has to pay the first $1000, they'll start to have their eyes opened as to what is going on here. Only then will change occur. Too many Americans are oblivious to the problem and too few are shoulder the burden for too many.

Will "national health care" as we've come to perceive it be the answer? Maybe. Maybe not. But what we're doing now is nuts.

If the recession we're in gets only half as bad as it looks like it could, we'll see some numbers in the next couple years that will knock your socks off. Most Americans are about a paycheck and half away from being broke as it is. Think it isn't getting worse? Think things are just fine the way they are and the "free market" will fix it (as though the subsidy taking place has anything to do with a free market)? Its coming home to roost and this type of recession is probably all it will take to make it boil completely over.

You just hide and watch.

[Fieldmouse]

This and other comments in the article posted are flawed. It is not that they "stick the public" it is the all charges are inflated by the uninsured charges which are passed on to the insured.

Are they? I know for a fact that insurance companies don't pay full price at the doctors. They pay a reduced rate however, if you are an individual paying out of pocket, you pay full price.

Further, there are those who opt out CLEARLY because they cannot afford the cost of insurance for their family and they simply cross their fingers and gamble, hoping they don't incur any major illnesses, impairments, or accidents.

Ah, some do but many also make the choice not to pay. Shouldn't we fully define the problem before we go throwing money at a solution?

In one breath he tries to debunk the idea the people can be "too poor" to buy coverage, and in the next breath he states that 1/4 of the uninsured qualify for public assistance for their medical bills.

Wheres the problem? There are many families that qualify for food stamps too but don't take the time to apply. So much so, the Government pays for advertising to increase the people they serve. Heck, the same can be said for college schoolarships and grants. So one has to ask, who's at fault?

Can 20% of those now uninsured "afford" health insurance? That is strictly a matter of opinion, isn't it? If you look strictly at incomes, you might draw such a simple-minded conclusion. Of course, the matter if far more complex than that...what if you are already paying for an uninsured accident or illness? Oh, you've got the "income level" at which you might afford it, but you're already in a hole and still digging out.

That's the question. Everyone is for affordable healthcare. However, what is affordable? Where do you draw the line? Should it be $300/mo and if someone still refuses to buy it, can we just cut them off from medical care? If not, are you going to mandate it and have the government take it out of their paycheck?

Will "national health care" as we've come to perceive it be the answer? Maybe. Maybe not. But what we're doing now is nuts.

Once again, you can't define the problem other than recite alot of mumble jumble that has been writen by those who demand universal healthcare without any hard facts. Should we clearly define the problem?

[vc1111]

That's the question. Everyone is for affordable healthcare. However, what is affordable? Where do you draw the line? Should it be $300/mo and if someone still refuses to buy it, can we just cut them off from medical care? If not, are you going to mandate it and have the government take it out of their paycheck?

Lol, you post this article, presumably because you hope it helps state your cause, then when I question the fact that the author presumes what is affordable or not affordable, you take my question and hope to cling to it as your own? Wow. That was a real epiphany on your part, wasn't it?

Try this on for size...There are not a few dozen people within our numbers who are not insured, not a few hundred, or even a few thousand, there are dozens of millions, FM. If one is to try to mitigate a figure like that by hoping to paint the bulk of them as idiots who opt out voluntarily even though they "could afford" insurance, I would call that, to use your phrase, "mumbo jumbo."

The article you posted is a joke, especially in respect as to how far the idiot that wrote it has to stretch to come to the conclusions he obviously hopes to achieve. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and look at the actual numbers YOU posted on his behalf and think for yourself for a change..

[Phil from Maine]

So how do you do that when today people refuse to pay even $300/month for coverage?

That is dirt cheap insurance you are reffering about.. I pay slightly more than that while the company pays alot more than I do so I can be insured. My mom who is retired pays slightly over $900 a month for herself.. So sent us some of these insurance companies names so we can see if they apply in any of the other states out there as well..

[Fieldmouse]

Funny VC, your a joke. I believe you own a few businesses. Do you do any type of market reseach before you expand or jump into any new areas? I'll ask you again, shouldn't we define the problem better than saying their are "X" amount of people without insurance so lets throw money at it? I believe you said you thought 85 million didn't have insurance. Is that true? I think we should find out exactly what the facts are before we are forced into a goverment plan like medicare, which BTW is bad for millions of seniors.

[blockquote]quote:

So how do you do that when today people refuse to pay even $300/month for coverage? [/blockquote]


That is dirt cheap insurance you are reffering about.. I pay slightly more than that while the company pays alot more than I do so I can be insured. My mom who is retired pays slightly over $900 a month for herself.. So sent us some of these insurance companies names so we can see if they apply in any of the other states out there as well..

Phil, I paidunder $800/month for my whole fanily when I was between jobs three years ago. That wasn't some cheap insurance. That was Blue Cross and Blue Shield with perscription drugs and a $10 co pay. Insurance is out there and it is affordable. Some people need to choose what the want to spend their money on. So I ask you again, do you mandate everyone must buy insurance or if they choose not to, do you cut them off?

[BigTiny]

ORIGINAL: F3d

By raising taxes for a single payer system that puts the burden on the poor folks too. Btw, poor people aren't the only ones that aren't paying. Some of the middle class try to get away from coverage too until they start having problems. The system is a joke. Half the bankruptcies in the U.S. are medical.

And the number one reason why Obama's plan wouldn't work is because it does nothing to stop the nursing shortage and doctor shortage. Actually, he wants to make it worse by employing more preschool teachers on top of the already crummy education system and in other bs.

Btw, what do you propose then since the poor can pay according to that article? Force all of them to buy insurance or let the free market run its course via allowing people to decide whether or not to buy insurance? If it's the latter, what do you do when they do get sick? Tell them to kick the bucket?

As far as I know, the government cannot force you to buy health insurance. They can make you buy auto insurance by nature of your operating on their property(public roads). I don't know how they would justify it within the law. Unless it's part of the Patriot Act that I don't know about.