The Truth About Health Care: Statistics
Health care is among the list of “crises” that the current regime in Washington D.C. hopes to address this year. It has been claimed that their version of health care “reform” is an absolutely vital component of economic recovery and future prosperity – and of course, that it must be resolved at once. But what’s missing from the debate is an objective analysis of the actual facts and the proper dissemination of crucial information needed to make the right decisions, by both the voters and our politicians. In other words, the truth about health care is not being told. Shocking, isn’t it?
The recent push for government intervention and takeover in the health care industry is accompanied by myths and misrepresentations rivaling those of the fraudulent global warming hypotheses. Whether or not these falsehoods are propagated intentionally or as a result of abject ignorance is something each of us can decide after studying the facts and listening to the rhetoric from our politicians and media. Considering the speed and carelessness of Congress and the White House when pushing their agendas and attempting to pass immense legislation, it shouldn’t bee too difficult to realize their objective.
Nevertheless, in order to accurately identify the problem, we must first examine the statistics on health care and insurance, and who is or is not covered or treated under current circumstances.
According to the Census Bureau’s report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, there were over 45 million people living in the United States who were uninsured. On page 19 – where the health care portion begins – a few key revelations are made about who exactly was included in this category and the accuracy of the reporting of insurance coverage:
“They were considered ‘uninsured’ if they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year.”
“Research shows health insurance coverage is underreported in the CPS ASEC for a variety of reasons.”
“Compared with other national surveys, the CPS ASEC’s estimate of the number of people without health insurance more closely approximates the number of people who were uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year.”
This is vital information that needs to be taken into account when analyzing the statistics. Many people who are considered “uninsured” may have only been without coverage for a few weeks or months out of the entire year. A lapse in coverage between jobs may put millions of people in this group when there is no reason to count them as being in need of a federal government plan because they’re assumed to be utterly incapable of finding insurance.
So, right off the bat we come upon a problem in how the total number of uninsured is counted. Essentially, if the study is used to find a specific number of people who lack health insurance on a consistent and prolonged basis, then these findings are wholly inadequate and the figures are greatly misleading.
Furthermore, the claim that 45 million people are “uninsured” does not indicate that 45 million people have no means of receiving medical care. It simply means that a third party is not covering them with an insurance plan. There may be several reasons for these people not having insurance, but that does not prevent them from receiving any medical care whatsoever. Basically, the often-used assertion that 15% of the population cannot receive the health care they need is a gross misrepresentation of the statistics.
Along the same lines of distortion is a stunning and habitually undisclosed stat that holds substantial weight in the health care debate: the fact that nearly 10 million of the alleged 45 million uninsured are non-citizens. Should it be the responsibility of our government – or more accurately, the taxpayers – to provide health insurance for people who are not United States citizens? Add to that the fact that many of these non-citizens are illegal aliens and it defies all logic, and any legal or fiscal sense, to create a program that supports a segment of the population that should not even be in this country. Non-citizens, whether illegal aliens or not, should not be afforded any social benefits at the expense of taxpaying citizens.
Those most likely to be uninsured – and for longer periods of time – and who are indeed the largest percentages of the uninsured in their respective categories are the poor, the uneducated, and Hispanics. Income and education usually go hand-in-hand, so the fact that those without knowledge and without money cannot find or afford health insurance is no surprise. The illegal alien population is likely to fit into one or all of these three categories and contributes greatly to the percentage of uninsured.
In 2007, the Hispanic population earned about 16% less in per capita income than the black population, yet the number of uninsured Hispanics was over 100% higher than the same group – putting the total at nearly 15 million people. Without a doubt, this discrepancy can be attributed to the high percentages of illegal aliens within the Hispanic populace. Nearly 80% of the illegal alien population in this country came from either Mexico or the rest of Latin America. This appears to be reflected in the uninsured statistics.
But despite their citizenship status, over twelve million non-citizens were covered by some form of health insurance in 2007. Nearly ten million were not. It is not the responsibility of a select group of taxpayers to provide health insurance for the rest of these individuals.
If we were to eliminate non-citizens from the number of uninsured, we would be left with approximately 35 million people. However, the definition of “non-citizen” does not include the children born in this country of illegal aliens, who are considered to be citizens by nature of their birth on United States soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. (Although that is an important fact to consider, it is somewhat of a digression from the topic at hand.)
The illegal alien element is just the beginning of the long process to determine who is actually in need of health insurance and whether or not the government ought to provide it.
Nearly 27% of all people between the ages of 18 and 34 (just over 18 million) did not have health insurance in 2007 – assuming the methodology previously mentioned accurately depicts the actual number of people unable to find or afford insurance for the entire year. Approximately eight million were between the ages of 18 and 24. Many people in this latter age group don’t put health insurance high on their list of priorities. To claim that all eight million of these young people desperately want health insurance, but cannot afford it without the assistance of the federal government, is preposterous.
Over 17 million of the uninsured in 2007 had a household income of over $50,000. Slightly over nine million made $75,000 or more. It would be hard to make the argument that all 17 million people in this grouping are in dire need of government support. When age and income are examined, those between the ages of 25 and 34 had a median income of over $51,000 in 2007. Yet, nearly 26% of that age group (over ten million people) was found to be without insurance according to the Census’ figures.
What the Census doesn’t supply statistics for is the number of people who claim to be uninsured but qualify for existing programs, such as Medicaid. It has been estimated that millions of people each year fail to register for government coverage, or even realize that they are eligible for it. We certainly should not create new government bureaucracies and spend billions of additional dollars annually by crafting redundant insurance programs. Surely it would be much cheaper and useful to inform those who qualify that their health care expenses may already be covered by existing government plans.
According to a Kaiser Foundation analysis, Characteristics of the Uninsured (Feb. 2007), 25% of the uninsured are eligible for coverage by either Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but are enrolled in neither of the two. Another 19% earn annual income that exceeds three times the poverty level. Based on just these two statistics, the number of people assumed to be uninsured drops from 45 million to 25 million. In addition, 25.5 million of the uninsured are “childless adults” with about one-quarter of them earning more than three times the poverty level.
The Kaiser study also reveals that 74% of the eight million uninsured children – or six million children – are eligible for coverage, but are simply not enrolled in the programs that would cover them. Eleven million adults who have children are uninsured, but only 57% of these people are both ineligible to receive coverage and considered to be too poor to afford it.
None of these statistics reveal how many of the uninsured spend their income on cable television, home computers or laptops, cell phones, new vehicles, or other luxury items and services, rather than use it to purchase health insurance or to pay for medical expenses.
What can be extrapolated from these statistics is that poor choices by adults lead to health insurance being unaffordable for themselves and their children. The parents cannot afford the children they have or they do not enroll them in the appropriate existing programs to get the coverage they need. Irresponsible decision-making or ignorance should not be the driving factor for implementing a massive new government program that will effectively control one-sixth of the entire United States economy.
For all intents and purposes, the statistics for “uninsured” Americans can be very misleading – and leave it to politicians and many in the media to exploit those figures in order to promote their agenda. However, all statistics aside, the real problem is not how many people are uninsured or who can afford it. The main issue is whether or not the federal government ought to create a new entitlement program at the expense of an already tax-overburdened citizenry and in the midst of a deep recession, especially when other comparable government programs have not reached their full capabilities.
We need our government to slow down and give us a chance to learn the real statistics about health care and insurance instead of cramming thousand-page legislation down our throats that few legislators have even read.
*See also, The Truth About Health Care: Philosophy and Rhetoric
Copyright © 2009 by RationalLiberty.com
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without written permission by the author.
________________________________________________________________
Reader Comments
Statistics are a funny thing. It’s fairly easy to find those that fit your ideas about a certain thing regardless of their validity. Should there only be a few million people who are uninsured (and we’re not even speaking of the underinsured or those who develop catastrophic illness or have a major accident and lose their shirts despite having a decent income)they are entitled (by the Constitution, no less) to expect reasonable health. And that requires health care, and insurance. And do you have Health Insurance?
Elizabeth…
If there are a few million people who are in need of medical care or need some type of insurance plan but cannot afford it, then sure, there should be some sort of program to help them out. But is that the responsibility of the federal government via income-based taxpayer revenues? And please explain to me where the Constitution guarantees good health for every individual and how that translates into receiving an individual, government-funded health insurance plan provided by other people.
Do I have health insurance? Yes. I just recently signed up for it through my employer, who pays half of the premiums. My fiance, however, is uninsured. Were you going somewhere with your inquiry?
Well, I know that statistic are manipulated to prove a point of “interested parties” and I really don’t pay attention to them.
As far as health insurance goes, I am not insured. I am not poor, I am self employed. (which can mean poor at times) A Self employed person can expect a health insurance monthly premium of about $350. Personally, I don’t spend that much in doctor visits in a year, by paying cash, why should I spend that much monthly? Doctor visits also require a co-payment and in case of an emergency or catastrophic illness, the insurance does not cover it 100%. So, I’m paying for insurance, just in case, paying a percentage to the doctors and hospitals and labs, etc. while I could pay my rent on a slow month because I desire a roof over my head.
So, my opinion is that the government does not need to create a new system, but someone does need to justify the existing premiums and medical costs.
MJ,
You are a fine example of why the government has no business trying to force everyone into an insurance plan - or forcing states and business owners to cover those who are currently uninsured. I think our politicians would serve us better if they actually addressed the costs of medical care and insurance. Let’s see some real solutions instead of feel-good, inefficient, economy-killing legislation.
Elizabeth…
“they are entitled (by the Constitution, no less) to expect reasonable health. And that requires health care, and insurance.”
What Constitution have you read? You must have written your own, because nowhere in the United States Constitution does it say you are entitled to reasonable health, health care, or insurance.