Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So 57% of the unisured have incomes below 250% of poverty level, in other words below $55,125 for such a family. Considering someone just said on another thread that in some places $250K is "scraping by" (LOL), I think this is a pretty low income. Other studies have found that about 65% of the uninsured are involuntarily uninsured.
The basis for your argument is that the amount they make for too many is "scraping by" but that depends on where you live vis a vis cost of living. More of the poorer areas have a lower cost of living (and I'm speaking of the biggest expense here which is housing). In San Francisco, housing cost is very high but living standards are very high and you would have many making way over 250% in poverty level, but are they more able to buy the insurance then some family in rural Oklahoma where housing is cheap? Everything is relative and using a poverty level is not a perfect basis for deciding affordability of healthcare but certainly areas that have lower income have lower cost of housing and coincide with lower cost in most things including healthcare.
Your own study says that only 57% are involuntarily uninsured, not 65%.
"They find that at least 43 percent of Americans in the 18–64
[LEFT]year-old age group have incomes at or above 2.5 times
the poverty line, indicating they likely have the means to
obtain healthcare coverage and thus may be classified as
“voluntarily” uninsured."
and again some of those involuntarily uninsured are illegal immigrants, children who would qualify for Medicare, etc...
As well this makes assumptions based solely on income, without factoring in private charity, family charity, whether they are older and maybe paid off their mortgage so the ratio of income to expenses is different, number of children, spouse's income or insurance, etc...
I also have a personal problem with those numbers because I think they are more based on a person's ability to afford healthcare without sacrficing other purchases. When I was in my early 20's, I worked long hours at a pizzeria paying my way through computer college, I could have afforded health insurance but took my chances and declined to buy it, instead paying more for my education, a little bit better place to live and a trip to see relatives. It was my free choice and it is others free choices. [/LEFT]
Yeah, you had a doctor already and your doctor didn't stop treating you when you went on Medicare. That's why it worked for you.
1. I'm not parsing and dodging anything. I know how the system works.
2. You seem to be ok with the idea that a family should have to lose most of what they have in order to get Medicaid coverage and get access to medical care. There are many who think that's one of the biggest problems with our system.
Families that pay more in taxes will definetely be able to afford less of what they have if they are forced to pay more for health insurance that they may not decide they want.
In this country, the "poor" have a lot bigger priorities than health care for their families. Drugs, liquor, nice cars, nice clothes, expensive athletic shoes, and lots & lots of lottery tickets-------all of these are a "must have"!
I was poor once, but I chose not to pay for healthcare insurance so I could afford my education, and it worked out in the end.
What you say is certainly true of some poor people, perhaps even most but a stereotype is not going to win over the doubters.
ever consider that people are denied insurance who want it? Because cigna needs to pad their earnings.
They can pad their earnings by offering insurance at higher rates for those who would use it more, just like you are charged more for car insurance if you aren't a great driver. People have choice though, they can forgo the insurance and buy straight healthcare when they need it.
Even if you viewed the current healthcare "reform" as something desirable, it is unaffordable. It costs over $850 billion per year (and rising fast) for health coverage of the 100 million people who are on Medicaid and Medicare. Though we can safely assume that older people use healthcare more, nevertheless it would still be well over $1 trillion per year to insure the other $200 million people with government insurance.
So why on earth would you even consider paying for that, when with the size of the deficit right now and over $11 trillion in debt, you can't even afford to pay for the current Medicare and Medicaid programs?
The basis for your argument is that the amount they make for too many is "scraping by" but that depends on where you live vis a vis cost of living. More of the poorer areas have a lower cost of living (and I'm speaking of the biggest expense here which is housing). In San Francisco, housing cost is very high but living standards are very high and you would have many making way over 250% in poverty level, but are they more able to buy the insurance then some family in rural Oklahoma where housing is cheap? Everything is relative and using a poverty level is not a perfect basis for deciding affordability of healthcare but certainly areas that have lower income have lower cost of housing and coincide with lower cost in most things including healthcare.
Your own study says that only 57% are involuntarily uninsured, not 65%.
"They find that at least 43 percent of Americans in the 18–64
year-old age group have incomes at or above 2.5 times
the poverty line, indicating they likely have the means to
obtain healthcare coverage and thus may be classified as
“voluntarily” uninsured."
and again some of those involuntarily uninsured are illegal immigrants, children who would qualify for Medicare, etc...
As well this makes assumptions based solely on income, without factoring in private charity, family charity, whether they are older and maybe paid off their mortgage so the ratio of income to expenses is different, number of children, spouse's income or insurance, etc...
I also have a personal problem with those numbers because I think they are more based on a person's ability to afford healthcare without sacrficing other purchases. When I was in my early 20's, I worked long hours at a pizzeria paying my way through computer college, I could have afforded health insurance but took my chances and declined to buy it, instead paying more for my education, a little bit better place to live and a trip to see relatives. It was my free choice and it is others free choices.
Math is not my strong suit and I apologize for the math error.
I agree that the study I linked speaks only to income. It does not investigate how many of the so-called "voluntary uninsured" do not in fact have employer provided health care. Private insurance is expensive. A family of four with an income of $55K would have a hard time paying $12K per year in insurance, this being about the going rate for family coverage. Even at an income of $120K, this is 10% of one's income.
You are lucky that your free choice worked out for you. Many are not so fortunate. Although people in their 20s are generally healthy, anyone can get sick at any time, especially if they engage in any high risk activities such as speeding, skiing and other "extreme" sports, drinking and driving, etc.
Families that pay more in taxes will definetely be able to afford less of what they have if they are forced to pay more for health insurance that they may not decide they want.
We shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. We should have national health care and everyone should have medical care -- not insurance -- when they need it.
We shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. We should have national health care and everyone should have medical care -- not insurance -- when they need it.
We should not be forced to pay income tax. Everyone should pay their own bills.
In this country, the "poor" have a lot bigger priorities than health care for their families. Drugs, liquor, nice cars, nice clothes, expensive athletic shoes, and lots & lots of lottery tickets-------all of these are a "must have"!
We shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. We should have national health care and everyone should have medical care -- not insurance -- when they need it.
Then you are forced to pay for government healthcare. It comes to the same thing, you are still forcing people to pay for that which they may not want to use.
With over $11 trillion in debt, the real debate should be about how to curtail the incredible cost rises in Medicaid and Medicaid fraud and curtailing the costs to Medicare with an aging population and the pending funding bomb coming up with the baby boomers retiring.
Pondering paying for everyone else, especially a segment of the population (which as the study shows) is largely self-sufficent when it comes to healthcare EVEN among the uninsured, should not even be thought of as a possibility let alone have a chance in hell of passing.
It's a bit like seeing your maxed out credit card bill at the end of the month that you can't even pay off and then deciding that the kind of "change" you need to do is buy something new and larger.
Jeez, you know I always thought as an Ohio moderate I helped keep this nation sane, especially after voting out Repubs to punish them for their free spending ways and now we have Dems spending crazy amounts more and worse calling it "change"...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
