PDA

View Full Version : Obama The Phantom Uninsured


HonestChieffan
06-17-2009, 11:06 AM
We are being lied to and stolen from and so few seem to really care. Sad we have fallen so far so fast.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330042258549199

The Phantom Uninsured
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: The administration uses the "46 million uninsured" as a reason to nationalize health care. But the Census Bureau says about a fifth of those aren't U.S. citizens. In fact, a goodly number are illegal aliens.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., last week, President Obama spoke of the need to cover the "46 million people who don't have health insurance." At another point he simply referred to the "46 million uninsured." At neither point did he refer to them as "Americans."

That was wise, because not all them are, the Census Bureau says.

According to "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens.

The Census Bureau does not ask if anyone is here legally or illegally, so we can't tell how many are actually illegal aliens. We do know that throughout the Southwest and elsewhere, emergency rooms have been overburdened by a continuous flood of illegal aliens.

Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more.

The notion that the uninsured are without health care is bogus, as well. They consumed an estimated $116 billion worth of health care in 2008, according to the advocacy group Families USA. Many of the uninsured are young and healthy (40% are between ages 18 and 34) and at this point in their lives, particularly in this economy, choose to put their dollars elsewhere.

Subtract noncitizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, and the number of uninsured falls dramatically. "Many Americans are uninsured by choice," wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care."

Gratzer cited a study of the "non-poor uninsured" from the California HealthCare Foundation.

"Why the lack of insurance (among people who own homes and computers)?" Gratzer asks. "One clue is that 60% reported being in excellent health or very good health."

The uninsured are not always the same people, and many are without coverage only for a relatively short time. Devon Herrick, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, notes that "Being uninsured is a transitory state, since most uninsured Americans are only without coverage for a short time."

Herrick is backed up by the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, which found a few years ago that only 19 million Americans go without insurance for a full year.

If the problem is the high cost of health care, there are private sector solutions the Democrats are ignoring. Some sensible ideas include ending costly one-size-fits-all mandates that drive up insurance premiums and lifting the ban on shopping for coverage nationally, allowing consumers to cross state lines to find the best deal.

Health savings accounts are another practical solution that is being dismissed by the Democrats. An HSA is an individually owned tax-exempt account that can be used to pay for routine treatment, including drugs, dental care and eyeglasses. There are no restrictions on choices of doctors, specialists, hospitals or tests.

People would be not just patients but consumers. Since HSAs are personal savings accounts, they encourage preventive care, since money not spent on illness is money that grows and accumulates. There is both a financial incentive to stay healthy and a nest egg of savings, should major illness arise. HSA funds can be used to pay health insurance premiums during job transition. They are completely portable between jobs.

The issue here is not providing health care, but who controls it. We believe health care is a matter between doctor and patient, not patient and bureaucrat. Obama says his plan is to ensure "that there is an option out there for people . . . where the free market fails."

But the free market has not failed, except when it's been overburdened by overregulation, mandates and litigation to the point that it is no longer free. Bleeding the patient didn't work as a medieval medical remedy. Neither will bleeding the taxpayer and using bogus numbers to justify it.

Donger
06-17-2009, 11:11 AM
It's a power grab, nothing more.

jiveturkey
06-17-2009, 03:06 PM
I couldn't think of a better thread to post this in and I didn't think that it needed it's own thread but I got some interesting news today.

I was declined for individual insurance through BCBS. It's not a huge deal because I'm on a group plan with them and have been for years. I was just trying to save a couple of bucks and go to a cheaper plan. I pay $150/month for the group plan and it's a high deductible plan. The individual plan was originally quote at $75/month and is similar to the group plan in benefits.

In the decline letter they sighted a kidney surgery that I had when I was 8. No issues since.

High cholesterol. I scored a 210 on my last test.

And a deviated septum. Forgot I had it and never experienced any issues with it.

The group plan I'm on has been used once in the last 4 years and that was for a physical. This seems all wrong to me.

Garcia Bronco
06-17-2009, 03:11 PM
I couldn't think of a better thread to post this in and I didn't think that it needed it's own thread but I got some interesting news today.

I was declined for individual insurance through BCBS. It's not a huge deal because I'm on a group plan with them and have been for years. I was just trying to save a couple of bucks and go to a cheaper plan. I pay $150/month for the group plan and it's a high deductible plan. The individual plan was originally quote at $75/month and is similar to the group plan in benefits.

In the decline letter they sighted a kidney surgery that I had when I was 8. No issues since.

High cholesterol. I scored a 210 on my last test.

And a deviated septum. Forgot I had it and never experienced any issues with it.

The group plan I'm on has been used once in the last 4 years and that was for a physical. This seems all wrong to me.

You can appeal and also contact your state insurance commission.

jiveturkey
06-17-2009, 03:15 PM
You can appeal and also contact your state insurance commission.I am. I used a broker so they're doing all of the leg work.

It just seemed weird. Two years ago I go a preferred rate on a life insurance policy.

Garcia Bronco
06-17-2009, 03:18 PM
I am. I used a broker so they're doing all of the leg work.

It just seemed weird. Two years ago I go a preferred rate on a life insurance policy.

It does seem strange, but they lower and raise their coverage ability based on the numbers they need to stay profitable.

Stewie
06-17-2009, 03:27 PM
There needs to be some way for individuals to band together and get group rates. I'm not sure how it would be done, but companies get good rates and employees aren't denied because of pre-existing conditions. All the company has is leverage in numbers. Why can't there be groups of individuals negotiating rates, coverage, etc., with the insurers?

jiveturkey
06-17-2009, 03:28 PM
There needs to be some way for individuals to band together and get group rates. I'm not sure how it would be done, but companies get good rates and employees aren't denied because of pre-existing conditions. All the company has is leverage in numbers. Why can't there be groups of individuals negotiating rates, coverage, etc., with the insurers?
I like the sound of that.

DJ's left nut
06-17-2009, 03:31 PM
There needs to be some way for individuals to band together and get group rates. I'm not sure how it would be done, but companies get good rates and employees aren't denied because of pre-existing conditions. All the company has is leverage in numbers. Why can't there be groups of individuals negotiating rates, coverage, etc., with the insurers?

There are private companies that do just that.

I don't recall their names, but my understanding is that many companies exist that look to pool individuals together. Granted, you'll still pay a little more than you would have had to if you just freelanced a bunch of neighbors together because you have to pay for the pooling company, but it will still saves you enough money through negotiated rates that you'll come out well ahead.

Garcia Bronco
06-17-2009, 03:50 PM
There are private companies that do just that.

I don't recall their names, but my understanding is that many companies exist that look to pool individuals together. Granted, you'll still pay a little more than you would have had to if you just freelanced a bunch of neighbors together because you have to pay for the pooling company, but it will still saves you enough money through negotiated rates that you'll come out well ahead.

The problem with those group pools is the administrator isn't considered an insurance company and not regulated.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2009, 04:44 PM
There needs to be some way for individuals to band together and get group rates. I'm not sure how it would be done, but companies get good rates and employees aren't denied because of pre-existing conditions. All the company has is leverage in numbers. Why can't there be groups of individuals negotiating rates, coverage, etc., with the insurers?
Well if the self-employed could form such a group I don't see why others can't.
http://www.nase.org/Home.aspx

wild1
06-17-2009, 05:22 PM
I had no idea the numbers included non-US citizens. If they want health care, go back to your home country.

I knew it included people who are frictionally uninsured, and not structurally uninsured. This would be a person who is changing jobs and has a gap in benefits (and thus has coverage available but chose not to purchase it) or who is temporarily out of work, but normally gets it from his/her employer and does not need communist health care either.

It's patently absurd to act like people who have employer insurance today will be better off, or that these uninsured who are not in need of permanent help will be better off. The actual number of people who would be better off is very small.

wild1
06-17-2009, 09:55 PM
dropping like a rock

SBK
06-17-2009, 10:39 PM
Mike Tanner points out (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/16/if-you-have-health-insurance-today-you-can-keep-it-or-not/) that the Congressional Budget Office released its initial scoring (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10310) of the health care bill, concluding that it would result in roughly 23 million people losing the insurance they currently have.


This was only moments after Obama said no one would lose their insurance. Oops!

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/17/obamacare-on-the-rocks/

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

HonestChieffan
06-18-2009, 06:35 AM
Devil is in the details.

So far everything Obama has enacted has been lacking the focus on details and their projections are a joke.

Remember the stimulus was going to hold unemployment to under 8%...wrong. Obama hisownbadself admitted it will be 10% by year end.

How can anyone believe anything he says at this point?