| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Summary of 45 mill Uninsured
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 3:36:12 PM
|
We keep hearing from our political class that we need to completely overhaul our health insurance system because 45 million are uninsured. Well here are some interesting facts about these 45 million uninsured that came right of a Census Bureau report (2006 figures which are the latest they have).
9 million are not U.S. citizens
6 million are already eligible for government heath but voluntarily do not participate
8 million are between the ages of 18 and 24 and many can obtain coverage but choose not to
8 million earn over $75,000 per year
75% of all uninsured individuals will be covered under a health insurance plan within 12 months
1/3rd of those covered by private insurance health plans voluntarily decline coverage and do not obtain it elsewhere.
What all these facts point to is that the true number of uninsured that could use some government assistance is a fraction of the 45 million being tossed around to justify this government takeover of 1/5th of our national economy. Of course these inconvenient truths will never see the light of day in the government media. Now the bigger question is whether Obama is intentionally lying to pass his socialist agenda or is he simply clueless like Joe Biden.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Summary of 45 mill Uninsured
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 3:37:47 PM
|
I would bet the former.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Summary of 45 mill Uninsured
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 3:52:26 PM
|
MM, you know that if the media presented the info like that, it would not be beneficial to achieving the goal. I know far too many younger people who choose NOT to have health insurance because it would weigh too heavily on their lifestyles. They often are also the same ones who carry a tremendous amount of credit card debt and IF they buy homes, they do so with 100% financing. BTW, what is the deal with the 100% USDA loans, and how many other Government programs are there that are doing the same?
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Summary of 45 mill Uninsured
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 4:25:31 PM
|
Please post link to the Census site. I could not find this info and would like a link to it.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Lady Research Dept
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 4:45:18 PM
|
Lady: Always a pleasure to be your research department. The portion on uninsured begins on page 18. You can find this with google or bing.
"Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006."
Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica Smith
US Census Bureau, Report No P60-233, August 2007
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Speaking of HC Stats
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 4:49:26 PM
|
I know that y'all are envious that I'm actually getting the AARP newsletter (LOL), but I'll share with you this information.
Souce is the latest AARP Newletter. The Source for the Poll is Kaiser Family Foundation Poll, April 2009
In the past 12 months, because of cost, did you or a family member in your home do any of the following:
42% Relied on hojme remedies or OTC drugs rather than go to see a Dr.
36% Skipped dental care or checkups
33% Put off or postponed needed health care
27% Did not Fill a prescription for meds
18% Cut pills in half or skipped meds
8% Had problems getting mental health care.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
And this
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 4:59:38 PM
|
Same edition of AARP Bulletin:
"Politicians, industry lobbyists and reform advocates say that areas of agreement are:
1. People who already have insurance through their employer will be able to keep it.
2. Everyone will be required to have health care. (They cite 46.7% who have no health insurance.)
3. Health care costs are rising too fast and will have to be controlled. (Some key industry organizations - drugmakers, Drs. and insurers ahve pledged to help reduce the rate of increase in health spending by 1.5% a year, which adds up to $2Trillion over the next 10 years.)
4. The insurance industry needs a major new federal regulation.
(primarily in the area that insurance companies will not be able to decriminate against insurance applicants with pre-existing conditions).
5. The quality of HC needs to Improve. Starting with medicare, they intend to pay medical providers for the effectiveness of their work not just the volume. "We need to give Drs. bonuses for good health care outcomes, so we're not promoting just more treatment but better care" Obama told the AMA. (No word on how this would be done).
Medicare's Part D doughnut hole should shrink. (Obama announced that an agreement with the durg industry that would cut prescription drug prices by half, with an eye to close the gap by 2023.
URL: http://bulletin.aarp.org
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
AARP
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 5:00:55 PM
|
Hound, are you aware that AARP is an insurance company and not your trusted statistical proof source. Also, I'm sure you know that AARP is just slightly to the right of o-BAMA, very slightly.
|
Yes. The thing is the statistics come from Kaiser. I'm just passing along the information. I don't know how large the sampling size was or if it was a cross section of the population. I'm not all that impressed with statistics, because numbers can be manipulated any way you want. If I wanted to make it more favorable, I could reverse the numbers and state it positively.
But don't forget, AARP also has a huge lobby. Lots of people over the age of 50 probably gets the same newletter/bulletin.
For the record. I'm skeptical about health care reform. I'm one of the lucky ones who has always had health care. I know people who don't, but I don't think that their numbers are a statistically signifigant sample.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
AARLP
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 5:25:11 PM
|
They should be called the AARLiberalP given their stance on many issues but it seems that they are just passing along someone else's poll stats. Would be interesting to see the internals, methodology, sample population, etc. Since 85% of Americans currently have health insurance I really wonder about these results. This is one organization I will never join but there is no doubt they have influence in D.C. and pay dearly for it.
One important point that is indisputable from socialized medicine in every country that has it is when they talk about controlling health care costs it ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS equates to rationing.
On another note about this debate, perhaps Hound can explain to everyone that despite what Obama says there is no Federal Employees Health Insurance "Plan". I don't know why he keeps saying he wants us to have the same "plan" as Congress and Federal employees. There is no such thing. Federal employees simply have access to a very large number of provided plans that range from ultra cheap, low benefits that cost around $8K per year for a family to more expensive plans like Blue Cross/Blue Shield that cost closer to $13K per year for family coverage. He constantly equates the FEHIP to his proposed single-payer plan and that is an outright falsehood. They are not the same.
|
Didn't join AARP -- it's more like they joined me when I turned 50.
You are right -- there isn't really a Federal Employees Health Care Program, although it is called that. It is an opportunity to pick from a wide variety of plans including HMOs, and at a variety of levels at costs negotiated by the government. I forget exactly how many plans there are, but I know there are at least 30. So essentially an employee can decide how much they want to spend. (They can also opt out). When you work for the government, the government subsidizes some portion of the premiums (but not all). When you retire, you can still participate, but with no government subsidy.
I can't really say what a "single payer" program is, because I'm not sure how that is defined.
When he says that he wants people to have the same kind of "program", I'm assuming that he wants to put in place some kind of program that would allow people to participate in group coverage with a variety of choices. I'm guess that the government would subsidize some level of payment. But, I don't know because I haven't seen any details of what they propose.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Snopes Says You're Wrong
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 5:43:48 PM
|
Just kidding :)
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Lady Research Dept
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 6:08:51 PM
|
Yup, I found it. But I'd like to know where you got your summary. Below is another summary:
Overall Findings from the New Census Data
The new Census reports find that 47.0 million Americans were uninsured in 2006, an increase of 2.2 million over the number of uninsured in 2005 (44.8 million). Although it has been five years since the 2001 recession, the number of uninsured Americans has continued to climb and is more than 7 million higher than when the recession hit bottom that year.
The percentage of Americans without insurance climbed to 15.8 percent in 2006, above the 15.3 percent level in 2005 and considerably above the 14.1 percent level in 2001. The percentage of Americans without insurance has increased largely because employer-sponsored insurance coverage has continued to erode.
People with low incomes are much more likely to be uninsured. Some 25 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2006, almost triple the 8.5 percent rate among people with incomes over $75,000.
The percent of full-time working adults who lack health insurance rose to 17.9 percent in 2006, up from 17.2 percent. The number of full-time working adults who are uninsured climbed by 1.2 million, to 22.0 million.
African-Americans (20.5 percent uninsured) and Hispanics (34 percent) are much more likely to be uninsured than non-Hispanic whites (10.8 percent). The percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics who are uninsured rose in 2006.
Non-citizen immigrants were much more likely to be uninsured (45 percent uninsured) than native-born citizens (13 percent). The percentage of both native-born citizens and non-citizen immigrants who are uninsured increased in 2006.
Unlike in prior years, the Census Bureau has not yet published data that show the extent to which health insurance coverage has changed at the state level. Because of technical revisions, analysts should be cautious in making comparisons to previously published state estimates.
Sounds a bit different, I'd sy.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Whew!
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 9:43:14 PM
|
I figured if snopes said the census bureau was wrong that was it! I mean what chance does a government agency with 100,000 employees in non-census years have agianst some guy and his wife on a computer in their kitchen?!?!? :-)
|
| Name: |
HARRY
-
|
|
| Subject: |
AARLP
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 10:19:46 PM
|
If Obama's planned insurance program requires any contribution at all he will have accomplished nothing because a vast majority of those not covered now will not participate if it cost them a cent.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not different in the least
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 10:29:17 PM
|
You focused on entirely different pieces of information from that census report and nothing you put contradicted what I wrote. You simply reported different information from the same report. Big deal. Point out where the FACTs that I pulled from the report are incorrect.
If you have some point you want to make that contradicts what I pointed out have at it. But pulling a bunch of other information from the same report and acting like it contradicts me is inane.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Research??
|
|
Date:
|
7/8/2009 10:35:45 PM
|
Gee, where does Medicaid fit into your statistics. Many, many, minorities, illegals, and other low income or non-working folks enjoy full health coverage through Medicaid, yet your stats don't seem to categorize this group, which amounts to a huge percentage of those o-BAMA says don't have insurance. They've already got full coverage and they pay nothing for it. We pay for their care now through taxes and cost shifting by providers.
Even without Medicaid this group crowds into our emergency rooms to get care for FREE.
Where's the truth, don't know, but it's not in your statistics.
|
| Name: |
lazarous
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Research??
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 7:18:33 AM
|
I peersonally don't care how many illigal aliens are uninsured and think it is crazy that they get to use the ER's of this country as primary care centers. They want government healthcare, go back to Mexico.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Medicaid
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 8:46:46 AM
|
Does Medicaid still exist? I wonder if they have lumped that in with Medicare, which I would think would put those in the same group as "covered". And what about that program that would give children health care. Some kind of government program?
You are right about them crowding into the Emergency Room. I experienced it first hand. But, although the Hospital has to treat them, don't they still have to pay (in cash)?
I confess, I don't know much about the options open to the working poor.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I've been trying to figure out
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 8:53:16 AM
|
How they will "require" people to have insurance. I can understand if you are working -- it'll be another deduction like taxes, but what about the people who don't work?
And you are right, it's unrealistic to think that if someone is opting out now, that they will pay in the future.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Medicaid
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 8:56:34 AM
|
If you go to an ER (or Dr. office) with an emergency you must be treated regardless of your ability to pay. Those with insurance who go to an ER for a non-emergency - like a cold or ingrown toenail (don't laugh) that does not meet medical emergency criteria, are generally sanctioned with higher liabilities. Those with no insurance - well we are sanctioned for their lack of payment.
|
| Name: |
lazarous
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Medicaid
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 9:38:21 AM
|
Does Medicaid still exist? That shows how out of touch you are with mainstream America. Yet you spout off like you know everything.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Medicaid
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 9:42:38 AM
|
Hound, I'm surprised at your statement about Medicaid. You mean you voted against Bush without complete knowledge of what you're voting for. Medicaid is alive and well and costing the Feds and States a fortune. Along with your welfare check, food stamps credit card, and SSI, eligible "Democrats" get a Medicaid Card that provides complete health care (w/o health club membership).
Tennessee calls it TennCare, CA may call it MexCare (don't know), but it exists and is one of the largest budget items on most states' budgets. Congress demanded it, states and Feds have to pay for it. Health care providers routinely shift their Medicaid and Medicare losses to us by raising prices. Your savior, o-BAMA, is so smart that he wants the Feds to now have to pay the cost shifted losses in addition to Medicare and Medicaid. Smart ain't he.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So it's a State Program?
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 10:46:22 AM
|
I know in VA there was a program called WIC, which was for women and children, and I always assumed it was tied into some sort of "welfare" program. I know it had to do with food, and I had heard that there was some kind of health care program for women and children or maybe just children.
Like a lot of people, I'm still trying to learn about the whole of health care. I'm afraid I'm one of those people who have always had it, and have probably buried my head in the sand. I had to make a trip to the ER one night and got to see first hand that the place was jammed with what appeared to be Hispanics who appeared very ill. In fact, I was anxious to get out of there because I was afraid I was going to get something worse than I went in with. And I did notice that my health insurance card got me into treatment faster.
My decision to vote for Obama didn't have anything to do with health care.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So it's a State Program?
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 11:37:48 AM
|
It's not a state program, it's a federal program mandated on the states and funded by both. It is the scurge of the health care industry with cost shifting it's primary purpose, as well as keeping the "Democrats" on the dole.
You have previously stated that you voted "against George Bush". Bet you'll be sorry.
|
I actually voted FOR GWB twice. I voted AGAINST McCain. I can live with myself.
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I stand corrected.
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 3:35:04 PM
|
Hope you will vote against o-BAMA next time.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We'll See if the GOP
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 6:04:12 PM
|
can find a reasonable candidate between now and then -- or how badly Obama has disappointed me.
|
| Name: |
au67
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We'll See if the GOP
|
|
Date:
|
7/9/2009 6:51:50 PM
|
How can Obama be a disappointment to you if your vote was simply against McCain?
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We'll See if the GOP
|
|
Date:
|
7/10/2009 9:06:01 AM
|
Because I'm sort of an idealist at heart (a cynical one, though).
I want to believe in the great leader who will lift the country up -- the way Reagan did after Carter.
I don't expect the government to solve all the country's problems, but I like positive thinking. That's what appealed to me about Obama.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Indiana Lakes
»
Hardy Lake
Login
|
Home
