(h/t Aron in the Essential Reads – this one is worth highlighting on its own.)
The Census Bureau released a report this week, and it does some mighty powerful damage to the whole “47 million uninsured Americans” line we keep hearing from politicians. You know – those 47 million poor, down-on-their-luck, hard working American citizens who, according to Hillary!, Barack, and Johnny we need to pay for insurance for?
Well, that’s not exactly the whole story, according to the Census Bureau. They released some rather interesting facts – the two most important in my opinion being the following:
Just as Mitt Romney found in Massachusetts, a large portion of citizens who don’t have insurance can afford to have it, they just choose not to and then mooch off the system, which guarantees them care at the taxpayers’ expense. Reforming that system and making those people get their own insurance to stop living off the taxpayers’ dime was a large part of the RomneyCare plan in MA.
And according to Investor’s Business Daily, “a major reason for the uninsured “problem” is our failure to enforce our border.” Now that we have concrete evidence that the health insurance “crisis” in this country is in part directly linked to illegal immigration, any politician wishing to be taken seriously on the topic of health care had better be strong against illegal immigration as well.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:19 am
One way of fixing it would be to stop requiring doctors to give healthcare to everyone.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am
John Stossel’s been writing some good columns about health care lately.
If you haven’t been reading those, you should.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Excellent points Matt. You are right – many uninsured simply elect not to have insurance. Probably gives them more cigarette & beer money contributing to that major health care issue a few year down the road that we all can pay for.
Hearing liberals talk about this, they’ll mislead by saying “47 M without healthcare.” The won’t use the term insurance. Fact of the matter is they all have health care anyway as no hospital will refuse any emergency.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Those figures alone don’t exactly tell the whole story.
A person who makes 75000 without insurance is more than likely self employed to some degree or another.
75,000 a year brings you two about $6250 per month. Subtract taxes (and remember self employed pay more on SS taxes) your left with say about $5000 a month. The average home price today is across the board is 230,000. With todays 30 year fixed at 6.41% you would have a loan at $1400.17. But that is best case scenario, since the average credit score would probably land someone in the mid sevens that mortgage would probably land you around $1600.
Suddenly 5000 a month is now down to 3200 a month. Subtract utilities around 4-500 a month, food at $500 for a famiily of four (avg. 2 kids) and gas of $200 amonth we are now down to $2000 amonth. Kids aren’t cheap especially school age and up. Soon you have sports, clothes, entertainment etc and you are down to 1500 a month. Now add in saving 10% a month which would be the only way you could afford a downpayment on a house you are left with $880, Add in Property taxes, car insurance, life insurance a car payment, saving for kids college expenses, Christmas, Birthdays, pretty soon the money is gone. Thats $0 a month of disposable income.
I just looked at Ehealthinsurance.com and found the average family of four in superior health would cost anywhere from $300-900 for a health plan depending on types of coverage. But what family of four is in superior health? Very few, that is why it is why they are superior. What if you have a kid with ADD, diabetes, your overweight, your wife needs hormones, etc.?
The fact is, even at 75,000 health insurance is not affordable.
I am not saying that socialized health insurance is the answer, because it is most definitely not, but these facts don’t necessarily mean people can afford the insurance. In reality Romney’s plan of lowering insurance prices through the free market, coupled with tax credits and innovation on the state level in there health programs is really the only viable option if we want to use government to ensure all citizens have equal access to health care.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Jason,
How about including your hypothetical person’s spouse’s salary? That could be an extra $30,000 to $75,000 your not including here. Most women work nowadays.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Also, that hypothetical person made a choice to be self-employed.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Americans are too compassionate to adopt the stance of denying health care to people who desperately need it. Access to emergency rooms is given to anybody with a medical need whether they can pay for it or not. This invites freeloaders to take advantage of everybody who pays (or more than pays) their own way. I used to be more libertarian on this issue than I am now and believed that if somebody who can afford medical insurance has other priorities, that’s their business. But in libertarian philosophy, the flip side of freedom is responsibility. Ayn Rand used to say that the reason a person doesn’t have a right to a refrigerator is because it presupposes someone else’s obligation to provide them with one. Shouldn’t this apply to health care? While we can reject a single-payer system out of hand for many specific reasons, as well as the general proposition that socialism doesn’t work (and hasn’t in health care systems in other nations), a system similar to the one proposed by Mitt is a rational compromise. And if it staves off the adoption of a single-payer system, which is coming if the Democrats keep winning elections, it will save America from a disaster of epic proportions.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Nicholas,
Actually the 75000 was household income not individual.
You are right though people do make choices that put them where they are. I am not proposing state paid universal health insurance, but I do say getting Romney’s plan passed is much more likely than getting 9,400,000 people jobs that offer health insurance in addition to the salary they already make.
Also I think it’s not quite true to say if you make 75,000 and don’t have health insurance it’s because you are irresponsiblke.
I do agree that cleaning up the immigration problem would go a long way to helping our health care system.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Jason
If you prioritize….you will BUY health insurance. It is about the most important thing to have when you get married! All those things you stated before can be eliminated or put off for the future so you are insured. We had NOTHING!! But we did have health insurance and a color TV, and a crib for our baby!! You can have a lot of things if you really want them. Americans need to think about what is important, and maybe those dance lessons and big scteen TV can wait.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“A person who makes 75000 without insurance is more than likely self employed to some degree or another.”-Jason
It didn;t seem to be household in your scenario. Nor do I believe the article referred to the 20% who make over $75,000 a year as “household income.”
August 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
What I want to know is how much of the uninsured total is made up of healthy young males under 40 who simply don’t think they need health insurance.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Here is an interesting video of a family who lives DEBT FREE on $35,000 a year. If people have the will, they can afford insurance on $75,000 a year
http://www.yahoo.com/s/663944
August 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“utilities around 4-500 a month, food at $500 for a famiily of four (avg. 2 kids) and gas of $200 amonth ”
Dude, I don’t know where you live, but you need to move somewhere cheaper. We’re not strict budgeters, but don’t spend anywhere near this much (and we own 2 SUVs).
“Now add in saving 10% a month which would be the only way you could afford a downpayment on a house.”
I thought you stipulated that they already had a house at the median mortgage price? Saving is great and all, but they’re already investing in their house monthly (and this lowers their tax rate), and I’d prioritize health care way above savings, personally.
“Add in Property taxes, car insurance, life insurance a car payment, saving for kids college expenses, Christmas, Birthdays, pretty soon the money is gone.”
Look, I don’t want to quibble about this — quite frankly saving for college isn’t necessarily the smartest thing to do given modern financial aid and the substantial equity you’d build in the house by the time they’re ready to go to school, but the bottom line is that a low-end cost health insurance policy costs about twice what a two pack a day smoking habit costs. And I know an awful lot of people who support a two-pack a day smoking habit on a hackuva lot less annually than $75K. If you want something badly enough, you generally figure out a way to get it.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hey people,
No one is saying it can’t be done. It can. I don’t make that much and wala, I am debt free and live with in my means, self employed. I have no car payments no credit card debt and I pay as I go in cash. Not only that but I spent year in my church working with 20 families and counseling them how they can live on their budget while avoiding welfare.
We can quibble over budgeting and priorities etc. but all I am saying is that 75,00 per household is not a fountain of money. Not everyone without insurance who makes 75,000 is spending it on cigerattes and Beer. It takes some very strict budgeting and absence of bad luck. I do it on less.
There is a need in the US to find Health Care to be more economical and still meet the needs of the industry to be profitable and expand research. Romney’s plan does it.
But labeling people who don’t have health insurance and who are making an income of 50 or 70,000 a year as a loafers on the system is not very helpful and frankly misses an honest opportunity to asses the situation.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
cwpete sez: “You are right – many uninsured simply elect not to have insurance.”
Who are they? Oh yeah, sorry; you mean all the uninsured CHILDREN here in the US who elect not to have health insurance so they can buy cigarettes and beer. No wonder we have terrorism with snot-dripping freaks writing all this self-absorbed crap on the internet.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Additionally, 27% of the uninsured aren’t even American citizens
good news for hillarycare fans and moderate socialists. Romney was (and is?) down with insuring these people provided they have a good financial sponsor.
Boston Globe:
The House overturned four of the vetoes during the afternoon and then returned in the evening to override the remaining four, including a provision to give MassHealth coverage to so-called “special status aliens,” legal immigrants who have come with the sponsorship of an individual who agreed to be financial responsible for them.
Romney said the law should take into account the financial status of the sponsor. The House overrode the veto by a 137-19 vote.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Nicholas, actually, the household income of 75,000 is about right when you consider that the national average of an American family is about $70,700. This link is old in that it was last year, but you get an idea: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm
August 30th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Hmmm. Dare I say it? Yes, Romney was right. Maybe we SHOULD listen to somebody who has actually tackled this problem.