STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.
This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.
To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.
The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.
The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.
Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.
Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.
The New York Times > Log In
If you are tired of all the right-wing lies....check the facts:
FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root - Yahoo! News
Fact #1: THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.
Fact #2 : THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.
Fact#3: THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
I doubt that the calculated estimate of the uninsured included illegals when it was done.
BWG said:Notice it says foreigners, not illegals.
One of the first arguments from those in opposition to this reform was that the number of uninsured include...*gasp*...foreigners, when clearly Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. said 'Americans'. These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient. Where are these people supposed to go when they get sick? Back to Vietnam? Brazil? Indonesia?
From the census bureau on the uninsured
If you were to make a huge assumption and said that every 'not a citizen' was an illegal it would still be short of 10-12 million, but then that would leave no room for all the other 'not a citizen' living in the United States from all the other countries in the world.
I addressed this also. While I agree that some can afford to buy health insurance, but for what ever reason refuse to do so. However the article made the sweeping assumption that everyone that made over X amount could afford insurance, without investigating as to the why. They may have been refused insurance because of a preexisting condition, they may have a child with an uninsurable condition, who knows. They made claims based on.....well really....nothing!
I doubt that the calculated estimate of the uninsured included illegals when it was done.
I think it's quite telling how the followers can tell us what's not going on, but don't have a clue about what is going on.
Indeed. Funny how they all know how it's going to turn out when the President himself doesn't have all the details... Then again, that's never stopped HIM from opening his mouth before.
Yes, it absolutely would. That's probably the best part of the plan.
Any government plan, just like any private insurance, involves decisions of cost-efficiency. If there is a 95 year old person in poor health develops a cancer that will kill them in 5 months, the government plan will not (or at least should not) pay for an expensive cancer drug that will expand that prognosis from 5 months to 10.
That is the very definition of government making end-of-life decisions. And it's completely okay.
No problem!!!! just borrow $2,000,000,000,000 from the Chinese.
Oh wait.... they are divesting themselves of our dept as we speak.
I got it!!!! Just print more money.
If one reads it and adds to it things that aren't actually there.HR3200
The article is wrong. The language is there--sugar-coated and glossed over--but it is still there.
Still no proof eh?buck said:Regardless - take the low-end, there are 10 million illegals. Obama still claims it is a moral imperative to insure the 47 million uninsured.
Who said anything about considering illegal immigrants 'Americans'?RightinNYC said:What? In what world are illegal immigrants considered "Americans"? I'll grant you that it's a closer question when it comes to people who are permanent residents/on certain visas, but it's absurd to pretend that illegal immigrants should be considered "Americans" for the purpose of convincing people that we need health care reform (which won't cover them anyways).
Of course the illegal immigration population is estimated, but since your first article gave no figures let's take the second one (Pew's). Their estimate is 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants. 59% or 64% (take your pick) of that figure falls well short of your estimate of 10-12 million.RightinNYC said:...One study indicated that 64% of illegal immigrants did not have health insurance. Another study indicated that 59% did not have health insurance...
In the aforementioned earlier discussion you did make a sweeping accusation without exceptions. And no it's not clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.RightinNYC said:I'm not citing any article to prove anything other than the numbers I provided. It's true that there may be some reasons why someone making more than $75k is unable to get insurance, but I think it's clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.
RightinNYC said:Of that 35 million, approximately 9 million are people who have household incomes of over $75k. These are not people who are unable to get health insurance, these are people who are uninsured either by choice or by their own action.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/healt...stry-parasite-our-country.html#post1057975668
Sort of like Haliburton (sic) in Iraq?
The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.
Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating? | FactCheck.org
Please show me in the bill where this senerio will take place? This is an assumption that has never been proven.
Who said anything about considering illegal immigrants 'Americans'?
These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient.
The Census Bureau says nothing about illegals.
The CNS article, along with many others, are using the argument that since President Obama and others use the term uninsured "Americans", rather than the term "people" - the term the census bureau uses - when describing people in the United States without insurance therefore the report breakout that shows that 9.7 million people are "not a citizen" and should be deducted from the total amount of uninsured.
My point is why are the foreign born not inclusive in the uninsured population of the United States?
Foreign born (both naturalized and not a citizen) and nativity breakout is used by the bureau in most all studies and cited by just about everyone imaginable.
When talking about Income and earnings of Americans..."not a citizen" is used.
When talking about Americans in poverty..."not a citizen" is used.
When talking about a population of 300 million Americans..."not a citizen" is used.
Why exclude them from the ranks of uninsured? Political convenience?
Of course the illegal immigration population is estimated, but since your first article gave no figures let's take the second one (Pew's). Their estimate is 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants. 59% or 64% (take your pick) of that figure falls well short of your estimate of 10-12 million.
In the aforementioned earlier discussion you did make a sweeping accusation without exceptions. And no it's not clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.
To you and all those who thanked your post, learn english.HR3200
The article is wrong. The language is there--sugar-coated and glossed over--but it is still there.
According to your source those making 75K that are uninsured is at 7.8%. For whatever reason they don't have insurance one of which is obviously that it may very well be a single income family with stay at home parent looking after many kids.And I stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of uninsured people earning more than $75k a year are uninsured due to their own actions. I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. My apologies for not including the "vast, vast majority" disclaimer in my earlier statement.
Alright, drop 10million illegal immigrants, somehow 37million then just becomes fine and dandy?Because it's an out and out lie to say that there are 47 million "uninsured Americans" when a large portion of that number are not Americans. Plain and simple.
Alright, drop 10million illegal immigrants, somehow 37million then just becomes fine and dandy?
As you had noted given that it really shouldn't matter than what is the argument you're making?
That doesn't mean that it's not still an important issue, but it's important that all sides are coming from the same place.
I even pointed out that you made a note of that. I lurked through the thread and found your pointing out a difference of 10million to be immaterial to the broader scope of the facts.Reread this thread and link me to where I said anything like that.
I thought I made my position fairly clear when I said:
Should they be more politically correct and use 37million to get the factual basis across? Is it any different be it 47 or 37million? I think the underlying fact that there are a hella lot of people that can not afford insurance and the fact that there are a hella lot of people that have insurnace and still can't afford the co-pay or they are underinsured in itself makes any 10million figure completely immaterial.RightinNYC said:My problem is with people lying and using false and misleading numbers to try to scare the public into supporting something.
I even pointed out that you made a note of that. I lurked through the thread and found your pointing out a difference of 10million to be immaterial to the broader scope of the facts.
Should they be more politically correct and use 37million to get the factual basis across? Is it any different be it 47 or 37million? I think the underlying fact that there are a hella lot of people that can not afford insurance and the fact that there are a hella lot of people that have insurnace and still can't afford the co-pay or they are underinsured in itself makes any 10million figure completely immaterial.
I can agree with the philisophical principal of being as accurate and factual as one knows. However 10 million in the case in which you bring up is a distraction to the bigger and far more pressing problem that a hella lot more people are ****ed - particularily the underinsured.
BWG said:Who said anything about considering illegal immigrants 'Americans'?Since when did the term foreigners come to mean illegal?RightinNYC said:You:
BWG said:These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient.
Are you seriously trying to interject other studies involving illegal immigrants into the census report that many people refer to?RightinNYC said:Are you seriously trying to argue that the 9.73 million uninsured "foreigners" in the census report are all legal immigrants, despite the fact that both of the studies I linked to indicate otherwise?
As lazy, sloppy and disingenuous as Ms. Seymour's article is, even she doesn't refer to the immigrants noted in the census bureau report as illegals.
It's not a lie when people commonly use the term Americans interchangeably with the term People that the census bureau uses in their reports. That's why I gave some examples of the way people use the term Americanswhen talking about people that include foreigners in other census reports.RightinNYC said:Because it's an out and out lie to say that there are 47 million "uninsured Americans" when a large portion of that number are not Americans. Plain and simple.
[...]
Actually, I think that you'd find that most detailed reports clearly distinguish between the poverty rates of "Americans" and the poverty rates of people living in America. The fact that most reporters or people are imprecise in using the terms or describing things doesn't make that any less true.
Clearly people are using the census report as the source for uninsured people in the United States, the fact that the term Americans is used interchangably with the census use of the term People is seized upon by some people to discount the number of uninsured people in this country to support their political agenda.RightinNYC said:Because they are not Americans. I can't believe that you're arguing that politics are the reason why I'm arguing that they shouldn't be included, when it's so clearly the other way around.
Do you think, when people are referring to the population of the United States say - We have a population of 280 million plus 20 million non-citizens.RightinNYC said:Let me put it this way - Do you think Obama would ever get up at a podium and say "When you include non-citizens, there are 47 million uninsured Americans."
I don't think so, but I have heard the population referred to many times as '300 million Americans'
The only reason I even acknowledged the illegal estimations was to show that they don't fit the census report. You cite 20 million. The census bureau's breakdown of the population of the United States include 21 million non-citizens.RightinNYC said:So now that you acknowledge that the minimum figure is 7 million, we can move from there. I would argue that Pew's figure of 11.9 million is a significant undercounting, mostly due to the fact that they're basing their growth figures on numbers from 2000, when all indicators are that immigration increased rapidly from there. Bear Stearns produced a report (PDF) that detailed all the reasons for this and which estimated that the number of illegal immigrants is close to 20 million. I would be inclined to say it's closer to 15, but that still puts us back at the 10 million figure.
Beyond all that, does it really make much of a difference if the number of illegal immigrants included in Obama's "47 million uninsured Americans" number is 7 million or 10 million?
So by your reasoning - that is that the census report includes the illegals - that would only leave 1 million legal immigrants from around world, from Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America or North America living in the United States.
You claim that there are 10 million uninsured illegals, but the census report states that there are only 9.7 million uninsured non-citizens. That's less than the estimated uninsured illegals and we haven't even begun to count all the uninsured immigrants from around the world.
The estimated illegal figures don't fit the census report.
I don't doubt that you do stand by your assertions, that doesn't take away from lazy, sloppy articles written by someone (and referred to over and over) that just took figures from the census report and made a sweeping declaration, with out any type of investigation into why they are uninsured...RightinNYC said:And I stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of uninsured people earning more than $75k a year are uninsured due to their own actions. I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. My apologies for not including the "vast, vast majority" disclaimer in my earlier statement.
Julia A. Seymour article said:But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.
How many non-citizens are counted in both the non-citizen breakout and the above $50,000 breakout? Are some being brushed aside multiple times?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?