Both President Bush and Senator Kerry -- and every other politician I know of -- claims that there's a health care crisis. Setting aside the fact that everything is a "crisis" to whatever politicians stand to gain by trying to fix it, is health care in America really so bad? According to the National Center of Policy Analysis, Americans have more health insurance than ever, and those without insurance are generally uninsured by choice.
The NCPA analysis found that households earning $50,000 a year or more account for about 90 percent of the increase in the number of uninsured over the past 10 years. And almost two-thirds of that has occurred among households earning more than $75,000 per year.So of that 1.4 million increase, a majority can afford health insurance and simply choose not to buy it.The NCPA was reacting to a Census Bureau report released Thursday, which said the number of people with health insurance increased by 1 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, while the number of people without health insurance increased by 1.4 million to 45 million.
Since 1993, the number of uninsured in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased by almost 128 percent. By contrast, the number of uninsured with annual incomes below $25,000 fell by an estimated 15 percent.That doesn't sound like a crisis to me. This isn't a tragedy, and the "crisis" is based largely on the assumption that everyone should have and should want to have health insurance, when those assuptions are clearly false. There probably are some people who genuinely can't afford insurance and don't qualify for existing programs, but they're probably a tiny part of the total number of uninsured. (And many of them are probably illegal immigrants.)"Being uninsured in America is often a matter of choice," said Herrick. "Most uninsured people either can afford health insurance or qualify for government-sponsored health care programs; they just choose not to enroll."
(HT: Link via Roger Hedgecock... but I check CNSNews daily anyway....)
The larger problem with health insurance isn't necessarily a matter of the have's and the have-not's... but of those who can afford it.
Health care costs are rising dramatically. No, it's not just "med-mal" that's driving up costs.. and no, it's not just insurance companies... but both of them do play a part in this much larger puzzle.
We spend more on health care, per capita, than other developed countries.. even those with national health insurance.. and yet we're below the median among developed countries in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality.
So, the point I'm trying to make is yes.. there are indeed problems with our health care system... most of them being with the costs associated with it. Is it a "crisis"? Maybe.. maybe not. It's all a matter of perspective.
Is life expetancy a good measure for the quality or availability of health care? The folloing factors will give you a lower life expentency even if you could afford millions for your own personal hospital and staff: smoking, obesity, lifestyle (scuba, skydiving, etc.), and many other factors. Comparing life expetency with "other developed nations" isn't a meaningful comparison of health care, especially if you point out aht "below the mean for deveoped nations" means the U.S. is only a few years below the leader - not 10 or 20.
Our infant mortality number counts the huge number of illegal aliens who come here to have children so they will have U.S. passports. They should be counted with third-world country Mexico, not the U.S. But since they come here one month before delivery with poor nutrition and no prenatal care, it's not surprising they lower the U.S. number.
stafWhile indirect, it certainly isn't a direct corr
Look, I'm basically on your page politically, but I find your scare quotes around crisis offensive. Herrick is full of shit. I am 50 years old, self-employed, own a home free & clear thanks to holding a great job previously, have a child in college, and am without health insurance NOT because it's my choice, but because the cheapest local *&^%$#@!! HMO wants $11 k a year for us and one child! That represents over 1/4 of my annual income.
It is not a crisis now, because none of us are sick. But if anything expensive happens, we lose the house. Period. I don't want Uncle Sugar to provide us health insurance, but I want smug, health-insured experts like Herrick to stop painting smiley faces on the situation and show us how to get out of it. I'm sure a limit on punitive damage awards and an end to quintuple medical testing would be a fine start.
N: If you own a home free and clear then you should be able to borrow against it to buy health insurance. In a way, you'd be insuring your house, as you indicate, by insuring your health. Also, $11k per year sounds a bit high to me, do you smoke or have other risk factors?
Anyway, I agree that tort reform would go a long way towards solving the health care "crisis", such as it is. Those aren't scare-quotes, I'm using them to indicate that I'm quoting others, not characterizing my own views by using their term.
Michael,
Health insurance costs are going to go up as a function of time (unless Congress enacts reform on factors driving them up), so spreading the costs by borrowing against the house is out of the question.
The HMO is Kaiser. I don't smoke. They examine for risk factors and either charge a standard fee schedule based on age or refuse coverage. Blue Cross and Providential charge more, where I am, anyway, than Kaiser.
I withdraw my umbrage at your quotes on crisis; I agree that politicians overuse the word. However, for those who are neither too poor, irresponsible or the two words you mentioned earlier, "crisis" is not much of an overstatement for the constant nagging knowledge that a single non-traffic accident (since car insurance coverage includes hospitalization) could be financial disaster.
I wish I could be more hopeful that the Stupid Party will rein in the lawyers.