The JLF posts their misguided take on the Health Affairs study that I previously mentioned. Their bias against the uninsured is palpatible and remember...
The uninsured? We used to call them the working class.
The Health Affairs article found that...
We found that 24.7 percent of the uninsured are eligible for public health insurance programs, 55.7 percent are in the “need (financial) assistance” category, and 19.6 percent are likely to be able to afford coverage on their own. There is much variation in this distribution across population groups, with 74 percent of uninsured children being eligible for existing public programs and 57 percent and 69 percent of uninsured parents and childless adults, respectively, being in the “need assistance” category. Consequently, absent a universal coverage solution, a range of policies will be needed to address the problem of uninsurance.
Only a conservative would read those numbers and think that the private system is working well.
Let me start with an exhortation from Dr.Steve over at DailyKos, who is also a PNHP member.
ALL THE OTHER WESTERN CAPITALIST DEMOCRACIES
EVERY SINGLE ONE
...has SOME form of universal health coverage for their citizens.
Only the United States does not.
They differ from each other in how they do this, and the mechanisms
and details do matter...
Canada is different from the U.K., is different from France is
different from Germany, Japan, Australia, etc.
But only the United States does not have something.
Now, on to the JLF clap-trap.
Who is uninsured
...This leaves 56 percent in a category the authors describe as needing assistance to afford coverage. Even without the overly broad definition of those who “need assistance,” this is good news.
Hear that? It's good news. Those people that die each year because the United States is the only advanced country without national health care? That's good news. Our high rates of infant and child mortality? That's good news.
At face value, this means that we should not talk about the 46 million non-elderly uninsured, but the 25 million or fewer uninsured who lack either the ability to pay or who do not qualify for medical welfare.
There it is folks, the welfare mom meme. Let's review the stats on who ISN'T insured in this country.
They work, often for small companies. About 78 percent of people without health insurance have at least one full-time worker in the household. Half of uninsured people either work for a business with fewer than 25 employees or have a family member who does.
The working class, that is who he is degrading as needing welfare. The working class = Welfare at the JLF. Remember that next election season.
But there is a problem with the authors’ definition of affordability. They use annual premiums of $4,000 for individuals and $10,000 for families as their baselines. Even at three times the federal poverty level, the authors note, these premiums would take 13.8 percent of income for an individual and 17.9 percent of income for a family of four.
The average new car costs $27,800. Not everybody drives a new car, and those who do can choose a Nissan Versa to save money.
Right! You folks just aren't buying that low-cost insurance that is available everywhere.
Despite government attempts to drive up prices by limiting interstate competition and mandating benefits, individuals can still find insurance for less than $1,000 a year. This would be less than 4 percent of income.
I dare him to find concrete examples of "people" who can find insurance for less than $1000 a year that covers anything other than catastrophic illness. At most you are going to get a policy with a $5000 deductible or greater. This isn't health care, it's health insurance against tragedy. That is the kind of policy that Massachusetts will be selling a lot of, now that everyone has to have insurance.
Before we add more government to health care and health insurance, let's try cutting back on government's role.
Yeah, because that has worked so well before!
We need to do away with these people that think 25 million uninsured, dying individuals is okay. They are wrong and they are immoral. To them, insurance corporation dollars are much more deserving of protection than uninsured children, than uninsured adults, than the uninsured working class.