Poverty down, non-insured up to 16%

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Good news / bad news here.

Poverty down in absolute numbers, but 16% of the population is uninsured health-wise. The underinsured are not included in that figure. Private health insurance is at the lowest number in 20 years.

Pre-election year fodder.

[brewer12345]

So are you not poor if you can maintain a reasonable standard of living except for being shut out of the health insurance game?

[FinallyRetired]

16% is bad enough, but when one looks at those at the bottom of the rung, the figures are daunting.

Per the article,
- We have 8.7 million uninsured children under 18.
- 26.9% of those between 18 and 25 are uninsured.
- 20.5% of blacks are uninsured.
- 31.4% of hispanics are uninsured.

And, in the face of all this, the insurance lobby still insists we don't have a problem -- even when the overall uninsured rose almost 5% in one year.

[bright eyed]

you're not poor if you're uninsured until you have a health crisis...then you're bankrupt!

[brewer12345]

Fred made a very astute observation about the healthcare mess:

"
It seems to me that the underlying question is not that of socialized medicine but rather: What is our attitude as a nation toward people who are not very smart? Who furthermore are culturally impoverished? Who are among the substantial fraction of Americans who can barely read?...

...
It’s different to Mary Sal Wooten in a decaying trailer somewhere on 301 South, with her retinas peeling like wallpaper from diabetic retinopathy, ankles swollen and darkening toward gangrene, and the hospital won’t take her because it isn’t an emergency and she can’t afford her medicine. Really, truly no-**** can’t afford it.
What do we do with people like her? People who just flat can’t handle the complexity of today’s world? It seems to me that anyone who wants to think about socialized medicine has to answer that question before starting...."

Whole thing at Fred On Everything

[Leonidas]

As passionately as you all are about this topic I am hesitant to post a reply to this thread. It seems about as much fun as rubbing myself with bacon and jumping over the fence to play with the guard dogs at the local junk yard. But I'm honestly undecided on this issue.

I read the Fred column that Brewer posted and felt that he oversimplified it to somewhere way beyond ridiculous.

In Fred's world there are the insured and the uninsured, the brilliant and the near-retarded, the quick and the dead.

Quote:

It seems to me that the underlying question is not that of socialized medicine but rather: What is our attitude as a nation toward people who are not very smart? Who furthermore are culturally impoverished? Word-crafters of my acquaintance rail against Hillary for supporting socialized medicine. They seem to think that the beneficiaries of the program would be people like themselves, only shiftless. “I studied and worked my way up and made something of myself, and I take care of myself. Why don’t these lazy bastards to the same?” Easy. Because these of my friends have IQs averaging in excess of 140, while the lazy bastards (who in fact are neither) check in at maybe 90.

I'll be honest and admit that I have a decent health plan in retirement - and after being on this board for a while I am acutely aware of what a really great thing that is. I used to whine and complain about my HMO's cost and policies, but not now, not after seeing how it is for other people. And, mostly as a result of reading what others have posted here, I believe that there are people like Mary Sal Wooten rotting away in her trailer, and that such things are a national tragedy that should be addressed. (OMG, an opinion changed)

But I've never believed that the situation was all black and white, have or have not, smart or dumb, generous people or “Screw’em, I ain’t paying a cent" people. I've always thought there was a middle ground, but never knew how many people lived there.

Examples would be DW's oldest brother and sister. Both self employed and can make good money when they try but have never been world-beaters. Neither are dumb, both attended at least a couple of years of college, and both are adept business people - although not very ambitious. There are both cases of "I want to support my lifestyle but I don't want to work too darn hard for it." Both were irresponsible with financial matters in the past and took their lumps. One learned and the other didn't. Oldest brother got health insurance in his late 40's - "It sucks what it costs but it's stupid to not have it." He had to work harder to pay for it, actually started budgeting and being careful with money. Oldest sister never learned, has some health problems but refuses to get insurance - "It's too expensive, I can't afford it." But she manages to take vacations several times a year, trades corvettes every few years, etc. Her BF is the same way (although he's a better business man and harder worker) with a very good income and no insurance - "Screw that, I'll take my chances on not needing it and put my money to work elsewhere." He usually tries to negotiate health care payments on the few occasions he has needed something done.

What would Fred say about these people?

So like I said, while I know that there were people like BIL, SIL and her BF, I never had a good feel for what percentage of the problem they represented until I read the report from the Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

On page 21 are the figures for the uninsured by select characteristics, and near the bottom they are identified by household income. I was a little surprised to see that nearly 16 million of the uninsured are in households making more than $50,000 a year. I thought, hey some of those people might live in high cost of living cities. But I was stunned to see that 9.3 million of them are in households that are making more than $75,000 a year.

Go ahead and tear the flesh from my bones gang, but I have to believe that most of the people in that 9.3 million are not the intellectual and social dregs that Fred was talking about. Most of them have to be saying "Screw it, I've got better things to do with my money."

[brewer12345]

Just to play devil's advocate:

Suppose you live where I do (central NJ) and make $75k. Sounds like a lot, right? Well, maybe you actually take home $60k after taxes, or $5k a month. Now, monthly expenses:

RE Taxes: $500
Mortgage: $1500
Utilities, phone, etc: $400
Food, family with 2 kids: $600
Car Expenses: $500
House Upkeep: $200
Clothing, toiletries, incidentals: $300
Entertainment & misc.: $500

We are up to $4500 a month on a fairly bare bones budget and likely forgetting some things. That is with no retirement savings, short term savings, any unexpected happenstances, kid education and other expenses, etc. A health insurance policy for 4 would be at least $1200 a month, likely more than that.

[Martha]

Leonidas, I agree things are rarely black and white and there are those who have no sense and don't want to spend money for insurance they can afford. Most of the people in that category are young people who feel invulnerable. Heck, when I was college age I frequently went without health insurance.

As people get older, the cost of non-group insurance goes up and the risks of being declined or rated up increase. From what I have read, this is a rapidly increasing problem as insurance and medical costs increase.

When I consider possible solutions to health care insurance I have come to the conclusion that coverage needs to be mandatory. This can be done through subsidized insurance through a plan somewhat like Senator Wyden's plan or can be done through national health care. Otherwise, you end up with a young person without insurance who gets hurt, ends up in the emergency room, is treated, and has no money to pay, raising costs for everyone. Or sad situations like all the people who have borderline jobs with no benefits who can't afford insurance. And you get people like your sister's siblings covered whether they want it or not and whether they want to pay for it or not.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Just to play devil's advocate: Suppose you live where I do (central NJ) and make $75k. Sounds like a lot, right? Well, maybe you actually take home $60k after taxes, or $5k a month. Now, monthly expenses: RE Taxes: $500 Mortgage: $1500 Utilities, phone, etc: $400 Food, family with 2 kids: $600 Car Expenses: $500 House Upkeep: $200 Clothing, toiletries, incidentals: $300 Entertainment & misc.: $500 We are up to $4500 a month on a fairly bare bones budget and likely forgetting some things. That is with no retirement savings, short term savings, any unexpected happenstances, kid education and other expenses, etc. A health insurance policy for 4 would be at least $1200 a month, likely more than that.

What I am seeing in that budget is a mortgage (+RE tax) payment of $2K/month, with another $600/mo for utilities and home upkeep. That is awful on a $75K salary!

I make a little more than you, but here's my budget in New Orleans (where cost of living is much lower):

RE Taxes+insurance: $200
Mortgage: none (paid off), used to be $800 P&I
Utilities, phone, etc: $150
Food, family with 2 kids just me: $300
Car Expenses: $30/mo for gas
House Upkeep: $100
Clothing, toiletries, incidentals, entertainment, yardman, gym, misc: $300/mo
Entertainment & misc.: $500

I am SO glad that I don't live in NJ!! I don't see how people up there can ever retire. Must be awfully difficult. I live in a nice, 1558 square foot home in an upscale neighborhood very close to my job. I have a BCBS group policy at work that costs me $110/mo but is taken out before taxes, so that is equivalent to $72/mo.

My daughter is one of the uninsured, as a young, struggling IT person working on contract in Portland, Oregon. I worry about her.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire What I am seeing in that budget is a mortgage (+RE tax) payment of $2K/month, with another $600/mo for utilities and home upkeep. That is awful on a $75K salary!

Yup. But it works for some of us, because being in this very high cost area gives me access to one of the largest, deepest, and most lucrative labor markets in the world for what I do. But I have an ugly commute because even I cannot afford to live materially closer to work.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire I make a little more than you, but here's my budget in New Orleans (where cost of living is much lower):

For clarification, I think Brewer makes a lot more than the $75K he used in his budget example, which he was using just for illustration.

[FinallyRetired]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Want2retire here's my budget in New Orleans (where cost of living is much lower): RE Taxes+insurance: $200 Mortgage: none (paid off), used to be $800 P&I Utilities, phone, etc: $150 Food, family with 2 kids just me: $300 Car Expenses: $30/mo for gas House Upkeep: $100 Clothing, toiletries, incidentals, entertainment, yardman, gym, misc: $300/mo Entertainment & misc.: $500

Pretty cheap. The DC area where I live is comparable to NJ, if not more. For two of us, RE taxes and insurance about $400, utilities and phone $400, food $500, more now that MIL is living with us. Gasoline would be huge except we don't commute any more.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas Go ahead and tear the flesh from my bones gang, but I have to believe that most of the people in that 9.3 million are not the intellectual and social dregs that Fred was talking about. Most of them have to be saying "Screw it, I've got better things to do with my money."

Sadly, all attempts to help groups with economic or social issues are plagued with the need to sort the deserving from the greedy/lazy/irresponsible. Health care is no different.

I have mixed feelings. DW and I personally benefit from having good, privately paid health coverage and live in a metropolital area where healthcare resources are excellent. It's hard to believe that a universal/public plan would be as good for us as what we have now. On the other hand, we realize there are many who find themselves in circumstances where having health coverage is impossible and we are very empathetic to their situations. We also realize that circumstances sometimes change and we could find ourselves in need of health coverage as well.

It's a tough call........

[Eyerishgold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha When I consider possible solutions to health care insurance I have come to the conclusion that coverage needs to be mandatory. This can be done through subsidized insurance through a plan somewhat like Senator Wyden's plan or can be done through national health care. Otherwise, you end up with a young person without insurance who gets hurt, ends up in the emergency room, is treated, and has no money to pay, raising costs for everyone. Or sad situations like all the people who have borderline jobs with no benefits who can't afford insurance. And you get people like your sister's siblings covered whether they want it or not and whether they want to pay for it or not.

No. No. No. This is the United States of America. We are not a socialist nation. We have certain unalienable rights as citizens of this fine country. Namely, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. We do not have the "right" to healthcare. Insurance is a product, like a car or a can of tuna. I don't want the gov't telling me which car to buy or that I need to have tuna. I certainly don't have the "right" to a can of tuna. If I can't afford the tuna than I don't eat the tuna. It doesn't get much more simple than that. No matter how much I "need" the tuna, I won't get it if I don't have the money to buy it. Should I be provided with a can of tuna at the taxpayers expense because the choices I made in life lead me down a path to where I couldn't afford the tuna on my own. I think not.

[FinallyRetired]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyerishgold No. No. No. This is the United States of America. We are not a socialist nation. We have certain unalienable rights as citizens of this fine country. Namely, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. We do not have the "right" to healthcare. Insurance is a product, like a car or a can of tuna. I don't want the gov't telling me which car to buy or that I need to have tuna. I certainly don't have the "right" to a can of tuna. If I can't afford the tuna than I don't eat the tuna. It doesn't get much more simple than that. No matter how much I "need" the tuna, I won't get it if I don't have the money to buy it. Should I be provided with a can of tuna at the taxpayers expense because the choices I made in life lead me down a path to where I couldn't afford the tuna on my own. I think not.

While we're at it, lets stop govt funding of schools, roads, defense, police/fire, dams, etc. Why should the govt tell me what road I need to take to get from point A to point B? Let those who can afford it dig their own roads, teach their own kids, fight their own fires, provide their own water, and defend their own families!

[Eyerishgold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonToRetire While we're at it, lets stop govt funding of schools, roads, defense, police/fire, dams, etc. Why should the govt tell me what road I need to take to get from point A to point B? Let those who can afford it dig their own roads, teach their own kids, fight their own fires, provide their own water, and defend their own families!

First of all, I think schools should be private and not funded by the gov't. Look at all the controversy surrounding what should or shouldn't be taught in school. Sex ed, good or bad? Evolution or creation? All those issues are avoided with private schools, where if you don't like the curriculum, you take your tuition money to a different school. Or, you home school your children and teach them the values and lessons you want them to learn and not what some bureaucrat thinks they should.

Here in Illinois we have toll roads instead of freeways so you pay your way if you choose to use certain highways.

Look, I know this is a hot button issue. I realize that taxes and gov't funding of certain programs is necessary. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars toing to pay for services that I use. After all, I may need the fire dept. or the police dept some day and I certainly use roads. What I don't want is my tax dollars going to pay for a service that I will never use and that doesn't provide me with any benefit.

Most people need to stop relying on the gov't to provide everything for them. Take some responsibility for your lives.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyerishgold First of all, I think schools should be private and not funded by the gov't. Look, I know this is a hot button issue. I realize that taxes and gov't funding of certain programs is necessary. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars toing to pay for services that I use. After all, I may need the fire dept. or the police dept some day and I certainly use roads. What I don't want is my tax dollars going to pay for a service that I will never use and that doesn't provide me with any benefit. Most people need to stop relying on the gov't to provide everything for them. Take some responsibility for your lives.

ummm so i guess you have no need for a reasonably educated work force? who can find/succeed in jobs that feed the economy, their family, pay for services so the govmt doesn't have to provide them as much?

using a "only what i literally use" philosophy - and defining it so narrowly is a bit short sighted no?

the government programs that encourage people into certain fields would also disappear, perhaps resulting in shortfalls in critical areas such as nurses, scientists, etc...

so a child born into a poor family shouldn't have the opportunity to a good/great education or health care because for whatever reason, their family doesn't make enough money to pay for private school or insurance?

OR
the economy would totally have to shift around and in lieu of paying more taxes, then businesses would have pay higher wages which their employees could then pay for these services...

i don't see how you could both have poverty level wages (cheap labor) and no govmt supported services.

[Eyerishgold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bright eyed ummm so i guess you have no need for a reasonably educated work force? who can find/succeed in jobs that feed the economy, their family, pay for services so the govmt doesn't have to provide them as much? using a "only what i literally use" philosophy - and defining it so narrowly is a bit short sighted no? the government programs that encourage people into certain fields would also disappear, perhaps resulting in shortfalls in critical areas such as nurses, scientists, etc... so a child born into a poor family shouldn't have the opportunity to a good/great education or health care because for whatever reason, their family doesn't make enough money to pay for private school or insurance? OR the economy would totally have to shift around and in lieu of paying more taxes, then businesses would have pay higher wages which their employees could then pay for these services... i don't see how you could both have poverty level wages (cheap labor) and no govmt supported services.

I'm a staunch Libertarian. I believe that government's role in my life, and yours, should be extremely limited. I believe that I should be free to choose what I do with the money I earn. I don't believe I should pay for somebody else to have health insurance. I believe people should be responsible for their own lives and not rely on the government to provide for them what they can't, for whatever reason, earn.

I went to public school and I come from a bottom rung middle class household. There were a few times where paying for food meant getting the phone cut off until my mom's next paycheck came in. I mention this so you know that I'm not some spoiled brat born with a silver spoon and a "screw the wretched poor" attitude.

I simply believe that we have the opportunity, whatever our backgrounds, to make something of ourselves and not have to rely on the fruits of others to provide us with something we can earn/do/afford ourselves.

[Beststash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eyerishgold I'm a staunch Libertarian. I believe that government's role in my life, and yours, should be extremely limited. I believe that I should be free to choose what I do with the money I earn.

I admire your attitude. As long as you are consistent in your beliefs - does government have a purpose?? If so - what?

I personally think that the public health and welfare is just as important as our defense or education system. I don't think that the majority of the working public is asking the government to pay for their healthcare. I think the issue is affordable healthcare that we can afford and not line the pockets of our capitalist insurance friends.

As much as we spend on healthcare in this country we should expect more for our dollar. I think a "single-payer" system would easily pay for universal healthcare for everyone. Simple - just cut out the middleman and pass on the savings to the public.

Peace

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beststash As much as we spend on healthcare in this country we should expect more for our dollar. I think a "single-payer" system would easily pay for universal healthcare for everyone. Simple - just cut out the middleman and pass on the savings to the public. Peace

That would be good, but unfortuantely it doesn't work out that way in practice.