Democrats twist the facts on "44 million uninsured Americans." Don't be mislead?

Question

Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to the health-care debate in this country probably knows that there are "44 million uninsured Americans." The figure was all but shouted from the rooftops during the recent Cover the Uninsured Week. It is standard boilerplate for John Kerry's stump speeches. Hillary Clinton, in her recent screed, was unwilling to round off the number: "Some 43.6 million Americans are uninsured, and the vast majority of them are in working families."

The existence of the 44-million figure is a tribute to Benjamin Disraeli's quip that "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." If one accepts the Current Population Survey's numbers (the source for the 44-million statistic), there are in fact closer to 35 million uninsured Americans. Over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens.

Yet there is good reason to be skeptical of the CPS's numbers. The CPS is intended to measure the number of people who have been uninsured for an entire year. One problem with the CPS statistic is that it includes both those who are insured for a short time and those who are chronically uninsured (defined as being uninsured for at least a year). Many people go without insurance for a few months often as the result of being between jobs. The CPS statistic of 44 million does not make that distinction.

Another drawback is that CPS asks respondents to recall their insurance status over the last twelve months, increasing the probability of sampling error due to respondents' memory lapses. Last year a paper from the Congressional Budget Office contrasted the CPS with two other surveys, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). MEPS and SIPP track their respondents every few months, so the error due to memory lapse should be minimized. Interestingly, MEPS reported 31 million chronically uninsured, while SIPP reported only 21 million.

Yet even the numbers reported by the MEPS and SIPP surveys overstate the number of uninsured. Some respondents who receive Medicaid may say they are uninsured because of the stigma associated with the Medicaid program. Studies suggest that this may result in an undercounting of the insured by 12 to 15 percent. According to the CBO, "the number of non-elderly people who are enrolled in Medicaid at any time during the year could be undercounted in population surveys by about 4 to 5 million."

Another wrinkle occurs in the definition of the uninsured. There are many people who are eligible for Medicaid but are not enrolled in the program. Some argue that they should be counted as uninsured, while others argue that they should not. The latter group seems to have the stronger case, since such people can receive Medicaid coverage retroactively for health-care expenses. At present, there is no exact data on the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. The most recent study, from 1994, estimated that about 2.9 million children who were uninsured were eligible for Medicaid.

Finally, it is important to note that, according to the SIPP survey, over 18 percent of the chronically uninsured say that they have gone without insurance because either they have not needed it or do not believe in it. When the various factors are accounted for, it is possible that the true number of the chronically uninsured is 12 to15 million.

Does the actual number matter? Either way, one might object, there are still millions who lack health insurance. Actually, it matters a great deal, because those who are most likely to tout the 44-million-uninsured statistic also tend to be the advocates of wholesale reform of the health-care system, usually of the government-run variety. A larger number gives their arguments more weight.

Second, understanding the actual magnitude of the problem gives us better direction in terms of policy. Of those chronically uninsured, the vast majority are poor, but over 60 percent are under the age of 35. Thus, the uninsured may be a largely healthy population that could afford to purchase health-care in a more consumer-driven system. Indeed, many of those currently purchasing insurance with health-savings accounts were previously uninsured.

Whatever the solution, we should not let inflated statistics lead us into adopting misguided health-care policies.

Answer 1

I would be one of those uninsured but I get health care through my church. I know a lot of other people who do the same. And there are a lot of college students who are technically uninsured but can recieve health care through the health dept. and through their school.

Answer 2

What an idiotic message. As long as one person in the richest country in the world cannot afford health care it is too many.

We have a huge problem in the United States, whether it involves 20 million or 200 million. The bottom line against reform is money--not money that it will cost the government, the taxpayer, but money health insurance companies will not be able to make. It is about profit. Check out the HMO system that some of the "insured" are unfortunate enough to suffer.

Earning a living healing the sick is noble. Making money on the suffering of others is a crime. Let's get health care back to being a noble quest rather than a gold mine for non-medical vultures.

Answer 3

This is the reason we can not depend on government to put this type of program in place because how do they put together the numbers to decide the bill costs when it is reviewed by congressional committees. As with things like SS and Medicare the initial estimates were way off and thus the current costs are so high to what they were to be. This is the one program we can not do that with since coverage of all Americans for a program this immense will be unbelievable.

Answer 4

I fail to see your point. It doesn't matter whether there are 21, 31 or 44 million uninsured. Our current system of health care is more expensive than many can afford, chiefly, because of the greed of insurance companies and other non-medical industry hangers on. Since it is unlikely that these companies will voluntarily reduce their profits to a reasonable level, it's up to the government to force them to.

Answer 5

Lets just say we agree to disagree. I think we are LONG overdue for a wholesale reform of our so-called health care system. I have had enough consumer driven systems. I don't believe the Republican led privatization campaigns are in the best interests of the American people, but the do serve to look after the interests of a wealthy few.
God knows you have no belief in a social safety net. Its like having another go at the Guilded Age.

Answer 6

Although I value all the information you probided, I have to wonder - "Where's the question?"

Still, I will star your "question" if for no other reason than so I can find it again quickly.

Could you provide links, please?

My sister-in-law & I were discussing this just the other day.

She said "I think we need universal health care because there are so many people like my husband who don't have insurance."

I responded, "Well, like so many people, he needs to get a JOB!"

I love my brother but out of the past 40 months, he's been employed for only 10 months!

Answer 7

I have to disagree with you on this one. I have talked to many insurance companies and they have told me there are million that cannot qualify for Insurance because of 1.Diabetes ans 2. Smoking. Now one cannot cure diabetes but can quite smoking although they want proof you have not smoked in 5 years. i cannot get Private insurance accuse i am a diabetic.I cannot qualify for Medicaid because i have more than $2,000 in the bank. Now you tell me what i am supposed to do.I am one of millions with this problem.We are not all losers. I take offense with this question.

Answer 8

I do not question the numbers. I question the reasons each of those Americans have for being uninsured. I question what percentage of those uninsured want the government in healthcare. I question our society's seeming fear of death. I question the motivations behind people who want the government to get into healthcare. Mostly, I think it is an abuse of the US Constitution's separation of powers, for the federal government to get involved in healthcare.

Answer 9

You're right, we should continue to allow health care and insurers to bilk us out of billions while they turn down things they are going to pay for. You sir, in my opinion are one of the most anti-American people on here. You left out one word in your avatar, republican. It is people like you I will draw my last dying breath to oppose.

Answer 10

You know, I have seen your other questions on here your bigotry towards any Democrat. You go beyond reason and head straight towards your idiotic thoughts. Get real and ask something worth while.