Who are the uninsured, 2009 edition

posted at 9:30 am on September 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Census Bureau released its annual income, poverty, and health insurance survey (2008) yesterday, giving both sides new numbers to use in the health-care debate.  ObamaCare advocates can claim that the number of uninsured rose in the year, which it did, from 45.6 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008.  Opponents of the administration’s efforts can point to the increased numbers of Americans covered by insurance (255.1 million, up from 253.7 million in 2007) and the wider coverage of existing government programs — which increased by almost 5 million to 87.4 million people in 2008.

The focus will fall on the breakdown of the uninsured.  What comprised the 46,340,000 uninsured, according to the Census Bureau?

  • 35.2 million are in families, and 10.7 million are single
  • 21.3 million are white, 14.6 million Hispanic, and 7.2 million black
  • Just over 30 million are between 25 and 64 years of age, while 7.3 million are children
  • Almost all of them are in major metropolitan areas (39.2 million)
  • 17.8 million make more than $50,000 a year in annual household income
  • 10.7 million did not work in the past year

Of particular interest is the citizenship/resident category.  Foreign-born residents comprise 12.3 million of the uninsured, with only 2.8 million of those naturalized citizens.  That leaves 9.5 million non-citizens in the count.  The Census Bureau refuses to categorize on their legal residency status, which means that legal and illegal immigrants get counted in this total.  Last year, estimates put the number of illegal aliens in this category as 5.6 million out of a total of 9.7 million.  Even if we attribute the entire 200K reduction in this category to illegal immigrants leaving the US (as opposed to legal immigrants leaving or illegal immigrants getting insured), it still leaves 5.4 million illegals as part of the overall uninsured number.

In reviewing this data, we can strike off the 17.8 million who made more than $50,000 a year, which is just about the 2008 median income ($50,303).  These are people who make enough to buy insurance; while they may have other reasons, such as pre-existing conditions, preventing their purchase, by and large they can at least afford to buy insurance, even if it means making a choice to skip buying something else.  The 5.4 million remaining illegal immigrants can also get stricken from the list, as Barack Obama insists that he doesn’t want to provide coverage for them in his overhaul.  That brings the number of uninsured down to half, at 23.2 million people.

Next, we have the problem of Medicaid/CHIP underreporting on the ASEC, covered in some detail in Appendix C of the report.  Last year, the Census Bureau reported that they missed 2.8 million enrollees in Medicaid.  That would bring the number down to 20.4 million uninsured, which comes close to the sum of those who didn’t work at all last year (10.7 million) and uncovered children (7.3 million), although some of the latter overlap with the underreporting of Medicaid/CHIP.   The general scope of the problem is between 17 and 20 million uninsured at worst, not 46 million or 30 million, as Obama tried to argue on Wednesday.

Finally, let’s address the canard of “14,000 people lose their health insurance every day.“  The number of people insured rose over the course of the year, by over a million, and those covered by government programs rose by almost 5 million.  If 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day, it would amount to 5 million more uninsured for the year.  Nothing in the new data gives that indication, and in fact shows that more people find health insurance now than lose it.

The numbers for 2009 won’t look as good, thanks to the massive job losses seen all year.  We’ve lost more than 3 million jobs, which probably means many of those have lost their health insurance.  Unfortunately, Obama’s plan to overhaul the health-care industry will steal capital from the markets that would create new jobs and provide coverage for those unemployed.

Addendum: While perusing this data, be sure to read the data on poverty.  Expect to hear about this year’s increase in poverty to 10.3% of all American families, but it’s interesting to see the historical data on this.  According to the data, with the exception of 2003-4, the Bush years were a boon.  Except for those two years, the poverty rate stayed below 10% for all of Bush’s term.  In contrast, those numbers only went below 10% for two of the Clinton years, 1999 and 2000, which was the best year on poverty the US has had since records began being collated in 1959.

Also, compare the numbers on household types for those same years.  Two-parent households did a much better job of staying out of poverty than single-parent homes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This breakdown needs to be revised. It’s no longer 47 million without HC, the new number is 30 million, though that will probably change by Monday to somewhere north of 50 million or whatever is convenient for the Trash Party.

Bishop on September 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM

NONE of this is the govt’s business!!!

Art. I Sec 8.

Enumerated Powers!

Akzed on September 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM

wow so Bury lost 17 million uninsured just to have them put right back in today….

hmmmm

sven10077 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

“I am Joe the Uninsured!”

aquaviva on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

In Texas, it would cost about $2600/month for a family of four to buy insurance in the high risk pool if anyone had any pre-existing conditions (such as moderately high blood pressure). That’s over $30,000 a year. A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

This breakdown needs to be revised. It’s no longer 47 million without HC, the new number is 30 million, though that will probably change by Monday to somewhere north of 50 million or whatever is convenient for the Trash Party.

Bishop on September 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Remember these are the people who want to junk the industrial age, and the electronic age for hysteria over predictive models that are off by 345%….

so for Bury to be playing in the 50-66% range is “chilling precision” for their minds.

sven10077 on September 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM

In Texas, it would cost about $2600/month for a family of four to buy insurance in the high risk pool if anyone had any pre-existing conditions (such as moderately high blood pressure). That’s over $30,000 a year. A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Not the Texas I lived in, and I am pretty sure the “high paying green jobs” that are “just around the corner” will pay enough they’ll be taken care of yes?

sven10077 on September 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I’m pretty sure Obama’s healthcare plans are dead. He can’t point out how bad the economy is, in an effort to win support.

All that’s going to do is remind people his stimulus has failed and was a colossal waste of tax payer money.

Oh, and instead of actually trying to manage the economy. He is spending all his political capital trying to pass legislation the people don’t want.

jhffmn on September 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM

What?! There are as many white people uninsured as there are Hispanics and blacks combined?? That can’t be right. The Census is racist!

NoLeftTurn on September 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM

What?! There are as many white people uninsured as there are Hispanics and blacks combined?? That can’t be right. The Census is racist!

NoLeftTurn on September 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM

why you’d almost think there were more white people than the 13 and 14% groups or something….

reality is racist

sven10077 on September 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM

“14,000 people lose their health insurance every day.“ The number of people insured rose over the course of the year, by over a million, and those covered by government programs rose by almost 5 million.

More people have insurance, and it’s sold as a massive decrease. A couple million people lose their jobs, and it’s sold as “1 million jobs saved”. These guys are unbelievable.

forest on September 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM

That particular poll that you talk about has not been forwarded to Axelrod yet from ACORN. They do the polls for the White House and the major networks. I thought you knew that this is what qualifies them to do the census.

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM

A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

You should skip buying a home if you don’t have insurance. Insurance should come after food, clothing, and transport to work. What do you think happens to the mortgage if you go bankrupt over medical bills because you don’t have insurance?

Vashta.Nerada on September 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

gee it’s to bad you can’t buy insurance across state lines, and thanks to the libs and demonrats that’s not going to change.

SHARPTOOTH on September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

That is to say that whatever legitimate poll is made public that differs from theirs it will be disputed. that’s how this A$$CLOWN administration works.

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Finally, let’s address the canard of “14,000 people lose their health insurance every day.“ …Nothing in the new data gives that indication, and in fact shows that more people find health insurance now than lose it.

Tapper…Major? Please, can someone throw these numbers at Gibbs and ask him why they want to implode the system for 20M/304M = 6.58% of the population!?!?!

NickelAndDime on September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

See http://www.txhealthpool.com/rates.html, sven.

The rates for a 50 year old non-smoker and a 45 year old non-smoker are about $700-$1300/month each, depending on the area in Texas. The rates for children are $300-$500/month.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

So now we have to keep up with the “number du jour”?

fbcmusicman on September 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Home also means apartment. Apartment rents can cost $800-$1500 month in most places (NYC and similar places excluded).

And don’t blame the dems and libs for not being able to buy insurance across state lines. Most of you are telling the GOP to not negotiate one inch with the democrats for a compromise bill. If there is no health care compromise on “common sense” reform this year, it will be the GOP’s fault.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

The rates for a drunken congressman or woman who does or does not smoke is absolutely free to the congressperson and is represent the best insurance in this country. I quest the trillions he is going to save in fraud is these clowns opting out of this and being covered by the peasant plan!!!

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Lets me add that it is also untaxed too as is the union thugs!

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Why does Human Events keep a Pat Buchanan archive but selectively delete the entries that they dislike?

Seems like overzealous censorship. Why not just let people read it and decide for themselves?

Human Events deletes Buchanan’s latest column as does MSNBC.

From the column “But Human Events does not have that excuse. In fact, Human Events regularly denounces the groups organizing the witch hunt.”

Also

“. Buchanan and Ann Coulter usually trade spots for the most popular columns on the site. Although several sites—such as VDARE.COM—carry Buchanan’s column online, when you click on “Pat Buchanan” at Drudge Report, you go straight to the Human Events archive.
How does Human Events return the favor? Whenever Buchanan says anything politically incorrect on certain subjects, it either trashes him or sends his columns down the memory hole. (Apart from anything else, this means the Human Events archive of Buchanan’s columns is incomplete—unlike VDARE.COM’s!)”

Spathi on September 11, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Almost all of them are in major metropolitan areas (39.2 million)

Welp, looks like we need to confiscate even more money from those greedy hicks and send it to the cities for healthcare beer, jeans with white stitching, and body building supplements.

forest on September 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I know, it is old news,but…How about securing the border, especially with Mexico. Then get rid of every illegal alien, no matter their ethnicity. We are allowing the politicians too much power. They are no longer representing the people. Forcing them to follow the laws of this Great Country will go a long way towards reducing not only health costs but costs in many other areas. Are we a country of laws or not?

jorb on September 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

of course it’s the gop’s fault, it has to be that way in your little world or else you couldn’t spin your bs on your idea of what’s wrong with health care.

SHARPTOOTH on September 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM

305 million Americans are currently experiencing a lower-than-necessary standard of living and are undergoing excessive and painful stress in their lives due to eroded freedoms and to the economic and moral damage done by liberal governmental policies.

whitetop on September 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM

And don’t blame the dems and libs for not being able to buy insurance across state lines. Most of you are telling the GOP to not negotiate one inch with the democrats for a compromise bill.

Not true, the need for reform is acknowledged. It’s just that imploding the system for 7% of the population and creating a socialist paradise where free choice is elimiated is somewhat objectionable to liberty-loving people.

If there is no health care compromise on “common sense” reform this year, it will be the GOP’s fault.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

For the past several months the Dems have ignored and shut out Rupublican particpation. After Obama trotted out the “GOP obstructionist” line again on Wednesday Boehner documented the 35 separate detailed plans/amendments that the Republicans have offered that have gone ignored. How do you reconcile that with your tired assertions?

NickelAndDime on September 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Almost all of them are in major metropolitan areas (39.2 million)

Barack Obama hates country folk.

NickelAndDime on September 11, 2009 at 10:04 AM

NickelAndDime on September 11, 2009 at 10:02 AM

he can’t

SHARPTOOTH on September 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM

If there is no health care compromise on “common sense” reform this year, it will be the GOP’s fault.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Oh and one more little thing…YOU HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY, NUMBNUTS. If your own party could agree, you wouldn’t need the GOP.

NickelAndDime on September 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM

In Texas, it would cost about $2600/month for a family of four to buy insurance in the high risk pool if anyone had any pre-existing conditions (such as moderately high blood pressure). That’s over $30,000 a year. A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

And just how many families making $50,000/year are in the high risk pool?

And what’s wrong with them skipping “having a home”—that’s what caused the current recession in the first place; people buying homes that they couldn’t afford. A lot of people would be better off renting than buying, financially speaking—real estates don’t give as much long term return on investment as stock markets.

In any case, there’s no reason to fundamentally change our system to accommodate the few who can’t afford health care for one or another reason. Over 80% of us are happy with what we have now. Wasn’t socialism supposed to be based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

novakyu on September 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM

See http://www.txhealthpool.com/rates.html, sven.

The rates for a 50 year old non-smoker and a 45 year old non-smoker are about $700-$1300/month each, depending on the area in Texas. The rates for children are $300-$500/month.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Am I the only one who finds the irony in using a GOVERNMENT-RUN healthcare plan as the model for excessive pricing

darury on September 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Insurance companies and Americans think that gobberment competition will cause rates to go high.

Are they right or wrong?

Well lets look at the new money back 60 day guarantee that Government Motors just announced. When Obamas friends buy a new Chevrolet, drive it across country enjoying their unemployment checks being forwarded to them, drive it back and demand their refund, Who pays? The Unions whom suppostedly own the company now..NO The phony Corporation who will never make a dime so as to sell the stocks back to the public and releive the original debt…NO

I tell you who will pay ……THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER who is forced to share the wealth.

HOw fu*king dumb can this government get?

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Jimbo3…where did you come up with those numbers??? I am family of three, two adults, one child, one over 50 with high blood pressure, self employed, and bought private insurance. Total cost of monthly insurance for family, $650.00/month.

If you are going to argue a point…BE HONEST! Or is that too “common sense” for you?

texgal on September 11, 2009 at 10:15 AM

In Texas, it would cost about $2600/month for a family of four to buy insurance in the high risk pool if anyone had any pre-existing conditions (such as moderately high blood pressure). That’s over $30,000 a year. A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Moderately high blood pressure will not force someone into the high-risk pool, as insurers will cover that, albeit, with a rating. In your example, if the other 3 family members are healthy, they would purchase their insurance outside of the risk pool.

ICBM on September 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Oh, and instead of actually trying to manage the economy. He is spending all his political capital trying to pass legislation the people don’t want.

jhffmn on September 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM

So why can’t he treat “political capital” like he treats American dollars? Just print more and spend other people’s.
If you listen to the fellating MSM, there is no limit to either.

SKYFOX on September 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Also, compare the numbers on household types for those same years. Two-parent households did a much better job of staying out of poverty than single-parent homes.

Huh! Imagine that.

Spiritk9 on September 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Help the ones who truly need help and the ones that don’t won’t to take responsibility for themselves….
Well the csars that want population control will get what they want.
As Oramadan said death is a part of life. No I’m wrong that was Jack Cavorkian ( however you spell his name )

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Polling the audience here: would you all support having the government step in to pay extraordinary medical costs, such as claims of over $100,000 in a year or $1 mil lifetime? As in, allow insurance companies to charge the gov’t for medical costs in excess of a policy limit, rather than forcing the ins cos. to eliminate policy limits?

I actually liked Kerry’s reinsurance idea from the 2004 campaign, pretty much the only thing he said that made any sense at all.

alwaysfiredup on September 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM

So why can’t he treat “political capital” like he treats American dollars? Just print more and spend other people’s.
If you listen to the fellating MSM, there is no limit to either.

SKYFOX on September 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
This is true SKY, I know this to be true cause that s what our biggest stockholder says ( Chinese )

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

We need to cut down on divorces. Many homes that are married couples, one of them has a job with coverage. If a woman runs off a man that has a job and coverage, all she can get is forcing him to cover the kids.

seven on September 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

See http://www.txhealthpool.com/rates.html, sven.

The rates for a 50 year old non-smoker and a 45 year old non-smoker are about $700-$1300/month each, depending on the area in Texas. The rates for children are $300-$500/month.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM

That’s only the rate for the $1,000 deductible plan. Higher deductibles give you better rates. Is it implicit in your argument that people should never have to spend their savings on medical care? Isn’t that a tad utopian?

venividivici on September 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Having insurance and getting a claim paid is more difficult than paying for insurance. You will have to call and fight with the company on every claim. Sounds like dealing with US government with paying taxes.

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Pre existing conditions is the new catch phrase for the un insured.

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I’d rather fight the insurance company than the government. You can sue an insurance company. You can’t sue the government.

alwaysfiredup on September 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I’d rather fight the insurance company than the government. You can sue an insurance company. You can’t sue the government.

alwaysfiredup on September 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM

- – - – - – - – -

If only folks could figure that out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 10:33 AM

You can’t sue the government.

alwaysfiredup on September 11, 2009 at 10:32 AM

And when you get your BarryO_death care package that takes care of that.

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Jimbo3: You are making a fundamental error. Public policy needs to be set first according to what are the standard cases, not the exceptional ones. First figure out what to do with the overwhelming majority of people, and only then does it make sense to go back and see what is the appropriate remedy for the small number of cases that are truly exceptional, such as your hypothetical family of 4 high risk Texans. This high risk family is NOT the typical situation; to the contrary, they are very rare. Do not set the framework of healthcare policy according to such an extreme case.

jwolf on September 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Maybe Oramadan will offer a 60 day gaurantee with your health insurance company and welfare like it did his car company. for comparison purposes that company is apparently doing great huh?

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Finally, let’s address the canard of “14,000 people lose their health insurance every day.”

Seriously, where do Dems get this figure? I want some proof. Talk about scare tactics.

BuckeyeSam on September 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM

I don’t know unless that is the number of illegals going back to Mexico!

bluegrass on September 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM

***

And don’t blame the dems and libs for not being able to buy insurance across state lines. Most of you are telling the GOP to not negotiate one inch with the democrats for a compromise bill. If there is no health care compromise on “common sense” reform this year, it will be the GOP’s fault.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

You’re full of it. The GOP has proposed suggestions that no one should object to: interstate competition and tort reform. These two suggestions should not be viewed as right-wing demands in exchange for which they need to concede some foolish demand by Dems such as covering illegal aliens. Kowtowing to the trial lawyers’ lobby doesn’t constitute acting for the common interest.

I defy you to point to a single GOP suggestion that favors a narrow constituency rather than furthers the common good.

BuckeyeSam on September 11, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Home also means apartment. Apartment rents can cost $800-$1500 month in most places (NYC and similar places excluded).

That’s funny, I am paying $600/mo rent for a 3-bedroom house in Dallas.

Averaging is just another way to be wrong with confidence.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on September 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM

In Texas, it would cost about $2600/month for a family of four to buy insurance in the high risk pool if anyone had any pre-existing conditions (such as moderately high blood pressure). That’s over $30,000 a year. A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Dude, quit fibbin’. Moderately high blood pressure is not a restricted pre-existing condition according to the website. The High Risk pool is for folks with serious diseases who cannot get covered by a health insurance company otherwise because of that disease. I have a TX insurance license and know what I’m talking about.

And saying its $30,000 a year for the state to pay for everything ignores the fact that at $50K income per yr, you can buy a much higher deductible plan, pay up to $5-8K total out of your own pocket annually and EVERYTHING ELSE is then covered by the state. If you have cancer, that is a pretty good deal, even if it isn’t as great as an insurance company would give you.

If health care isn’t reformed this year, you can thank Nancy and Harry and Barack for calling Republicans liars, obstructionist, dishonest, unpatriotic, and “extremist right wingers”. If you want someone’s help to do something, it is better to ask politely without resorting to namecalling and using the whip to shape us all into lockstep/goosestep with the Dhimmicratic leaderships’ positions.

You know, True Leadership is hard. It requires making people go where they don’t WANT to go, but they NEED to go, by persuading them to do so in their own best interests and of their own volition. So far, the use of the whip by Congress isn’t working on the US galley slaves’ backs. Try using some tact and politeness every once in a while instead of calling Republicans thugs, irate crazy people, and irrelevant children and Alzheimer’s patients. You want our support? Try listening to us once in a while instead of demonizing us constantly. That obstructionism you are seeing? It was caused by your party being assholes towards people they needed.

Once you’ve learned some manners we’ll talk. Otherwise go blow it out your ear.

Subsunk

Subsunk on September 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Have you ever watched CSPAN? Drats vote “NO” if anything is “EVER” submitted by Rpubs. They don’t even read or care. They are quick to say the Rpubs never offer alternatives. To qualify to be a Drat, you must first be a habitual liar with no morals or conscience.
The Rpubs were holding up copies of bills that were presented at the same time Nobiwan was saying Rpubs never offer alternatives. To lie in the face of the truth is what is currently running the US Gov.

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I am paying $600/mo rent for a 3-bedroom house in Dallas.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on September 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Must be sweet living in SOC.

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM

lasertex on September 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Close. Singleton/Westmorland area of West Dallas. Not too bad, though. The house is an old house built in the 40′s, but the landlord had recently renovated it when I moved in. Not a mansion, but livable and very nice for the money.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on September 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM

If there is no health care compromise on “common sense” reform this year, it will be the GOP’s fault.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Jimbo, and I say this with love man, put the crack pipe down. I usually skip right over your drivel. But, seriously are you math challenged? Who has the majority in the US House and Senate? Who is sitting in the oval office? I’m with Steele on this one. If you dhimmicrats want Obamacare, UHC, Teddycare, Hillarycare (after 20 years all the names blur together) so bad, do it, I dare you.

Blacksmith8 on September 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM

In Texas, it would cost about $2600/month for a family of four to buy insurance in the high risk pool if anyone had any pre-existing conditions (such as moderately high blood pressure). That’s over $30,000 a year. A family making $50,000 can’t just skip buying something else to buy that insurance, unless you want them to skip having a home.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Link to the $2600? I don’t buy it.

angryed on September 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Dude, quit fibbin’. Moderately high blood pressure is not a restricted pre-existing condition according to the website. The High Risk pool is for folks with serious diseases who cannot get covered by a health insurance company otherwise because of that disease. I have a TX insurance license and know what I’m talking about.

–If you know an insurance company in Texas that would issue me a private family policy at a reasonable rate (close to market for normal conditions) for someone that is somewhat overweight with somewhat high blood pressure and a non-serious skin cancer removed 3 years ago, please post the website. I’ve been told by one of my neighbors (who is in the business) that I’d likely be blackballed and have to go in the high risk pool.

For others:

Those rates are the government-set rates in Texas for the high-risk pool. They are, by law, 200% of the rates for people who can buy individual insurance at normal rates.

You are all trying to have it both ways. First, Bush and the GOP did nothing with respect to these issues when they were in control. Second, now the GOP offers bills (some of which effectively do nothing because they only throw money at the states to consider things) while at the same time saying they won’t negotiate a bit with the Dems on health care.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM

ehealthinsurance.com in Dallas, family of 4, 2 adults 45 years old, 2 teenage kids.

The rates range anywhere from $400 to $800 a month with deductibles from $1500 to $5000 a year.

Jimbo you are a bald faced liar, like your hero B. Hussein.

angryed on September 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Its the skin cancer and not the high blood pressure that does you in Jimbo. That is why the private companies don’t want to cover you. My ex had all her medical stuff done just before the divorce and was healthy as a horse at 51. She couldn’t get private insurance either due to weight. She didn’t try everywhere though. Just one place. But admittedly, private insurance companies don’t like risk and will deny you if they have a feeling you might be high risk. Sorry about your condition, while it may not be extremely serious, it does cause the ins cos to deny you fair coverage.

You still may claim Bush did nothing, but you should remember, this was not his agenda to follow either. It was not a problem he should have addressed since there were other higher priority problems to be dealt with and health care reform was nowhere on the national political agenda. Can’t expect someone who is happy with the system to get worked up about it unless it is causing big problems, and health care costs sure as Hell are far down the list for most of us, under a job, national defense, taxes, terrorism and illegal immigration. I still am ambivalent about whether this is really the supposed problem the Dhimmicrats make it out to be. And we feel there are a plethora of Republicans who are negotiating with the Ds all the time, such as Snow, Grassley, Enzi, McCain, and a few others, so I don’t believe the Rs won’t negotiate stuff. Its been all over the news around here that they are negotiating with Nancy, and Harry, and most of us here don’t like that. We don’t want a government run health care system. We want tort reform and across state borders insurance pools.

But I’m sure, in your case, and in my ex-wife’s case, it is a mountain of uncertainty and stress. You have my sympathies, but I am afraid I would not choose to give my wallet to the government to cover you either.

Sorry, dude. Good luck.

Subsunk

Subsunk on September 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM

The rates I’m finding on ehealthinsurance.com with a $1,500 deductible, 20% Coinsurance and $35 per Office Visit are about $1,200/month.

And here’s the fine print on ehealthinsurance.com:

The quotes or rates shown above are estimates only. Your premium is subject to change based on your medical history, the underwriting practices of the insurance company, the optional benefits you selected, if any, and other relevant factors, such as changes in rates which take effect before your requested effective date. The insurance company always determines your actual premium. Insurance companies reserve the right to change the terms of a policy upon proper notification.

THE BENEFITS MATRIX IS A SUMMARY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. REVIEW THE EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE AND INSURANCE POLICY (PLAN CONTRACT) FOR A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE BENEFITS, LIMITATIONS, AND EXCLUSIONS. ONLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COVERAGE BENEFITS LISTED IN THE POLICY ARE BINDING.

Levels of coverage & enrollment:

n You may be enrolled in your selected plan at the
premium charge.
n You may be enrolled in your selected plan at a higher
premium, based on medical findings.
n You may be declined coverage based on medical
underwriting.

————-

Just because someone disagrees with you, or has different facts, does not mean (s)he is lying, BTW.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Well, was hoping you might have a suggestion, Subsunk. It was the best type of skin cancer and was just on my nose and was removed (my wife also had it, and it was also removed, so there’s two of us).

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM

angryed, here’s the link to the Texas high risk pool plan:

See http://www.txhealthpool.com/rates.html.

Jimbo3 on September 11, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I believe the readers of Hot Air has discussed this from the wrong angle. It is not about the constitution. It is not about efficiency or even about compassion. It is about social cohesion and survivability of the middle class.
-
There is a choice. Either we who define ourelves as the middle class decide to share a rather modest bit of our wealth through with the lower classes through a government medical system of some kind – or the lower classes will eventually take a rather more substantial part of our wealth by force, and maybe our lives as well.
-
Personally I prefer to buy myself some social cohesion and tranquillity rather than se family murdered by some unemployed miner or by an impoverished inner city dweller in order for them to pay for health care and other things as well.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Personally I prefer to buy myself some social cohesion and tranquillity rather than se family murdered by some unemployed miner or by an impoverished inner city dweller in order for them to pay for health care and other things as well.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM

I’ll take option B. I’ve stockpiled, if you know what I mean.

Vashta.Nerada on September 11, 2009 at 12:22 PM

There is a choice. Either we who define ourelves as the middle class decide to share a rather modest bit of our wealth through with the lower classes through a government medical system of some kind – or the lower classes will eventually take a rather more substantial part of our wealth by force, and maybe our lives as well.

Don’t we already have a government run medical system with 40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Also, if the looters want to become outright barbarians. I say bring it.

jhffmn on September 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Personally I prefer to buy myself some social cohesion and tranquillity rather than se family murdered by some unemployed miner or by an impoverished inner city dweller in order for them to pay for health care and other things as well.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM

A few years ago, a bunch of people who felt like you do started up a company called “Working Assets”. What you should do, if you really feel this strongly, is go to “Working Assets” with a business proposal to insure all the unemployed miners and impoverished inner city dwellers who don’t have health insurance. I think that’d be a win-win. You’d get your preferences enacted and I’d get mine. That’s the very definition of “social cohesion” and “tranquility”.

The Left is like the idiot friend who has “a great business idea” and wants you to invest in it, while you think his idea is dogsh*t, but he just won’t stop talking about it.

venividivici on September 11, 2009 at 12:35 PM

A system in anarchy will not just bring the immediate negative social effects of looting and violence, there will also be the second order of (eventually even worse) effects of prolonged economic decline, loss of faith in the economic institutions like electronic money transfer, banks, eventually in money itself. In civil institutions like courts and the police and ulimately a failure of trust between citizen which will make it impossible to uphold the advanced modern economy and the exact same mechanism that keep the third world in its primitive state.
-
Either we have to keep the lower classes reasonably content or we have to kill a large part of them off. Which sounds like the easiest and most humane way to keep social cohesion? We can’t keep qaccepting immigrants from less civilized parts of the world, thus very violent prone people into the country and at the same time setting the stage for anarchy and “class war”. America is far too violence prone society already as it is.
-
My solution, pay the lower classes off and deport a massive number of social undesireables back to where they came from. thus a case of the famous “carrot and stick dance”.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM

venividivici: 1) I am not a liberal and 2) I would not support “working assets” since they support planned parenthood.
——
“Working Assets, doing business as Credo, is an American company that offers mobile and long distance phone service and a credit card. Founded in 1985, the company is based in San Francisco, California. It has stated a goal of being socially responsible. The company donates a portion of its fees to nonprofit organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, Planned Parenthood and Amnesty International. Since its founding, Working Assets has raised over $60 million for these organizations. They conduct a yearly poll of customers to determine the allocation of contributions.” (WIKIPEDIA)

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM

In my opinion, NO need to explain the numbers. Hussein and his Posse of Clowns will increase or decrease the numbers so that they work in there favor. The bottom line is, I do not want them, Hussein and his Posse of Clowns, involved in this business.

Illegally Hussein entered into the Finanacial Industry. Illegally Hussein entered into the Auto Industry.

NO MORE HUSSEIN….YOU LIE!

Remember to vote in 2010 and 2012

BigMike252 on September 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Even the poor in America are fat. There isn’t a desperate underclass in this country posing a threat to the rest of us. Making poverty more comfortable will lead to more in poverty.

We have a criminal justice system for thieves.

The only real problem is looters voting for government largess in ever greater numbers. But hopefully Obama is thrown out in 2012.

jhffmn on September 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM

BigMike: Why do you insist on calling him “Hussein”? That is inflammatory and divisive. I detest president Obama but I find it both childish, a bit vulguar and quite counterproductive to insist on nicknames or (birth cetrificate) slurs. You don’t win liberals over that way, and isn’t that the real purpose of debate?

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Fine, so do the equivalent in a fashion compatible with your personal beliefs. Again, just leave me out of it altogether. I have enough going on in my own life to keep me (and my money) occupied full-time without worrying about other people’s problems.

venividivici on September 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM

venividivici: Sorry, but I can’t do that. The government needs your money too, or you would be a free rider on us who try to keep society together rather than lapse into anarchy. Even if you do not want it you have to obey government and pay your dues for the good of the community. We cannot pick and choose which taxes we want to pay. I don’t want to pay for the Iraq war or for Afghanistan or for the US contributions to the UN but I have to do it anyway, so vvv, suck it up and do your fiscal duty to fight social anarchy.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM

The poor in America are fat just bc they are poor – they cannot afford healthy food but eat cheap mass produced starchy food rather than meat and fish. It is a shame how the poor people eat. Unhealthy food should be banned by the government and a tax levied on sugar.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM

haha you can’t be serious.

Support Obama or the poor people will come for you!

jhffmn on September 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM

jhffmn: I never said that I supported Obama, but I do believe that he was on the right track previously when he said he wanted a single payer system equal for everyone. That was the one good policy suggestion he had.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM

“poor people are fat because they don’t eat healthy”

That’s funny, poor people in other countries don’t seem to suffer from that.

Monkeytoe on September 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM

You can’t possibly claim to be conservative or liberterian and support a single-payer system. So, if you don’t like O!, and support a single-payer system, then you must be farther to the left than Lenin.

Monkeytoe on September 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Our poor people sure are lucky. Heat, shelter, enough food to be obese, cell phones, computers, big-screen tv’s, cars, and more.

Let’s stop calling anyone in america “poor.

Monkeytoe on September 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM

The poor in America are fat just bc they are poor – they cannot afford healthy food but eat cheap mass produced starchy food rather than meat and fish. It is a shame how the poor people eat. Unhealthy food should be banned by the government and a tax levied on sugar.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM

This is an unbelievably ignorant statement! For $10 you can purchase a whole chicken, 1 lb. dried beans and a pound of frozen veggies and make enough food for several people for several meals. The people you refer to aren’t fat because they have to rely on cheap, preprocessed food, they are fat because they are lazy.

As a former pastor’s wife I used to be the one who bought food for the poor who called with needs. When I would show up with my big bag of groceries, they would ask, “what am I supposed to do with this stuff?” Inevitably, I would have to show them how to soak beans, make rice, and cook frozen veggies. This happened repeatedly over several years. I was appalled at how lazy and uninformed these people were in very simple cooking practices. They wanted tv dinners and I wanted to feed them for a week. They eat poorly because they want it handed to them all ‘nummy nummy’ without the simple work involved in preparation…

LEBA on September 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM

venividivici: Sorry, but I can’t do that. The government needs your money too, or you would be a free rider on us who try to keep society together rather than lapse into anarchy. Even if you do not want it you have to obey government and pay your dues for the good of the community. We cannot pick and choose which taxes we want to pay. I don’t want to pay for the Iraq war or for Afghanistan or for the US contributions to the UN but I have to do it anyway, so vvv, suck it up and do your fiscal duty to fight social anarchy.

JC Silverberg on September 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Oh, blow it out your *ss with your specter of “anarchy”. I’ll take my chances.

We cannot pick and choose which taxes we want to pay.

No sh*t, dumbass, that’s why I’m saying in advance that I’m against the whole stupid idea of putting a tax in place, because I know once it’s there, I’ll have to pay it. You want to insure people? Set up a company to do so. Make it a non-profit that takes all comers regardless of preconditions and pays its executives a nominal salary. There, I just solved your “problem” for you and I don’t have to be involved any more, ya busybody. I even promise not to “free ride” on your super-terrific insurance company. Or, is insuring the poor only a good idea if you use my money to do it?

My ancestors left Europe to get away from pains in the ass like you. It’s sad to see you found your way over here, too.

venividivici on September 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I wonder how many people without health insurance who do not meet the poverty limits for Medicaid still smoke, drink, engage in risky behaviors (from unprotected sex to Jackass-style stunts) and/or are obese enough to have chronic health problems from it. Are they making any attempt to lower their premium quotes by giving up the vices that are slowly ruining their health, or do they just want to have fun and let someone else pay the tab?
One more reason why personal responsibility, coupled with true charity (not government handouts) can actually provide incentives to help people learn how to be healthier, and encourage them to make the changes that will improve their lives. Imagine the Salvation Army saying to a patient, “Yes, we will cover the costs of your hospitalization from your drunk driving accident, but you will have to attend AA meetings and do weekly drug tests.” Or Catholic Charities paying for prenatal care and delivery costs for your unplanned pregnancy, if you choose adoption to a two-parent family. Make it a tax-deductible donation with no income limits and see how many people will help their neighbors.

spudmom on September 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM

Could you imagine President Obama calling a special session of Congress to say, “We need free healthcare for the wealthy and for illegal immigrants”?

alliebobbitt on September 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM