Another Reason Government-Sponsored Health Care Is Destined to Fail

posted at 3:38 pm on September 2, 2009 by
[ Healthcare ]   

Depending evidently on the day of the week and similarly arbitrary factors, Barack Obama and other Democrats eager to pass health care reform will tell you there are anywhere between 45 million and 47 million Americans without health insurance. Even though those numbers are almost certainly an exaggeration, taken at face value they represent approximately 15 and 16 percent of the population respectively. That’s a lot of Americans who can’t afford routine visits to the doctor, let alone — God forbid — hospitalization and/or treatment for a serious illness. Health care, moreover, the administration and Democrat leaders in Congress will tell you is a right, not a privilege. That, too, is a debatable point.

Let me for the moment play devil’s advocate. Let’s take Obama and company at their word and assume that 40-odd million Americans lack health insurance and that all of them want to be insured. In fact, let’s say all are desperate to be insured. Let’s imagine, finally, that H.R. 3200 were currently the law of the land, public option and all. It stands to reason that every uninsured American would be beating a path to the government’s door to claim their prize, right?

Maybe not. Not if we extrapolate findings from a report published by the Urban Institute titled “Medicaid-Eligible Adults Who Are Not Enrolled: Who Are They and Do They Get the Care They Need?” In the interest of full disclosure, let me note at the outset that the report was published October 1, 2001. Most of the data, moreover, were gleaned from the 1997 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a large, nationally representative sample of the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population. That means the findings are at least 12 years old.

Nevertheless, the report contains comprehensive statistics on the number of Medicaid-eligible adults who are enrolled in the program and those who are not. And the findings are surprising, to say the least. Of more than 3.2 million Americans surveyed, 51.4 percent who were eligible for Medicaid coverage not enrolled in the program.

The details broken out by age, ethnicity, poverty level, and other demographic factors are captured in the table below.

This report is limited to adults, but children fare no better. A second study, completed more recently, in September, 2007, indicates that better than 6 out of 10 uninsured children qualify for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but are not enrolled.

Neither report addresses the question of why individuals who qualify for government-assisted health care fail to avail themselves of it. One possible answer may be adduced from the education data contained in the above table. Notice that as education level increases, so does the percentage of Medicaid-eligible individuals who take advantage of the program.

But then this poses a whole new problem for an administration bent on providing nationalized health care to a population many times larger. To understand the dilemma they face, consider the amount of bureaucratic red tape that was part and parcel of the Cash for Clunkers program that has some cars dealers wondering if the government will ever reimburse them for sales they made. For that matter, when has the federal government ever been successful at simplifying even the most trivial of its dealings with the American people?

Nationalized health care may pass. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it won’t. But it does, expect the resulting boondoggle to be of a magnitude that dwarfs the Big Dig in Boston.

Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

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

…many…?

Daggett on September 2, 2009 at 4:08 PM

…many…?

If this in reference to the population size, the sample size in the first study was about 3.2 million. This is a sampling of the actual number of people who qualify for Medicare. I don’t know the actual number, but it is certainly larger. So, yes, health care extended to the national population would be many times larger (not millions or hundreds, if that’s what you were looking for).

HowardPortnoy on September 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM

This report is limited to adults, but children fare no better. A second study, completed more recently, in September, 2007, indicates that better than 6 out of 10 uninsured children qualify for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but are not enrolled.

Neither report addresses the question of why individuals who qualify for government-assisted health care fail to avail themselves of it. One possible answer may be adduced from the education data contained in the above table. Notice that as education level increases, so does the percentage of Medicaid-eligible individuals who take advantage of the program.

ILLEGAL ALIENS and/or their children are not being specified in these many, leftwing-appeasing, Obama-supporting “studies” (is this one, I’m not sure but the omission of that identification — as to illegal aliens and the children of illegal aliens — tends to suggest that it is).

Specify and stop hiding the fact that many millions of illegal aliens are in the U.S. at this date and hour and they have children, some of whom are also illegal aliens.

Identify them and separate their populations from American citizens who are not insured (however, whatever) and the actual picture will take shape.

Lourdes on September 2, 2009 at 7:44 PM

You don’t really believe that the lefties that quote these numbers even care if they are accurate, do you?

Considering the age and sources of your data I feel pretty sure that no one has the least clue how many uninsured there are. It could be 3 million or it could be 27 million. And such sketchy data would give you a margin of error on the order of plus or minus 60% to 95%.
But it does not much matter because the left won’t ever get honest with the numbers since they see them merely as a means to what they have convinced themselves is a virtuous end.

snaggletoothie on September 3, 2009 at 12:55 AM

Lourdes, snaggletoothie: This post was not meant to be sympathetic to the left or demonstrate support for Obamacare. Quite the opposite. Nor is this a left-leaning study. The Urban Institute used data from the NHIS, which is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. It is a reliable source of health information.

The point of my post was to demonstrate that even if health care reform is passed, the people it is most targeted at will fail in large part to derive its benefits.

HowardPortnoy on September 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM

Howard,
Sorry if my comment comes off looking like an attack on you or your post. That was not my intention at all. While I was reading your post I realized that there is probably little reliable data to support that number that I hear so often from the left and I was commenting on that; but maybe not clearly enough.

snaggletoothie on September 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM

I totally agree that the majority of people who are without insurance and not availing themselves of the already available “safety nets” will not be helped under Obamacare or any other care. Many of these people are functionally illiterate (imagine filling out those forms), mentally ill, illegal immigrants and/or unwilling to deal with the government. Adding ANOTHER entitlement program will not deal with this problem.

texabama on September 3, 2009 at 8:43 AM

snaggletoothie: I did not perceive your comment as an attack; I was attempting to clarify what may not have been a clear post to start with. I have, in fact, changed the title, which seemed to give a wrong impression.

As to the paucity of available data, you are right as far as I can tell. I have been researching this tirelessly for several weeks now. Having worked in publishing in the health field, I am aware of health websites that tend to be reliable, but none appear to have investigated these numbers or — more importantly — the reason behind them.

HowardPortnoy on September 3, 2009 at 9:22 AM