I’ve been pondering this number. Yes, it sounds bad, very bad, and we Republicans know that it is not an accurate count of the truly no-fault-of-their-own uninsured. I have read here on Redstate estimates of 8 to 12 million that fall into this category. But how many of those are really sick? How many have accidents? How many need medical care? From http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/chronic/stats-country.htm
Prevalance Rate for Chronic Illness:
approx 1 in 3 or 33.09% or 90 million people in USA
I can’t find a good number on the total injury rate in the US, but the above knocks down our number to 2.4 to 3.6 million.
So, we are going to remake our healthcare system for 2.4 – 3.6 million people? Who is providing for their care now? Because these people are getting care. The good people of the United States do care for their sick! So, who is doing it?
According to Wiki (Is citing Wiki good enough for Redstate?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001.[68] The study noted that this amount per capita was half what the average insured person received. The study found that various levels of government finance most uncompensated care, spending about $30.6 billion on payments and programs to serve the uninsured and covering as much as 80–85 percent of uncompensated care costs through grants and other direct payments, tax appropriations, and Medicare and Medicaid payment add-ons. Most of this money comes from the federal government, followed by state and local tax appropriations for hospitals.
These numbers obviously include all the uninsured, for whatever reason. But what about charity care?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5296515
There’s a long tradition in the U.S. healthcare system of physicians providing charity care, either to uninsured persons or other medically indigent individuals. They’ve either done it in their own practice or as volunteers at free clinics. This has, in a way, provided a sort of cushion for those who are uninsured.
And I have had trouble finding a good list of all medical charities but I imagine most of us have a free clinic in our towns and we all know about the large charity hospitals like St. Jude.
All patients accepted for treatment at St. Jude are treated without regard to the family’s ability to pay.
So, are Obama and the Democrats in Congress at war with charities? Are they counting on putting something in place that is really less expensive than the 1 trillion they are projecting because of the inflated uninsured number? And then declaring it a big success? Are they counting on the reduction in charitable deductions, because these medical charities won’t be needed, to cover part of the cost? Our system as we have it now does cover the uninsured. So why the big overhaul? Unless it’s all about control.
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Because these people are getting care
mom2oneson (Diary) Tuesday, September 8th at 1:01PM EST (link)That isn’t alwasy true.
There is uncompensated care but it’s not an entitlement program. There is no guarantee people’s bills will be written off to that or they will be accepted into it. Many people without insurance will go without care, when they have to go in, they go the ER. Then part of that bill may be written off to uncompensated care. There are physician groups associated with non profit hosptials that have uncompesated care too to see their phsycians but again it’s not an entitlement where they have to be accepted if their income is under a certain level.
The 80 + % may be accurate, I have no idea, if it was higher than that it would not surprise me, but that doesn’t mean all or even most or even a good portion of those without insurance or means are recieving care when they need it without charge or reasonable charges. (Where UC cuts off a $ of someone’s bill.) There would be non profit hospital collections on the poor then.
Also non profit hospitals are required to write some off to UC or charity as they call it to keep their non profit status.. It’s not necessarily out of their good will of the American people that UC charity write offs exists. Many instutitions go over and beyond what they are required to write off, I am not denying that.
UC is good but IMHO it’s a mistake to think that is its providing for most of the medical needs of the indigent not on medicare or medicaid.
I disagree that most towns have a free clinic too. There might be a clinic in a economically depressed neighborhood that accepts medicaid but there are very few “free” clinics here with volunteer phsycians and staff except for Lion’s club and their opthamologists. I believe most cities have a Lion’s Club.
St. Jude is not a good example or charity care for the uninsured to be used with people without access to medical care. They only treat very specific illnesses.
*there would be no non profit hospital collections on the poor
mom2oneson (Diary) Tuesday, September 8th at 1:08PM EST (link)and to add to that, there would much easier access for people to get non emergency care either from physicians or hospitals if UC was covering most of the needs of the indigent uninsured not on medicaid or medicare.
There is a free clinic
4life (Diary) Tuesday, September 8th at 2:26PM EST (link)in my town. They specifically treat the uninsured with income caps for individual, two person family, three person family, etc.. They have doctors and dentists who see patients on set days. I’m sure the UC system is not perfect and that some people slip through the cracks through no fault of their own. However, those who refuse to purchase care have no one to blame but themselves. I believe legislation should address this problem first and relieve the state and charity organizations of the burden of their care. Then see how well the others are taken care of and procede with caution.
Service Contract Award (SCA) Fringe
nessa (Diary) Tuesday, September 8th at 6:18PM EST (link)Every service contract with the US govt is required to include SCA Fringe. This is an additional $3.16 per hour for the first 40 hours of each week, for any employees who do not receive health benefits. That is roughly $505 a month, more than adequate to purchase health insurance. I know a company that employs 300 people on one of these contracts, roughly half of the workforce is military spouses, of those remaining there are three who actually purchase health insurance. They’re already being paid to get health insurance but if the dems have their way, I’ll be paying for their insurance with my tax money on top of paying their salary (and SCA Fringe) with my tax money. I’m quickly running out of taxable money…
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Contributor to Unified Patriots
teh twitter
that is enough for coverage
mom2oneson (Diary) Wednesday, September 9th at 8:57AM EST (link)and a high deductable.
LOL on taxable money.
For a family of four.
4life (Diary) Wednesday, September 9th at 2:47PM EST (link)For an individual it is enough for a policy with a low deductible. One thing that congress could do that would really lower premiums would be to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. Where I live I bought a great, high deductible, policy for my family of four from State Farm for $250.00. My premiums have gone up in the 5 years that we have had the policy to $590, but we have had surgeries, etc. It is still much, much more reasonable than the $1200 then or $1500 that was being deducted from my husbands paycheck. We opted out of his employers plan and are very happy with the decision. I bet we could even get it for less if we could search the whole country for the best and lowest cost plan. That would be change I could believe in.
Auto insurance works the same
RoguePolitics (Diary) Thursday, September 10th at 8:55PM EST (link)I oppose mandatory auto insurance because it radically boosts the cost.
Look at states that do not have mandatory auto insurance laws. The price is usually half.
When I moved from WV to TN my rate was literally cut in half because it wasn’t mandatory in TN. That was 20 years ago, I don’t know if that is still the case there.
If we could purchase auto insurance across state lines it would cut the cost of auto insurance. But really if we just scrapped mandatory insurance it would do the trick. Studies have shown the rates of people buying insurance is the same in states with or without mandatory insurance laws. So they really serve no purpose.
Health Insurance across state lines would definitely cut costs but the other cost cutter would be to delink it from the employer/employee relationship.
And of course tort reform.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
Auto insurance works the same
RoguePolitics (Diary) Thursday, September 10th at 8:55PM EST (link)I oppose mandatory auto insurance because it radically boosts the cost.
Look at states that do not have mandatory auto insurance laws. The price is usually half.
When I moved from WV to TN my rate was literally cut in half because it wasn’t mandatory in TN. That was 20 years ago, I don’t know if that is still the case there.
If we could purchase auto insurance across state lines it would cut the cost of auto insurance. But really if we just scrapped mandatory insurance it would do the trick. Studies have shown the rates of people buying insurance is the same in states with or without mandatory insurance laws. So they really serve no purpose.
Health Insurance across state lines would definitely cut costs but the other cost cutter would be to delink it from the employer/employee relationship.
And of course tort reform.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.