Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:14:14 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
 <1992Aug10.153043.29526@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
 <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com>
 <1992Aug15.223532.19090@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

In article <1992Aug15.223532.19090@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com
>(Dennis Worden) writes:
>>tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
>>>      In the US, currently only the rich and the lucky people with
>>>good employers get health care.  The fact that the infant mortality rates
>>>are among the highest in the western world, and that some 30% of the
>>>country isn't covered for all medical costs is quite pathetic.
>
>This number is way off base. See below.

No, it's not.  Read what was written, "30% of the country isn't covered for
all medical costs."  The past ten years have seen large increases in required
co-payments, deductibles, reductions in benefit coverage.  Studies show that
a large number of Americans (even more than 30%) would have their savings
completely wiped out by a single serious episode of medical need.

>>During the primaries this last spring, one of the complaints from Clinton
>>and Brown was that there were 37 million Americans without health care.
>
>This is a commonly bandied "statistic" that is actually misleading. It is
>based on a count of people who were without medical insurance at
>any point during a year. The actual number of people who
>are without insurance at any given time, or for long periods of time,
>is much less. I recall that the number of people who
>are without medical insurance on a long-term basis is about 4 million.
>
>The "37 million" statistic is like saying 30 million people are unemployed
>simply becuase 30 million people changed jobs during the last year.
>(Most of those 'without medical insurance' are precisely those who are
>changing jobs or unemployed. It begs the question of what the
>"pay or play"-type plans are going to do for them.)

You're worng.  The 37 million number is a count of people who were without
insurance in the month the survey was taken (March for the CPS, various
months for the SIPP, I don't know what month for the NMES).  It is a
point-in-time or cross-section estimate.  It does NOT sum up anyone who
was without insurance during the year.  That number is much larger.

Thus, I view this quite differently.  I see that at any one point in time
37 million Americans are without health insurance and about another 25 to
30 million are at-risk because they will lose their insurance for at least
one month during the next 24 months.

I see nothing to admire about a society that thinks it's admirable to subject
its citizens to that kind of fear, uncertainty, and insecurity.  I see nothing
to admire about a society which heavily subsidizes the insurance purchases of
upper-middle and upper class Americans, while proposing a feeble voucher
system for uninsured working Americans and an underfunded Medicaid plan
for the poor.

I was without insurance one time for 3 months during a job change.  It
completely changes your life-style.  Stopped playing racquetball becuase I
couldn't afford it if I got hurt, not to mention the possibility of pre-
existing conditions not being covered.  Used two forms of contraception,
because there's no way we could afford to pay for a birth.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc