And if you want to know why the things I discussed in my last post make me so angry, it's because arugments like those keep us from doing anything about this:
The percentage of moderate-income U.S. adults who do not have health insurance during any part of the year increased to 41% in 2005, up from 28% in 2001, according to a study by the Commonwealth FundAP/Houston Chronicle reports (Agovino, AP/Houston Chronicle, 4/25). For the study, researchers surveyed 4,350 adults, focusing on those ages 19 to 64, using 25-minute telephone interviews between August 2005 and January 2006. According to the study, 41% of adults with annual incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, compared with 35% in 2003 and 28% in 2001. In addition, the study finds that 18% of adults with annual incomes between $35,000 and $60,000 were uninsured for part of 2005, up from 16% in 2003 and 13% in 2001 (Whitehouse, Dow Jones Newswires, 4/26).
It's getting worse, and instead of coming up with workable, real solutions for reform, we're arguing over waiting lists in Canada.
I haven't had time to review the metholology, but their numbers seem higher than published elsewhere. For example, if 18% are uninsured based on 300 million population that's, what, 51 million? I had thought we were still in the mid-forties. And the underinsured numbers are way higher, as I mentioned here.
What gives? Is the problem getting worse, (probably) or is this just a measurement bias?
Posted by: shadowfax | April 26, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Shadowfax, it is a nuance of how you measure the uninsured. The Commonwealth Fund was looking at persons who reported being uninsured at the time of the survey or had experienced a time without coverage in the previous twelve months. If you are looking for a more typical figure, then 31.6 million people were uninsured at the time of the survey and 16.2 million people with insurance now were in the category of being without coverage in the prior year.
Martin
Posted by: Martin | April 26, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Yeah, I think those numbers are a little inflated. I was without health insurance in the past 12 months because I switched jobs and was not covered for the first month of my new job. It may be more a reflection of people changing jobs more often than anything else. What would be more interesting is the number who went without insurance for the entire year, not just a part of it.
Posted by: spike | April 26, 2006 at 08:43 PM