Look -- we've studied this. There are problems with these high figures. The number of chronically uninsured people (those w/o coverage for more than 2-years) is much lower than the figures being reported. Drive-by wants us to believe there are 47-million people that have never had coverage, can't afford coverage, and will never be able to get coverage. None of this is true. Also, there are problems with the U.S. Census Bureau and CDC figures. For example, we know from studies that if you ask a person (that is on Medicaid) the question, 'are you uninsured', they will answer yes. But they are insured. The same is true for many oldsters. If you ask someone that has Medicare w/o a Medicare supplement policy the same question, they will answer the same way, 'yes' -- I am uninsured. But they are insured.
Also -- I said multi-state which covered a large cross-section of the U.S. The straight 47-million figure is misleading....
Finally -- I am not suggesting we don't have a problem here. We do but it can be fixed without a giant Federal Bureau of Health Insurance that rations health care expenditures and jams your paycheck with a 15% additional payroll tax.
Originally Posted by matclone  Flogging Sully asked you to back up your claims with something, and you basically just repeat what you said before. But maybe you dont' have your sources at hand. The, "they will be insured in 4 mos" argument is misleading. In the meantime, someone else will be uninsured. The "they chose not to be insured, or didn't apply for benefits" argument is misleading because even 18-24 year olds can have an accident at any time. These sound like the sorts of arguments I would expect to hear from, say, the Heritage Foundation. A sound survey will take a snapshot picture, which I assume the cdc did. I've been hearing basically the same numbers for about 15 years and never, ever have I heard of the uninsured figure being below 10%. Also, 42 million is a national figure, not a state figure. State surveys would be only relevant to that state. |