Health Care: Democrats' or Republicans' Other 2008 Issue

Plights of those uninsured, and fears among others that they may be, are the focus of Democrats, in order to create political pressure to drastically overhaul America’s health care systems and taxes. But, the statistics that Democrats and the major media are using are grossly inflated. They, also and consequently, are used to undermine both the health care and finances of everyone else, the overwhelming majority, as well as our national security.

“Health care is emerging as a top issue in the 2008 presidential race,” declares the New York Times in reporting the presentations of seven prospective Democrat candidates for president, speaking at a forum sponsored by the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress Action Fund in early primary state Nevada.

The core statistic cited by proponents of radical change is that there are about 46.6-million uninsured Americans. Much of the uninsured statistic evaporates, however, when analyzed.

These are the uninsured in America at any one point in time during a year in America, according to the U.S. Census.

First, according to the Census, that number had been erroneously compiled. Last week, the Census announced it had overstated the number by close to 2-million, about 4%.

Second of larger impact, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) about a quarter to half of the uninsured are without coverage for the entire year. The rest are between coverages.

Third, again according to the Census, about 20% of the 46.6-million it had previously reported without insurance at any point during the year are not citizens. The percentage is probably higher due to the difficulties of counting illegals.

Fourth, according to the same Census data, 17-million of the 46.6-million, 37%, are in households with above $50,000 a year of income, middle-class and above, who can afford health insurance, even if in some cases necessary to reprioritize spending toward this necessity.

There are other caveats of the uninsured count, but the core point is that the truer number of uninsured Americans who are so for long and economic or underwriting reasons beyond their reasonable control is closer to half the number commonly cited, let’s say 25-million.

By contrast, there are about 250-million in America who have health coverage, about 63% through employment and another 8% through individual policies, again according to the CBO, the rest through various government programs.

In other words, for 10% the Democrats would upend the other 90%, who by various surveys express 80% satisfaction with their health care, if anxiety about its personal costs.

However, neither the insurance industry, incremental reforms, nor employers have ill-served the insured. Again, according to statistics gathered by the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The share of private health care spending that health insurance covers has more than doubled since the 1960s.

In 1960, health insurance paid covered 36 percent of private health spending, while individuals covered the remaining 64 percent out of their own pocket. By 2004, health insurance accounted for 77 percent of private health spending, while out-of-pocket spending accounted for 23 percent of spending.

And,

In 2005, workers paid on average 16 percent of the cost of employee-only coverage and 26 percent of the cost of family coverage. These shares are about what they were in 2000, which were 14 percent for employee-only coverage and 26 percent for family coverage.
Workers paid a smaller share of the premium in 2005 for employee-only coverage than they paid in 1996, when the employee share of the premium was 21 percent.

So, in the face of real statistics, what do the leading Democrats say? In short, demagoguery, chickens-in-every-pot, and the impact on the insured, the economy and the national security be darned.
Edwards admits tax increases will be necessary to pay for “universal coverage” :

Edwards said any politician who says they can provide universal health care and other promises while ending the federal deficit are not being honest.
"They've probably got a bridge in Brooklyn they want to sell you, too," Edwards said to laughter and applause. "I just don't think it can be done."

Clinton says soak others:

"We're going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now," she said. Asked who that way, she mentioned insurance companies.

Richardson says spend the funds spent on Iraq and needed defense improvements:

He said he would pay for his plan in large part by ending the war in Iraq and shifting the military spending to human needs - an idea that won loud applause.

Obama hasn’t figured it out, but offers his common empty rhetoric:

“I haven't yet made a decision about how much additional money is going to be needed,” said Obama, who has not yet proposed a detailed plan.

The legitimate needs of the 25-million, about half of whom qualify for existing government programs but don’t enroll, can be handled by energetic outreach, funding the targeted programs, high-risk pools for those with severe conditions (not shifting their costs on to other insureds through guaranteed enrollment in the insureds’ risk pools), and vouchers for the other working poor who are here legally. Illegal immigrants should not be further incentivised to come or remain.

Insurers are not profiteering, as Democrats rant. Their profit margins are about average for American industries, 7.1%, well-below the 11.8% of Publishing & Printing, even below the 7.5% of Computers & Office Equipment or 8% for Entertainment.

If Republicans need further encouragement to speak out besides the facts, they should consider that Democrats are selling 90% down the river for 10%. The 10% can be taken care of, but not by throwing the rest of Americans out with the wash water.