Why do so many think the uninsured is not a large number?

[oldpro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I fail to understand why so many premeds and Medical students believe the crap that the number of the uninsured is low in the USA

There is this consenses that if you work you have insurance and if you are not working you have Medicaid

This is so wrong

During clinicals I'm finding the truth. it is as high as 50% that are uninsured with a small portion underinsured.

this is due to several factors

1. Some jobs work people 29 hours a week, that = no insurance but they may make too much if both work to get Medicaid

2. Some work as independent contractors now and cannot afford the inusrance.

3. If they have insurance they have large copays, some have to spend 2000 a year perperson or 6000 a family to have insurance kick in for coverage, if there are some covered services it is not a lot. FOr these people its like not having insurance.

4. Diassability and workman's comp do everything they can to not pay.

5. If insured the insurance company prolongs payment with reasons given to not pay.

So please tell me why against a possible radical change that will probably lead to more reimbursment, yes may not make as much on each case but may make more overall since you get paid!

In the end the ones who suffer are the working poor with out insurance.

 

[Miami_med]

I fail to understand why so many premeds and Medical students believe the crap that the number of the uninsured is low in the USA

There is this consenses that if you work you have insurance and if you are not working you have Medicaid

This is so wrong

During clinicals I'm finding the truth. it is as high as 50% that are uninsured with a small portion underinsured.

this is due to several factors

1. Some jobs work people 29 hours a week, that = no insurance but they may make too much if both work to get Medicaid

2. Some work as independent contractors now and cannot afford the inusrance.

3. If they have insurance they have large copays, some have to spend 2000 a year perperson or 6000 a family to have insurance kick in for coverage, if there are some covered services it is not a lot. FOr these people its like not having insurance.

4. Diassability and workman's comp do everything they can to not pay.

5. If insured the insurance company prolongs payment with reasons given to not pay.

So please tell me why against a possible radical change that will probably lead to more reimbursment, yes may not make as much on each case but may make more overall since you get paid!

In the end the ones who suffer are the working poor with out insurance.

When I was young (as in the 1980s, as opposed to the dark ages), my father kept a catastrophic insurance policy (which can still be had for very little) and paid our doctors in cash. Some of us don't think that everyone should have insurance in the sense that everyone means politically (something that pays the PCP and all simple lab tests).

"So please tell me why against a possible radical change that will probably lead to more reimbursment, yes may not make as much on each case but may make more overall since you get paid!"

I'm repeating this quote, as this sounds an awful lot like some of the things that were being said when physicians were a well respected lot of professionals with good income and job security before the started accepting Medicare and become the band of malcontented beggars at the feet of congress that they're becoming today.

 

[AwesomO]

If they have insurance they have large copays, some have to spend 2000 a year perperson or 6000 a family to have insurance kick in for coverage, if there are some covered services it is not a lot. FOr these people its like not having insurance.

Having a high deductible plan actually saves people money. ie the cost of a high deductible plan + out of pocket costs for routine health care is less than a full coverage plan. People have just gotten to use to the fully loaded plans. So much so that they are willing to pay an extra $100 or more a month when they could simply just pay $70 out of pocket for an office visit.

Of course if you have the dreaded American tripple cocktail of HTN, HLD, and DM then you probably are better off paying for a plan that gives you a buffet approach to primary care.

If insured the insurance company prolongs payment with reasons given to not pay.

I'm guessing your are advocating for more govt involvement. What you should know is that medicare and medicaid are just as bad about not paying and DENYING care as private companies.

What is this radical change you are talking about? The current Obama plan? Or a system like Canada's?

 

[oldpro]

The AMA plan

We are seeing about 50% uninsured working for real, they are paying 1/3 cash, but many cannot even afford this. The median income in the USA is only 48k per family, how can they afford a USA middle class life now?

 

[MOHS_01]

The AMA plan

We are seeing about 50% uninsured working for real, they are paying 1/3 cash, but many cannot even afford this. The median income in the USA is only 48k per family, how can they afford a USA middle class life now?

A few points:

The first thing to address is the cost of medical care. There is no doubt that much of our medical care is prohibitively expensive for out of pocket costs. Services cost too much to provide, and the "paying" folks (read privately insured) have long been subsidizing the non-paying as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Drugs are expensive, testing is expensive, surgical procedures are expensive to provide -- really the only "cheap" thing any more is MD time and cognitive skills which are truly inexpensive. 50 years ago we did not have CT's, MRI's, CABG's, angioplasty, nuclear scans, etc. The PDR was a relatively short read as well. If you are willing to accept these limitations, getting sick and seeing a doc is not that expensive. Getting well can play hell, though.

The next thing (and this is very, very important) is the definition of "middle class" and what that entails. The 1950's and 60's have traditionally been viewed as the pinnacle of working middle class success. In 1950 the average American home was 983sq ft. It had two or three bedrooms, one bath, and maybe a garage (although that was pushing it). Families were larger then too. There was typically one vehicle per family. Vacations were considered a luxury, there were no $300 cell phones with $100/month plans, no cable/satellite TV, etc. Envy, greed, and increasing expectations have all contributed to this so called "fall of the middle class". Americans have lived beyond their means for years, and the pains being felt currently are a reflection of these unsustainable trends, irresponsible habits, and lack of self control coming home to roost.

 

[FoundationsFan5]

The next thing (and this is very, very important) is the definition of "middle class" and what that entails. The 1950's and 60's have traditionally been viewed as the pinnacle of working middle class success. In 1950 the average American home was 983sq ft. It had two or three bedrooms, one bath, and maybe a garage (although that was pushing it). Families were larger then too. There was typically one vehicle per family. Vacations were considered a luxury, there were no $300 cell phones with $100/month plans, no cable/satellite TV, etc. Envy, greed, and increasing expectations have all contributed to this so called "fall of the middle class". Americans have lived beyond their means for years, and the pains being felt currently are a reflection of these unsustainable trends, irresponsible habits, and lack of self control coming home to roost.

THANK YOU 👍 👍 👍...

This thread is over.

 

[167649]

The next thing (and this is very, very important) is the definition of "middle class" and what that entails. The 1950's and 60's have traditionally been viewed as the pinnacle of working middle class success. In 1950 the average American home was 983sq ft. It had two or three bedrooms, one bath, and maybe a garage (although that was pushing it). Families were larger then too. There was typically one vehicle per family. Vacations were considered a luxury, there were no $300 cell phones with $100/month plans, no cable/satellite TV, etc. Envy, greed, and increasing expectations have all contributed to this so called "fall of the middle class". Americans have lived beyond their means for years, and the pains being felt currently are a reflection of these unsustainable trends, irresponsible habits, and lack of self control coming home to roost.

Amen brotha.

 

[Miami_med]

A few points:

The first thing to address is the cost of medical care. There is no doubt that much of our medical care is prohibitively expensive for out of pocket costs. Services cost too much to provide, and the "paying" folks (read privately insured) have long been subsidizing the non-paying as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Drugs are expensive, testing is expensive, surgical procedures are expensive to provide -- really the only "cheap" thing any more is MD time and cognitive skills which are truly inexpensive. 50 years ago we did not have CT's, MRI's, CABG's, angioplasty, nuclear scans, etc. The PDR was a relatively short read as well. If you are willing to accept these limitations, getting sick and seeing a doc is not that expensive. Getting well can play hell, though.

The next thing (and this is very, very important) is the definition of "middle class" and what that entails. The 1950's and 60's have traditionally been viewed as the pinnacle of working middle class success. In 1950 the average American home was 983sq ft. It had two or three bedrooms, one bath, and maybe a garage (although that was pushing it). Families were larger then too. There was typically one vehicle per family. Vacations were considered a luxury, there were no $300 cell phones with $100/month plans, no cable/satellite TV, etc. Envy, greed, and increasing expectations have all contributed to this so called "fall of the middle class". Americans have lived beyond their means for years, and the pains being felt currently are a reflection of these unsustainable trends, irresponsible habits, and lack of self control coming home to roost.

Great post. I'll add that ~25% of Americans didn't have indoor plumbing in 1950.

 

[futuredo32]

A few points:

The first thing to address is the cost of medical care. There is no doubt that much of our medical care is prohibitively expensive for out of pocket costs. Services cost too much to provide, and the "paying" folks (read privately insured) have long been subsidizing the non-paying as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Drugs are expensive, testing is expensive, surgical procedures are expensive to provide -- really the only "cheap" thing any more is MD time and cognitive skills which are truly inexpensive. 50 years ago we did not have CT's, MRI's, CABG's, angioplasty, nuclear scans, etc. The PDR was a relatively short read as well. If you are willing to accept these limitations, getting sick and seeing a doc is not that expensive. Getting well can play hell, though.

The next thing (and this is very, very important) is the definition of "middle class" and what that entails. The 1950's and 60's have traditionally been viewed as the pinnacle of working middle class success. In 1950 the average American home was 983sq ft. It had two or three bedrooms, one bath, and maybe a garage (although that was pushing it). Families were larger then too. There was typically one vehicle per family. Vacations were considered a luxury, there were no $300 cell phones with $100/month plans, no cable/satellite TV, etc. Envy, greed, and increasing expectations have all contributed to this so called "fall of the middle class". Americans have lived beyond their means for years, and the pains being felt currently are a reflection of these unsustainable trends, irresponsible habits, and lack of self control coming home to roost.

Awesome post!

In addition, I'll cut and paste what I read on SDN awhile ago.

"So, let's take a look at a rough breakout of the 47 million statistics. First, 12.7 million (27%) of the 47 million are uninsured for only a part of the year in which they are counted, and are, therefore, ultimately insured. This is an issue of portability of health insurance. Second, around 10.34 million (22%) of the 47 million are listed as "not American citizens''. Surely the solution for this group has more to do with immigration reform than reform of the health-care system? Third, 19% constitute a group of roughly 9 million people, half of whom earn $50–75,000 a year while the other half earn more than $75,000 a year. Many of these individuals are healthy young people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. Fourth, a group of about 8 million people (17% of the 47 million) are actually eligible for health insurance under a variety of existing plans but don't take advantage of them, sometimes owing to ignorance. The lack of insurance in this group is surely a problem of patient education. Finally, 15% make up a fifth group of approximately 7 million people who might actually represent the true "uninsured'' or those‘‘without insurance whatsoever''. This situation is certainly a tragedy for a country as rich as the US. When the 47 million uninsured figure, is quoted it implies that all of these individuals represent the fifth group of uninsured individuals, which seems incorrect. It also implies that fixing the problem of the uninsured will fix the problem of access to care when, in reality, they are two separate issues."

http://www.nature.com/ncponc/journal...cponc1046.html

 

[oldpro]

The uninsured is much higher then what you posted, Medical savings accounts do not work if people have major trauma or Cancer. I think that gets overlooked

What you have cut and pasted is not facts but a deduction and opinion of someone else you agree with, Thats fine but it does not really prove there is not a large number of uninsured, trying to say "Real citizens" or groups is really candy coating the real fact that the Hospitals and Physicians are loosing a considerable amount of reimbursement based on those who cannot pay due to under insured or no insurance.


As far as the middle class, sure post away, what you have proved is what the Politicians do not want to admit we have only two classes in this country now the haves and the have not.

 

[oldpro]

A few points:

The first thing to address is the cost of medical care. There is no doubt that much of our medical care is prohibitively expensive for out of pocket costs. Services cost too much to provide, and the "paying" folks (read privately insured) have long been subsidizing the non-paying as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Drugs are expensive, testing is expensive, surgical procedures are expensive to provide -- really the only "cheap" thing any more is MD time and cognitive skills which are truly inexpensive. 50 years ago we did not have CT's, MRI's, CABG's, angioplasty, nuclear scans, etc. The PDR was a relatively short read as well. If you are willing to accept these limitations, getting sick and seeing a doc is not that expensive. Getting well can play hell, though.

The next thing (and this is very, very important) is the definition of "middle class" and what that entails. The 1950's and 60's have traditionally been viewed as the pinnacle of working middle class success. In 1950 the average American home was 983sq ft. It had two or three bedrooms, one bath, and maybe a garage (although that was pushing it). Families were larger then too. There was typically one vehicle per family. Vacations were considered a luxury, there were no $300 cell phones with $100/month plans, no cable/satellite TV, etc. Envy, greed, and increasing expectations have all contributed to this so called "fall of the middle class". Americans have lived beyond their means for years, and the pains being felt currently are a reflection of these unsustainable trends, irresponsible habits, and lack of self control coming home to roost.

OK whats in Bold

Cell phones have replaced Home phones in some cases, My home phone cost me around 50 USD a month before I trashed it. a Phone for all 4 of us costs around 170 a month, I cannot function without mine, are you willing to?

Satellite TV is necessary in some parts of the USA or you have no TV

Internet has become a standard, Uh you are on it now are you not?

Now the other stuff I agree with but this is the 21st century not 1960, things have changed, you can go back to 1860 and compare 1960 to 1860 and find things too, 1960 to 2008 is 48 years that is a long time.

Look I agree there are a lot of overspending and over charging on credit heck that has caused the mortgage problems we have.


But there are two factors that have hurt us in Medicine

1. People are used to paying little for healthcare in the last 25 years now to find they have large copays or no copays

2. People think they should not pay for health care but think its fine to spend 5k on a large screen tv.

 

[AwesomO]

The uninsured is much higher then what you posted, Medical savings accounts do not work if people have major trauma or Cancer. I think that gets overlooked

You are not allowed to have a medical savings account unless you also have catastrophic insurnace as well. In which case the catastrophic would cover the trauma and cancer. I could be mistaken but I've never heard of a free standing health savings account.

 

[MOHS_01]

The uninsured is much higher then what you posted, Medical savings accounts do not work if people have major trauma or Cancer. I think that gets overlooked

What you have cut and pasted is not facts but a deduction and opinion of someone else you agree with, Thats fine but it does not really prove there is not a large number of uninsured, trying to say "Real citizens" or groups is really candy coating the real fact that the Hospitals and Physicians are loosing a considerable amount of reimbursement based on those who cannot pay due to under insured or no insurance.


As far as the middle class, sure post away, what you have proved is what the Politicians do not want to admit we have only two classes in this country now the haves and the have not.

Attempting to inform those whose heads are either in the sand or the clouds is quite like an above avatar....

There clearly exists a subset of the uninsured population who choose to remain uninsured. Likewise, there also exists a population who are eligible for programs already in place; who, for some reason, have not enrolled in said programs. It is also true that a significant percentage of the "uninsured" are not citizens at all.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm

I don't even have the energy to address the "haves and have nots" comment...

 

[oldpro]

You are not allowed to have a medical savings account unless you also have catastrophic insurnace as well. In which case the catastrophic would cover the trauma and cancer. I could be mistaken but I've never heard of a free standing health savings account.

Who says? I was allowed to have one when I worked as a Nurse without such insurance? You do understand that I'm much older then most of you and have had a career before Medical school.

Catastrophic has large Copays and spend downs, 2 to 6k per problem.

 

[MOHS_01]

OK whats in Bold

Cell phones have replaced Home phones in some cases, My home phone cost me around 50 USD a month before I trashed it. a Phone for all 4 of us costs around 170 a month, I cannot function without mine, are you willing to?

Satellite TV is necessary in some parts of the USA or you have no TV

Internet has become a standard, Uh you are on it now are you not?

Now the other stuff I agree with but this is the 21st century not 1960, things have changed, you can go back to 1860 and compare 1960 to 1860 and find things too, 1960 to 2008 is 48 years that is a long time.

Look I agree there are a lot of overspending and over charging on credit heck that has caused the mortgage problems we have.


But there are two factors that have hurt us in Medicine

1. People are used to paying little for healthcare in the last 25 years now to find they have large copays or no copays

2. People think they should not pay for health care but think its fine to spend 5k on a large screen tv.

Just keep digging...just keep digging....

I have yet to read where someone's official cause of death was lack of the latest cell phone, lack of TV, internet, etc.

I have these things because I work for them and can afford them without asking for a handout every time I turn around. I do not have a yacht for the before mentioned reasons.

The public is happy to pay cash for gratification items. They complain incessantly about paying for necessities that they do not bring instant gratification.

 

[oldpro]

"So, let's take a look at a rough breakout of the 47 million statistics. First, 12.7 million (27%) of the 47 million are uninsured for only a part of the year in which they are counted, and are, therefore, ultimately insured. This is an issue of portability of health insurance. Second, around 10.34 million (22%) of the 47 million are listed as "not American citizens''. Surely the solution for this group has more to do with immigration reform than reform of the health-care system? Third, 19% constitute a group of roughly 9 million people, half of whom earn $50–75,000 a year while the other half earn more than $75,000 a year. Many of these individuals are healthy young people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. Fourth, a group of about 8 million people (17% of the 47 million) are actually eligible for health insurance under a variety of existing plans but don't take advantage of them, sometimes owing to ignorance. The lack of insurance in this group is surely a problem of patient education. Finally, 15% make up a fifth group of approximately 7 million people who might actually represent the true "uninsured'' or those‘‘without insurance whatsoever''. This situation is certainly a tragedy for a country as rich as the US. When the 47 million uninsured figure, is quoted it implies that all of these individuals represent the fifth group of uninsured individuals, which seems incorrect. It also implies that fixing the problem of the uninsured will fix the problem of access to care when, in reality, they are two separate issues."

I just read this to my wife out loud, this is the most absurbed and biased statement we have read in years.

One important fact is uninsured is uninsured, if they are a citizen or they are inbetween jobs or they choose not to have inurance for one reason or another ( cost is a good reason in some cases) these people are in the country and get sick and have accidents ( accidents are a leading cause of those young and healthy mentioned as well as other diseases know no age)

I find it really interesting that 50k is thought to be a high income, I can prove for a family of three in todays society it is not nearly enough to be much above poor ( low middle class was the old status)

 

[oldpro]

Attempting to inform those whose heads are either in the sand or the clouds is quite like an above avatar....

There clearly exists a subset of the uninsured population who choose to remain uninsured. Likewise, there also exists a population who are eligible for programs already in place; who, for some reason, have not enrolled in said programs. It is also true that a significant percentage of the "uninsured" are not citizens at all.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm

I don't even have the energy to address the "haves and have nots" comment...

How do they have the choice? Again? You cannot prove this, You are saying "these people" who are these people? ( I know you do not have the energy to back up what you say with facts) plus I know of some situations here in my state where there is no insurance at the places of employment, a lot of these people are employed in construction, I know you will say the Union, well many are not in the union and insurance in the Union is not automatic, yes for a price everyone can be insured, but if you understand how much money it takes to go to work, feed your family and pay the bills then you would understand the economy in the USA has made life here different then just 10 years ago, the USA is about to be in recession or even Depression as bad as the 1930's, if things do not change the Dollar may collapse.

 

[oldpro]

Just keep digging...just keep digging....



I have these things because I work for them and can afford them without asking for a handout every time I turn around. I do not have a yacht for the before mentioned reasons.

OK you work for them, who says others do not? Are you trying to say people choose to be poor or not make the amount you need to be one of the haves?

a family of 3 currently needs to make an income of around at least 75k a year to truly be Middle class. It costs money to have a home, cars, and the things modern.

We will have to disagree, does not make you wrong or me wrong, this is mostly just opinion by both of us, BTW I'm not a Democrat, LOL but I do not buy into the numbers posted either. I think there is really a crises in the USA and that insurance companies are to blame for it.

 

[AwesomO]

Who says? I was allowed to have one when I worked as a Nurse without such insurance? You do understand that I'm much older then most of you and have had a career before Medical school.

Catastrophic has large Copays and spend downs, 2 to 6k per problem.

To the bolded part I say "so?"

To the second part losing 6K for a catastrophic problem is pretty good. In fact it puts medical losses on par with car and house catastrophes. Where it should be ie something you can reasonablly afford. This is opposed to getting bills in the way of 100K or more for a serious medical condition or getting "dinked" for 20K for an average stay.

 

[MOHS_01]

We will have to disagree. BTW, what is it with the random and strange decision for capitalization?

The point that is to be made regarding "the middle class" is that the definition of "middle class" is apparently fluid and trending upwards according to the aforementioned expectations. This entire "middle class" concept is a little frustrating as well, as it at one time was interchangable with "white collar"; or, in Marxist trains of thought (ugh) represented the bourgeoisie -- those who were businessmen, not laborers. The problem centers around the fact that it is a comparitive term, requiring upper and lower classes for its definition. Since the often stated goal is to eliminate poverty and the lower class (noble goals, but that's not the point), the middle class becomes a sliding scale which now apparently is supposed to include every working individual in a society (sounds strangely more and more communistic the further that the logic is followed out).

Blame also cannot be solely laid at the feet of the insurance industry either (and I gagged a little just thinking that). Employers, labor unions, the insurance industry, physicians, hospitals, essentially everyone involved shares blame to one extent or another.

If you look at the charts presented in the document (which, BTW, is the original data from which your quoted figure is derived) you will find that 21% are illegals... take them out of the figure... a significant percentage are below 18 (SCHIP, medicaid, etc if they meet fairly liberal requirements for minors), not to mention those who make greater than 300% of the federal poverty level (which constitutes a $20/hr job for a single person, even greater for families-- if one can land a $20/hr job they possess the skillset required to find a job that offers insurance if their current employer does not).

I believe that many of the differences of opinion that are expressed on forums such as this are reflections of personal experience. I came from an extremely humble (and filled with hard labor) background, never had much, put in the time, studied, borrowed from federal and private programs, paid my way, and landed a pretty sweet gig by working my a** off. I have never believed in the "glass ceiling" or anything of the sort that is often insinuated regarding people of "lower socioeconomic status".

 

[MOHS_01]

One last thought on this and then I'm done.

I would love to have you on a rotation with me. Seriously. It is very difficult to exchange conceptually difficult ideas concisely as is required on a forum like this.

Regarding the recession / depression talk: the dollar has suffered a long, slow collapse. We are experiencing rough economic times for a multitude of reasons, but to call it a recession would require changing the definition of "recession". Certain sectors are harder hit than others. We are not likely to see a "depression" due to the breadth of services and sectors in our own economy present today (vs the '30s) as well as the fact that developing markets will likely soften any fall domestically.

We need a correction -- I, and many others, have long contended that "American Excess" is a significant problem. We need to get back to more realistic and responsible expectations of what is appropriate savings rate, materialistic desires, etc.

 

[Punchap]

I have never believed in the "glass ceiling" or anything of the sort that is often insinuated regarding people of "lower socioeconomic status".

Me neither. I've had to work for everything I have now and will continue to work for it long after all my 250K loans are paid off. I could be like my brother, who chooses not to have the health insurance offered through his employer and instead spends his money going out to clubs every night (he's 23). Instead, I own my choices and actions and pay my insurance premiums.

I understand (somewhat anecdotally) that many people who do not have health insurance could have it, they just elect not to. While working at a free clinic, I can't tell you how many times I've seen patients role up in really nice cars, whip out their cell phones (not a necessity - I don't have one), and carry around their designer handbags. I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said -- our people cannot prioritize.

I have no problem in helping the percentage of the population that is definitely in need of assisted funding in healthcare. The problem arises when charity becomes mandatory (thanks Obama) and people take advantage of it. And before you bark back asking me what that has to do with the topic, remind yourself that everything in healthcare debate is inextricably linked.

 

[Miami_med]

I just read this to my wife out loud, this is the most absurbed and biased statement we have read in years.

One important fact is uninsured is uninsured, if they are a citizen or they are inbetween jobs or they choose not to have inurance for one reason or another ( cost is a good reason in some cases) these people are in the country and get sick and have accidents ( accidents are a leading cause of those young and healthy mentioned as well as other diseases know no age)

I find it really interesting that 50k is thought to be a high income, I can prove for a family of three in todays society it is not nearly enough to be much above poor ( low middle class was the old status)

I currently survive on about 36-40k/year, and that supports 7 people in my household. I have a small house of about 1000 square feet. I have health insurance. I have 2 cars, one of which is a 2002 and one of which is a 2007. Most of my money is in the form of loans, so I say that I'm poor because this lifestyle brings debt for me while I'm in school. However, I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone who had seen the way that most people live would think of my lifestyle as anything but lower middle class (the new car is actually a minivan purchased in response to the additions to my family that brought the magic number up to 7). This is in a high cost metro.

 

[Miami_med]

One last thought on this and then I'm done.

I would love to have you on a rotation with me. Seriously. It is very difficult to exchange conceptually difficult ideas concisely as is required on a forum like this.

Regarding the recession / depression talk: the dollar has suffered a long, slow collapse. We are experiencing rough economic times for a multitude of reasons, but to call it a recession would require changing the definition of "recession". Certain sectors are harder hit than others. We are not likely to see a "depression" due to the breadth of services and sectors in our own economy present today (vs the '30s) as well as the fact that developing markets will likely soften any fall domestically.

We need a correction -- I, and many others, have long contended that "American Excess" is a significant problem. We need to get back to more realistic and responsible expectations of what is appropriate savings rate, materialistic desires, etc.

Darn, we'd been agreeing on everything lately 😉

A recession, which is defined as "negative economic growth" is a bizarre thing in and of itself tied to all sorts of strange variables in true Keynesian fashion. In other words, the Fed can control a number of variables and make it so that we do not enter a recession by definition (while the economy itself suffers).

The economy WILL get worse eventually, whether the Fed fudges its variables or not. You can't print money (at the rate of 8% of the entire supply a year at its height), drive up speculative investment, and then expect the whole thing to settle gently. Recent asset bubbles jumped from stocks to housing to commodities. Every bubble is shorter and uglier, and the longer we delay the fallout, the uglier the final correction will be. (I cringe at the thought of Obama trying to fix oil prices to drive out "speculative investment" and creating real shortages on top of a bubble.)

All of that being said, the government stepping in, removing investment money from the economy and using it to pay off the health insurance companies (I mean provide insurance to the poor of course) will not exactly help that situation, and the plight of the economy is an even better argument to NOT interfere.

 

[futuredo32]

I just read this to my wife out loud, this is the most absurbed and biased statement we have read in years.

One important fact is uninsured is uninsured, if they are a citizen or they are inbetween jobs or they choose not to have inurance for one reason or another ( cost is a good reason in some cases) these people are in the country and get sick and have accidents ( accidents are a leading cause of those young and healthy mentioned as well as other diseases know no age)

I find it really interesting that 50k is thought to be a high income, I can prove for a family of three in todays society it is not nearly enough to be much above poor ( low middle class was the old status)

I'm not sure how one could find it absurd or even biased.😕 Facts are facts.
I think that most people hear about the uninsured in the US and immediately, an image of a poor struggling person who absolutely can not afford insurance, and "oh, that poor person, how sad........" The statistics used in this article point out what may be less obvious instances where people are uninsured. If you have statistics that lead one to other conclusions, I'd like to read the article.

Whatever class level you consider 50k to be, it's clearly enough to afford health insurance for a family of 3 or 4. One of my friends is going to be a PGY-2 on July 1 and she supports two kids and her stay at home husband on a resident's salary, and they are all insured, own a home, newer model cars, and live a decent life. She doesn't spend $170/month on a cell phone. She has a landline only. Personally, if I had to choose between television and cellphones vs. health insurance, I'd definitely pick health insurance. Again, it's all about priorities. My health is far more important to me than tv or the convienence a cell phone provides. If some people choose cell phones, tv, etc over health insurance, they've decided that such luxuries are more important than their health and that's fine, but not some sort of national tragedy. People choosing not to purchase health insurance is not much different than people choosing to eat fatty foods regularly. They both may suffer adverse outcomes due to the choices they made. Should we mandate health insurance for everyone and ban high fat foods nationwide?

 

[FoundationsFan5]

Props to MOHS_01, Futuredo32, and Miami_Med for completely dominating this thread.

Add all this to the fact that the past 20 years in the school system, society, etc. have changed remarkably. Keep in mind that many (though not all) now entering adulthood have grown up in the world where they are not corrected when they spell words the wrong way, where red ink can't be used on these test papers, where "everyone's a winner", and kids who are the best are not rewarded the way they used to because it might hurt someone else's "feelings". This is the generation of kids / young adults that have needed a pat on the head and a lullaby every time they don't get their way. Who cares about accountability or responsibility, as long as you feel good about yourself, right? Take shortcuts, and if those don't work out, someone should just outright give you what you want because hey, you're "SPECIAL" and everything should be FAIR.

I think this mentality plays a role in the health care debate of nowadays.

Should be an interesting outcome when these people enter the real world and realize they aren't as special as they've been told their whole life. Worst part is, it won't really be their fault.

 

[AwesomO]

Props to MOHS_01, Futuredo32, and Miami_Med for completely dominating this thread.

Add all this to the fact that the past 20 years in the school system, society, etc. have changed remarkably. Keep in mind that many (though not all) now entering adulthood have grown up in the world where they are not corrected when they spell words the wrong way, where red ink can't be used on these test papers, where "everyone's a winner", and kids who are the best are not rewarded the way they used to because it might hurt someone else's "feelings". This is the generation of kids / young adults that have needed a pat on the head and a lullaby every time they don't get their way. Who cares about accountability or responsibility, as long as you feel good about yourself, right? Take shortcuts, and if those don't work out, someone should just outright give you what you want because hey, you're "SPECIAL" and everything should be FAIR.

I think this mentality plays a role in the health care debate of nowadays.

Should be an interesting outcome when these people enter the real world and realize they aren't as special as they've been told their whole life. Worst part is, it won't really be their fault.

You gotta be kidding me. When did this start? Is it only emotional neutral colors like light blue that are allowed now? 🙄

 

[skee lo]

I'll make no attempt to trivialize the problem. The uninsured is a large number indeed. But the only thing worse than the current system is a national system that will lead to rationing. Either people will suffer without insurance or they'll suffer when the government fails to provide treatment.

 

[Miami_med]

I'll make no attempt to trivialize the problem. The uninsured is a large number indeed. But the only thing worse than the current system is a national system that will lead to rationing. Either people will suffer without insurance or they'll suffer when the government fails to provide treatment.

People don't suffer from not having insurance, They suffer from getting sick or injured (Which has nothing to do with the government beyond basic public health measures). It is mostly (though obviously not all) related to life choices or getting old. When we move beyond pure free market healthcare financing, what we are arguing about is how much of our scarce resources should we use towards trying to make them better.