Quantcast

Is obama trying to generate a healthcare crisis that doesn't exist according to the Census Bureau?

Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy 2009/09/14 18:13:19
Yes - obama is going to "crisitize" the country to death!
Whatever it takes so that I can get my "free" healthcare!
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
From the Census Bureau -
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin08/hlth08asc.html
Moreover, more people are moving into government healthcare coverage, mostly Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP.

Meanwhile, the rates of insured Whites went down. But the rate stayed the same for Blacks – and even went up for Hispanics.

Which is this pretty much what FactCheck and their idol Mr. Obama want, is it not?

So what exactly is the problem obama? The federal government needs more power?


Health Insurance Coverage: 2008
Highlights:

•The percentage of people without health insurance in 2008 was not statistically different from 2007 at 15.4 percent. The number of uninsured increased to 46.3 million in 2008, from 45.7 million in 2007.
•The number of people with health insurance increased to 255.1 million in 2008 — up from 253.4 million in 2007. The number of people covered by private health insurance decreased to 201.0 million in 2008 — down from 202.0 million in 2007. The number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 87.4 million — up from 83.0 million in 2007.
•The percentage of people covered by private health insurance was 66.7 percent in 2008 — down from 67.5 percent in 2007. The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 58.5 percent in 2008, from 59.3 percent in 2007. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance decreased to 176.3 million in 2008, from 177.4 million in 2007.
•The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs increased to 29.0 percent in 2008, from 27.8 percent in 2007. The percentage and the number of people covered by Medicaid increased to 14.1 percent and 42.6 million in 2008, from 13.2 percent and 39.6 million in 2007. The percentage and number of people covered by Medicare increased to 14.3 percent and 43.0 million in 2008, from 13.8 percent and 41.4 million in 2007.
•In 2008, the percentage and number of children under 18 without health insurance were 9.9 percent and 7.3 million, lower than they were in 2007 at 11.0 percent and 8.1 million. The uninsured rate and the number of uninsured for children are the lowest since 1987, the first year that comparable health insurance data were collected. Although the uninsured rate for children in poverty decreased to 15.7 percent in 2008, from 17.6 percent in 2007, children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children.
•The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for non-Hispanic Whites increased in 2008 to 10.8 percent and 21.3 million, from 10.4 percent and 20.5 million in 2007. The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for Blacks in 2008 were not statistically different from 2007, at 19.1 percent and 7.3 million.
•The percentage of uninsured Hispanics decreased to 30.7 percent in 2008, from 32.1 percent in 2007. The number of uninsured Hispanics was not statistically different in 2008, at 14.6 million.
It turns out that the percentage of people with health insurance has not changed in the last year. And, in fact, the number of people insured has actually gone up. (As the population grew.)

Moreover, more people are moving into government healthcare coverage, mostly Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP.

Meanwhile, the rates of insured Whites went down. But the rate stayed the same for Blacks – and even went up for Hispanics.

Which is this pretty much what FactCheck and their idol Mr. Obama want, is it not?

So what exactly is the problem?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • hermes23 2009/09/15 00:14:01
    Yes - obama is going to "crisitize" the country to death!
    hermes23
    +4
    Whatever the numbers, the government is not the solution. Whatever the numbers, the government is the problem. A free market in health care would improve the situation (whatever the situation is) dramatically.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Angel 2009/09/15 04:01:00
    Yes - obama is going to "crisitize" the country to death!
    Angel
    +1
    and he is always trying to scare people , he is telling people now thousands will be without insurance soon... how does he know that, unless he plans on making it so....... fear and criticism
  • hermes23 2009/09/15 00:14:01
    Yes - obama is going to "crisitize" the country to death!
    hermes23
    +4
    Whatever the numbers, the government is not the solution. Whatever the numbers, the government is the problem. A free market in health care would improve the situation (whatever the situation is) dramatically.
  • Ms. Mom... hermes23 2009/09/15 03:22:33 (edited)
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    +2
    I agree - I just get irritated at obama and crew always trying to create a "crisis" to scare people into accepting his neo-marxist agenda.
  • rjmac7 2009/09/14 23:56:48 (edited)
    Yes - obama is going to "crisitize" the country to death!
    rjmac7
    +1
    I relate a lot of the scare on Swine Flu to the Avian Pandemic of a few years ago where they estimated it would kill a quarter of the population of China and kill millions around the world, and it basically Fizzled.
  • sugarbuzz 2009/09/14 22:50:20
    Undecided
    sugarbuzz
    +1
    There was just a poll taken today, and 73% of doctors in America are for a single-payer or public option. Over 70% of the people are now for a public option. The only area that the U.S.A. still leads in is Cancer Care. The per captia costs for other countries breaks down as follows:Germany, $3287, UK $2724 Canada $3326 Australia $3128 France $ 3283. The # for the U.S. is $6500. Keep in mind that these numbers are probably even higher now from the last W.H.O. census. and ccorrespond to total spent on health care divided by the total population. Also, the average salaries in Europe are are higher than in the U.S. and of course, they normally get paid vacation and government pension. No one needs to contrive a crisis, the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have put costs so high and have such power to keep you on or drop, pay or not your premiums they happily collect have little effect on how you can actually be treated when you need it, or get the meds you need when you need them. Change and need for it is real and urgent.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/14 23:11:09
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    So now we have to play battle of the poll? If you quote stats you need references dear.

    74% Say Out-Of-Pocket Medical Costs Should Be Tax Deductible
    If the plan passes, 34% of voters say the quality of care will get better and 46% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.

    Forty-two percent (42%) say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up while 28% say it will make costs go down.

    AND healthcare in those other countries is R-A-T-I-O-N-E-D!!!!!
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/15 00:11:06 (edited)
    sugarbuzz
    No it isn't. We live there part of the year, and it is NOT. Check the stats on the W.H.O. and any gov.com site for the same. Don't see any references to check from you,.......ever. Try checking the NPR web site too, they have the most recent and verifiable information, and others to check and balance the stats.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/15 17:57:21
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    great idea - why don't you live there all of the time? You like their healthcare system - go for it.
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/16 17:45:24
    sugarbuzz
    good comeback, like I haven't heard it from your kind before. We can have dual citizenship and live anywhere we want, but since we choose to live here we can also have a say in the legislation that governs the country...so I can have the best of all worlds and you can stay in your little "shell" while the beach ignores you.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/16 20:38:42 (edited)
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    interesting you choose to live in the United States .. hmmm.

    Answers to questions I just know you need to hear.

    Health care reform faces inconvenient questions
    By: Susan Ferrechio
    Chief Congressional Correspondent
    September 15, 2009

    Now that President Obama has outlined his goals for an overhaul of the American health care system, Democrats are trying to fashion new legislation that will include all of Obama's aims. The president wants a new government-run insurance program, additional regulations for the insurance industry and rules requiring all Americans to buy insurance if they can afford it or be given coverage if they can't. Obama's plan draws elements from the multiple bills in Congress. But in trying to merge the ideas into a compromise bill, Democratic leaders face a series of inconvenient questions:

    1. Who would foot the bill for extending health insurance to 30 million more Americans?

    Obama's plan draws heavily from a proposal in the Senate Finance Committee that would tax insurance companies that provide expensive health plans. There would be new taxes on drugs and health care providers. The House would impose a tax on incomes of more than $280,000 for individuals and $350,000 for couples. No proposed plan would cover all the costs.

    2. Would doctors and...










































    interesting you choose to live in the United States .. hmmm.

    Answers to questions I just know you need to hear.

    Health care reform faces inconvenient questions
    By: Susan Ferrechio
    Chief Congressional Correspondent
    September 15, 2009

    Now that President Obama has outlined his goals for an overhaul of the American health care system, Democrats are trying to fashion new legislation that will include all of Obama's aims. The president wants a new government-run insurance program, additional regulations for the insurance industry and rules requiring all Americans to buy insurance if they can afford it or be given coverage if they can't. Obama's plan draws elements from the multiple bills in Congress. But in trying to merge the ideas into a compromise bill, Democratic leaders face a series of inconvenient questions:

    1. Who would foot the bill for extending health insurance to 30 million more Americans?

    Obama's plan draws heavily from a proposal in the Senate Finance Committee that would tax insurance companies that provide expensive health plans. There would be new taxes on drugs and health care providers. The House would impose a tax on incomes of more than $280,000 for individuals and $350,000 for couples. No proposed plan would cover all the costs.

    2. Would doctors and hospitals be able to cope with the expected influx of millions of new patients?

    Advocates say that many new enrollees would be young and not in need of frequent medical care and that preventive care would help stave off diseases that require more services. But many of the newly insured would also be poor and suffering from chronic conditions. Critics expect long waits for medical services as in Europe and Canada.

    3. Wouldn't illegal immigrants still get care, often for free, in hospitals?

    No bill would block free hospital care for illegal immigrants. The House bill would not allow illegal immigrants to receive subsidized care, but there is nothing in the bill that would prohibit illegals from buying insurance policies or joining the government option. The Senate bill will likely block subsidized coverage for illegals.

    4. Who would enforce the requirement that individuals have coverage?

    The IRS would be the chief enforcer of the individual mandate. That's because the government would impose an additional income tax on those who do not purchase coverage. The IRS would verify coverage claims with the names and Social Security numbers of customers provided to the agency by insurers. The IRS would also evaluate individual incomes to determine eligibility for subsidized coverage.

    5. Will employers stop providing health care coverage if a public plan is available?

    There is no plan in Congress to prevent this. The Congressional Budget Office found that if one Democratic plan in the Senate becomes law, "about 6 million people who would have employment-based coverage under current law would not have such coverage under the proposal."

    6. How can spending less on Medicare produce better care for participants?

    The president says that cutting $500 billion from Medicare in the next decade will rid the system of waste and fraud and increase access to care. But members of both parties are worried about the president's plan to give an appointed board power to make the cuts, as well as access to care in rural areas.

    7. What other programs would need to be cut if Obama's promised savings don't materialize?


    The president said in his address to Congress that if the hundreds of billions of dollars in government health savings don't materialize, he would find savings in other areas. But only 38 percent of the federal budget is subject to cuts, and that includes hard-to-trim departments like Defense, Transportation and Education.

    8. Similar plans have failed in several states. How would a federal plan avoid the same fate?

    Critics of the Democratic plans say the outcome would be similar to public plans initiated in several states that have either failed completely, like Hawaii, or are struggling, like Massachusetts, where the program has been deemed too costly for residents and too expensive for the state to afford. Advocates say savings and efficiencies are possible if all 310 million Americans are subject to the plan.

    9. Can the president make good on his promise not to "add one dime" to the national debt?

    The Congressional Budget Office estimates the House health care bill will increase the deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years, while the Senate bill would add more than $1 trillion to the national debt in the next decade. Democrats discount those figures, saying they do not include the savings they anticipate.

    10. The president says that he can save $500 billion in waste and fraud in Medicare. Has the government ever succeeded in such an ambitious cutting effort?

    The government has never been able to save money on this scale. Most recently, Obama's effort to make cuts at the Cabinet level yielded about $267 million in savings. And the government's biggest effort yet, initiated by then-Vice President Al Gore in 1993, claimed savings of just $12.3 billion after four years.

    11. Is it true, as the president and Democratic leaders have argued, that "special interests" are trying to block reform?

    The pharmaceutical industry has already cut a deal with the administration to lower drug costs for seniors and will be paying for $150 million in pro-reform advertising. The American Medical Association last week approved the Obama plan. AARP, one of the nation's largest insurers, has spent millions of dollars on pro-reform ads.

    12. Do we need "demonstration projects" on medical malpractice reforms to find effective ways to control lawsuit costs?

    In Texas, 2005 limits on damages in malpractice cases has led to a 27 percent decrease in malpractice premiums. An additional half-dozen states have cut frivolous suits through similar means. Obama's decision to do yet more state testing, rather than propose legislative changes, leaves critics worrying that he has no intention of implementing nationwide reform.
    (more)
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/17 04:31:58
    sugarbuzz
    It isn't our first choice, but my husband has a tenured position on the faculty so we stay part of the year til he retires. Better look at other correspondents' take on this too....funny how vast the different interpretations are.
  • beachbum sugarbuzz 2009/09/15 00:10:41
    beachbum
    +2
    The change needs to start with getting the lobbyists out of DC, and the pockets of congressional members.
  • sugarbuzz beachbum 2009/09/15 00:17:58
    sugarbuzz
    The insurance and pharma industries are still pushing hard. I hope the push is reversed from this point on.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/09/14 18:42:56
    Yes - obama is going to "crisitize" the country to death!
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +1
    Damn right he is. You are in denial if you think nothing is wrong with our health care system, which is not healthy, not caring, and is not a system. Even the stupid Republicans agree we need reform. Too bad stupidity isn't painful.
  • Ms. Mom... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/09/14 20:41:05
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    +1
    go climb a tree CJ! obama lies!

    Professor Points Out More Obama Lies on Health Care
    Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance --
    His tales of abuse don't stand scrutiny.
    By SCOTT HARRINGTON, Wall Street Journal, Opinion, September 14, 2009

    In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."

    Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.

    Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in un...



























    go climb a tree CJ! obama lies!

    Professor Points Out More Obama Lies on Health Care
    Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance --
    His tales of abuse don't stand scrutiny.
    By SCOTT HARRINGTON, Wall Street Journal, Opinion, September 14, 2009

    In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."

    Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.

    Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.

    This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.

    To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

    Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."

    The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."

    The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.

    These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).

    If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.

    Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."

    In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.

    Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.

    In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.

    Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.

    Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    For those unfamiliar with Pennsylvania's Wharton School, it is one of the most prestigious schools of business in the nation.
    (more)
  • Ms. Mom... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/09/14 20:42:29
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    Yep - that's why 80% are happy with their insurance!! That's why over 70,000 Americans marched to Washington D.C. and told obama to shove it!

    Can't wait for 2010 - I just hope the country can survive until then!
  • sugarbuzz ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2009/09/14 22:51:53
    sugarbuzz
    +1
    Since when do the Republicans agree on anything or offer anything as a "plan"? Heckling and name calling are not the kind of participation that counts towards a solution.
  • beachbum sugarbuzz 2009/09/15 00:12:51
    beachbum
    +1
    The way I see it, the Republicans aren't doing anything that the Dems wouldn't be doing if the Republicans were in control. There are 2 sides to that coin - neither of them good.
  • sugarbuzz beachbum 2009/09/15 00:22:22
    sugarbuzz
    When have the Republicans EVER done anything for the greater good of the common man? It is only when the Democrats push, that we actually get the legislation that has helped those who are not in the wealthiest of the economic brackets, and have helped to raise the standards of the middle class in the process. The selfish interests of the wealthy and now the far-out nut case religious hypocrites are what the present republicans are represented by now-a -days.
  • Disko Pickle 2009/09/14 18:18:00
    Undecided
    Disko Pickle
    +3
    Why did you choose to post those statistics? They completely undermine the premise of your question. Those numbers are worse than Obama, himself, claims that they are.
  • Ms. Mom... Disko P... 2009/09/14 18:23:17 (edited)
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    +1
    I don't see the scary obama crisis - sorry!

    •In 2008, the percentage and number of children under 18 without health insurance were 9.9 percent and 7.3 million, lower than they were in 2007 at 11.0 percent and 8.1 million. The uninsured rate and the number of uninsured for children are the lowest since 1987, the first year that comparable health insurance data were collected. Although the uninsured rate for children in poverty decreased to 15.7 percent in 2008, from 17.6 percent in 2007, children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children.

    •The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for non-Hispanic Whites increased in 2008 to 10.8 percent and 21.3 million, from 10.4 percent and 20.5 million in 2007. The uninsured rate and number of uninsured for Blacks in 2008 were not statistically different from 2007, at 19.1 percent and 7.3 million.

    •The percentage of uninsured Hispanics decreased to 30.7 percent in 2008, from 32.1 percent in 2007. The number of uninsured Hispanics was not statistically different in 2008, at 14.6 million.
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/14 22:54:01
    sugarbuzz
    +1
    You seem to pull your "facts" out of your a#$! You blind yourself to hard, factual data and will continue to do so, no matter who puts them in front of you.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/14 23:42:13 (edited)
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    +2
    these facts hon are from the Census Bureau! lmao! If you dared to keep an open-mind and actually read what was posted - maybe you just might have realized it.
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/15 00:12:30
    sugarbuzz
    What year and site? and your condescention is unnecessary.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/15 03:26:54 (edited)
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    +1
    Learn to spell and don't call me an ass! And just maybe if you read the post you would know!
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/15 05:08:14
    sugarbuzz
    No need, self-inflicted and the paranoia too....buh bye.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/15 17:58:31
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    yep - another self-inflicted progressive with a perverted view of social justice!
  • sugarbuzz Ms. Mom... 2009/09/16 17:46:00
    sugarbuzz
    For you social justice is an oxymoron, and you are just the latter.
  • Ms. Mom... sugarbuzz 2009/09/16 20:40:40
    Ms. Mom - profits employ, taxes destroy
    The difference is I know where your rights end and my rights begin!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/23 15:57:18

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals