89.6 million lacked health insurance in 2006-7

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/Reuters

More than one-third of the U.S. population under the age of 65 went without health insurance for all or part of the last two years, a consumer group said on Thursday.

The nonprofit Families USA group used data from last month's U.S. Census Bureau report that found 47 million Americans went without health insurance for all of 2006.

Families USA broke down that figure and calculated that 89.6 million people under age 65 — 34.7 percent — went without health insurance at some point during 2006-2007. It used a projection for the remaining months of this year.

-----

"The huge number of people without health coverage over the past two years helps to explain why health care has become the top domestic issue in the 2008 presidential campaign," Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896355/

[gate of the sun]

1. Some of our democratic leaders are suggestion all sorts of should

can you imagine trying to get a job and you can't because you don't have health care? What the hell is HRC thinking of? why can't our leaders and potential ones think of better scenario's? Socialized medicine is civilized.

[raccoon]

13. Yeah, like somebody out of a job has the money to pay for a private insurance,

or can afford COBRA. :sarcasm:

At this point I would almost vote for a Republican instead of HRC.

[mark414]

2. in the richest country in the world......

:cry:

[UpInArms]

9. "richest country in the world"

is a myth - we are a debtor nation


The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Sep 2007 at 01:12:25 PM GMT is:


and since the BFEE siezed the WH in 2001, it has become disastrous

on 01/19/2001 the debt was 5,727,776,738,304.64

[Selatius]

3. Health insurance is too expensive because of the profit motive involved.

Companies like United Health and Aetna live to enrich shareholder value.

The profit motive necessarily means that you under pay or simply deny care to patients in terms of care and overcharge on premiums in order to generate a profit margin. In terms of risk mitigation from the viewpoint of the people, this is a waste of money. The logical step would be to remove the profit motive altogether and make insurance totally non-profit.

[Vinca]

4. It's common sense. Apparently, Kucinich is the only candidate to figure

this out. The insurance companies only care if we live or die when it relates to whether or not the premiums are being paid. When it's time to pay out for our benefit, the CEO salaries and shareholders come first. Why else would insurance companies cancel the policies (any kind of policy) of people who take out more than they've paid in?

[papau]

5. I agree - but without "choice" nothing gets passed - so a "Medicare like" policy will be a choice -

just not the whole plan

[antigop]

8. And by the time something actually gets passed as you say....

1) How many HMOs will be allowed in the government plan (i.e., Medicare Advantage)?

2)How much adverse selection will take place because companies will go to high-deductible/HSA arrangements, wooing all of the healthier, wealthier into the private plans, leaving less healthy in the government plan?

<edit to add> And if you have the less healthy in the government plan, it drives up the cost.


Sorry, papau. I respect you, but the insurance companies will continue to win. Adding "choice" is a red herring. The insurance companies will still stack the deck in their favor.

[papau]

10. adverse selection will be problem - but cost advantage of Medicare will most likely

fix the problem.

The HMO inside Medicare should end under a Democrat as Pres - but only after universal is passed.

[antigop]

12. HMO inside Medicare SHOULD end, but it won't

The DEM Majority can't even get something passed now to get rid of Medicare Advantage.

Sorry, I don't believe a DEM president will change anything.

[papau]

25. It's easy to get rid of - just kill subsidy and companies will stop issuing policies. n/t

n/t

[antigop]

29. HA! If it's so easy then WHY haven't the Dems managed to do it? n/t

[ProudDad]

17. Exactly!!!

The for-profit leeches will buy off the hospital administrators and richest doctors with kick-backs and under the table payments.

The for-profit leeches will still cherry pick the healthiest and allow the public system to be burdened with the sickest folks.

Then the for-profit leeches will dump anyone who actually gets sick onto the public system to accelerate their increasing profit margins.

A public system CAN'T work unless a large majority of the population -- healthy and not so healthy -- are ALL in the pool. ObamClintWards know this. Their big money backers know this. "choice" is their red herring...

There are some countries with "insurance company" involvement, like France and Germany, but they are HEAVILY regulated including how much they must reimburse and how much they can charge (price controls!). In the land of the corporation being a "person" with complete "Civil Rights", there ain't no way to regulate the health insurance mafia to the extent necessary.

So, your "choice" is business as usual (see SiCKO for a complete picture of business as usual) or the People's Health Care - Universal Single-Payer.

Those piece-meal, non-universal, pandering plans that ObamClintWards pretend to support WON'T WORK!!!

[papau]

26. true - regulation will needed - but that is not hard to do. - what will be hard will be getting a

flat premium for all ages.

The ins. co's will age rate - and that will force the "Medicare like" policy to age rate. A percentage of income max premium subsidy will be needed.

[ProudDad]

32. Price controls???

Regulations???

No way, no how -- not in cowboy corporate capitalist Amerika...

It's all just tinkering and as the CIVILIZED world has learned WON'T WORK -- that's why they all have government supervised Single-Payer... They TRIED all the other shit and it don't work...

[antigop]

11. And furthermore.....

We need to start out from a position of strength -- before compromises are made to "get something passed". If you start out giving the insurance cos. a seat at the table, you've already conceded. And the bill that will get passed is FAR worse than what you originally started out with.

You need to start out with the leftmost position you can take, if compromise is going to shift the final bill to the right.

[papau]

27. that sounds good - but the approach can kill the bill getting out of committee n/t

moderation on all things - including how far left and how far you keep the ins co's out of the discussion - is a good thing - in my opinion.

[antigop]

30. If the Dems control the committees then what is the problem? n/t

[Vinca]

16. Since when do we get "choice" on anything?

At this point, IMHO, we're in a lose-lose situation because even if Democrats win the White House AND get a supermajority in the House and Senate, they'll prefer "bipartisanship" when it comes to a healthcare solution (primarily because the insurance companies and big pharma have deep campaign money pockets)and we'll get stuck with a plan-from-insurance-company-hell if we get any plan at all. Except for Kucinich, none of the candidates even remotely suggests single-payer, universal healthcare. It's very, very discouraging. The quality of life for Americans would be so much better if our tax dollars funded healthcare and education as opposed to wars and corporations.

[ProudDad]

18. Yep, Just check the numbers

ObamClintWards are in the top 5 of recipients of health insurance mafia and big pharma money...

Now, you don't really think that those leeches have gone and got all altruistic on us, do you??? :sarcasm:

[papau]

28. Single payer is also my choice - but the companies and their friends in the media will not

allow an honest discussion.

Both Edwards and Clinton plan appear to have been set up to have natural market forces move us to single payer over time.

[antigop]

31. Papau, you can believe that if you want to. I don't. Ain't. gonna.happen. n/t

[leftchick]

7. he does not take cash from Big Pharma & the Insurance racket

like so many others.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. This is almost double the 45-47 million figure that is rountinely bandied

Plus, I bet some of the so-called "covered" have some really marginal coverage.

Wake up sheeple! Even if you are insured, the co-pays and extras will take you down.

[ProudDad]

19. The 47-48 million figure

includes people like me who have had NO insurance for years!!!

The other number includes people who because of job loss have been without coverage for some period of time in the last two years...

You are right, even the "insured" don't have Health Care Coverage -- just watch SiCKO...

[CountAllVotes]

14. in the meantime, as Americans are sick & dying

* wants another $150 billion ... :mad: :grr: :mad:

:kick:

[Lars39]

15. K&R, folks.

That number is a helluva lot higher than 47 million.

[ProudDad]

20. K&R - Proud to be number 5 (n/t)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. This is not how a civilized Nation should run

I remember being excited and thinking there was a chance that we might get health care for all when Bill Clinton was running for president. Sadly, nothing ever came from it and this is the result all these many years later.

[antigop]

22. No, it's not how a civilized nation should run.... As Michael Moore asked in SICKO....

WHO ARE WE?

[ProudDad]

24. Thanks to hillary and the insurance companies

and her clusterfuck 1.0

Now she's trying to get people to buy into her latest give-away to the insurance mafia; clusterfuck 2.0...

What a world... :eyes:

[ProudDad]

23. Gee, the number of people who lack heath care

at any point in time in the Civilized world that has Universal Single-Payer Health Care is....



well...



ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!



HR676 - Universal Single-Payer Health Care for ALL...