> you wrote, in so many words, that 'the problem of the
> uninsured' probably wasn't a problem at all because
> people either made enough money to pay for coverage or
> received government support if they found themselves
> at or below the 'poverty line'.
Er, no; that's not at all what I said (or even think). But that's why we have archives! :-)
Look, this has all gotten way out of proportion because I made a very specific claim (that your average Canadian probably "spends more" on health care than it seems they would need to in the US) and it has turned into a factlet fest (both on list and off! I'm amazed more by how people have come to misinterpret statistics about health care costs than any other thing I've read on this list this year). So let's drop it.
In the mean time, Marvin made a (probably flip) comment about "most low- and middle-income Americans" that I think is completely unsupportable; and it's symptomatic of the kind of GIGO cocktail party stuff that goes on. Yes, some people can't afford it. Yes there are awful problems with the whole system. No, "most low- and middle-americans" are not only "within reach" of health insurance, but they actually have it!
It's a big enough problem that you don't have to exaggerate with implausible statements!
Can't a guy complain about the use of the wildly inaccurate term "most" without having to hear about drinking daddy's urine?
Sheesh.
But hey, I got to go do some more research this afternoon (none of which gives me much hope for the Canada situation vis the US situation -- the US is ranked 37th in the 'modern' world, health-care-wise; Canada is merely 30th) and I have to say the most interesting one was from something someone posted:
http://www.statecoverage.net/who.htm
In particular, there's this graphic:
http://www.statecoverage.net/graphics/UninsuredES02.jpg
I'll summarize:
- 43M uninsured - 14M _eligible but not signed up_ for government assistance
Let me say that again: 14M _eligible but not signed up_ for government assistance!
- 9M ("low-income, less than 200% of poverty level") have an
affordability issue - 18M of higher income (6.4M 200-300% of FPL; 11.4M 300+% of FPL)
described as having a problem with "perceptions of affordability"
It just reminds me: when people throw out statistics and don't ask "What does that number mean?" you might as well give up the conversation. Am I the only one who thinks that the problem is smaller -- and in some sense more solvable (change the limits for eligibility)! -- than it gets presented as? A 9M gap is way easier to deal with than a 43M gap.
For this I get accused of saying that this is a "non problem" ...?
Bleah.
/jordan
