![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
firecathttp://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/07/uninsured-making-diagnosis.html
Today's junkfoodscience post discusses how many people in the US are uninsured and argues that the number is lower than commonly reported. Furthermore, it argues that many of the people who are uninsured can afford to buy insurance but do not.
But I'm very disappointed that a blog which covers the systemic discrimination against fat people so carefully most of the time doesn't even mention the fact that many fat people in the United States are denied insurance even if they can afford it. Swarcz does mention existing government programs providing insurance to people who can't afford it. There are also some government programs for high-risk groups—I looked into the California one a few times when my insurance was about to go away and I was unable to find any insurance companies willing to sell me health insurance. The last I checked, the California program had a months-long waiting list and the lifetime payout maximum was too low to cover any really serious medical condition.
ETA: After I wrote this post, Swarcz added some text to her post addressing the issue of people who are denied coverage at any price.
Today's junkfoodscience post discusses how many people in the US are uninsured and argues that the number is lower than commonly reported. Furthermore, it argues that many of the people who are uninsured can afford to buy insurance but do not.
According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, 2005” issued on August 2006: Of the 46.6 million Americans they cited as uninsured in 2005, 17.04 million without health insurance live in households making more than $50,000 a year. That’s 37% of the uninsured in the U.S. Nearly 9 million of those make more than $75,000.The sentence below immediately follows the previous one, subtly giving the impression that the Census Bureau has made this determination of why the people involved are not insured. I'm not an expert on the Census Bureau but it seems pretty likely to me that this is Swarcz's own theory:
In fact, according to the Census Bureau, the biggest increases in uninsured by household incomes over the past decade has been among those making the most money.
They are people who generally have access to and can afford insurance, but prefer to self-insure for whatever reason, perhaps to keep their healthcare decisions out of the hands of their employer or government.I'm sure some of them are, but all? I don't think so. She uses the same trick later on (I've italicized the part that I believe is her theory and not a Census Bureau pronouncement):
According to the Census Bureau, more than 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34, for whom health insurance isn’t a priority and they’ve chosen, wisely or not, to spend their disposable income on other things.I know some people who don't have health insurance even though they can afford and get it. And insofar as Swarcz is warning against too-invasive and too-restrictive government programs, I agree—I think there should be a guaranteed right to access health care, but I don't think people should be forced into accessing it in particular ways.
But I'm very disappointed that a blog which covers the systemic discrimination against fat people so carefully most of the time doesn't even mention the fact that many fat people in the United States are denied insurance even if they can afford it. Swarcz does mention existing government programs providing insurance to people who can't afford it. There are also some government programs for high-risk groups—I looked into the California one a few times when my insurance was about to go away and I was unable to find any insurance companies willing to sell me health insurance. The last I checked, the California program had a months-long waiting list and the lifetime payout maximum was too low to cover any really serious medical condition.
ETA: After I wrote this post, Swarcz added some text to her post addressing the issue of people who are denied coverage at any price.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oh well maybe George Q will get to it
Date: 2 Jul 2007 07:08 pm (UTC)BTW, if you ever want to feel icky about the value of a dollar do QUICKEN. at $75,000 you have hopes that your car isn't turning to rust and your brain isn't turning to soup from lack of amusement. The right to retire to anything better than "The Price is Right" in the day room and to have that tumor you and your sweetie(s) have always wanted requries a tad more.
no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 07:59 pm (UTC)- Get coverage through an employer.
- When leaving the employer, continue coverage through COBRA.
- Apply before your COBRA coverage runs out.
We did it all through the mail - no weights were asked, and certainly no physicals.no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 08:28 pm (UTC)This doesn't really count as private underwritten health insurance though. The companies only offer it because they are required to by law. The time before this one, when I lost coverage (my COBRA period ran out), the only individual option available cost $10,000 a month, no that's not a typo. (It wasn't underwritten either, it was offered by law, but at that point the law had not specified that the plan had to be offered at a reasonable price.) I got lucky with the professional organization at that time. The professional organization was also able to offer health insurance only by law, a CA law that required insurers to offer plans to non-profit organizations who met a certain set of criteria.
no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 10:07 pm (UTC)(Crap, Bush just commuted Libby's jail sentence.)
no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 06:12 pm (UTC)I worry if I get laid off from my job, that I'll (actually we'll) be only good for the 18 months of COBRA, and then kablooey unless one or the other of us finds a job with health benefits.
no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 09:12 pm (UTC)The scary part at first was how they kept pointing to their "risk test", which determines who goes into the state's "high-risk" pool, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, oh if you already have coverage you don't have to bother with the test.
no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 07:54 pm (UTC)Thanks for the pointer.
no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 08:34 pm (UTC)p 23
Most people (59.5 percent) were covered
by a health insurance plan related
to employment for some or all of
2005, a smaller proportion than in the
previous year (59.8 percent). As the
largest component of private health
insurance coverage, this decline in
employment-based coverage
essentially explains the decrease in
total private health insurance coverage,
from 68.2 percent in 2004 to
67.7 percent in 2005 (Figure 6).
no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 08:23 pm (UTC)Grrr, i wonder if this is in some response to Sicko opening this weekend. In a quick montage of folks not able to get insurance there was a "too skinny" young man and a "too fat" young woman.
no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2 Jul 2007 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 12:07 am (UTC)Thanks for responding.
I think I am not so much misinterpreting what you wrote so much as disagreeing with some of the choices you made in writing it - both what you added and what you left out.
If you only intended to present statistics, why did you add theories about what the statistics mean that may or may not be true? And why did you not clearly state those were your theories?
One of the problems with health care in the US, and one that is driving the current push toward legislated universal health care, is that many people, fat or otherwise, cannot buy ANY health insurance, affordable or otherwise. But your article came across as implying that most people simply choose not to buy it.
no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 12:26 am (UTC)The fact, for instance, that 33% of uninsured could be getting free care because they are eligible for available programs and aren't signed up is a travesty of these programs and their failure to do adequate outreach. But we never even hear about problems like this, so they'll continue to never get fixed and get worse. I hope readers noticed that this problem alone has gotten worse over the past ten years, not better.
I continue to write about problems with insurance and discriminatory care for those who are aging, fat, minority and poor. I hate the politics but sadly, politics and medicine are too intertwined to ignore anymore because too many people are getting hurt by misinformation and lack of information, and the corruption behind all of these agendas.
It's disheartening that the fat community lashes out rather than get behind those trying to help.
no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 01:56 am (UTC)Yes, you did give that information. But you also added added theories about the statistics, like "but prefer to self-insure for whatever reason, perhaps to keep their healthcare decisions out of the hands of their employer or government" and "people between the ages of 18 and 34, for whom health insurance isn’t a priority".
It's disheartening that the fat community lashes out rather than get behind those trying to help.
It's disheartening that you label the criticism of a single fat person of a single post in your blog as "the fat community lashes out."
no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Jul 2007 01:58 am (UTC)