Chart from Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic
Yesterday, Census news that record numbers of Americans are poor and that more of them are going without health insurance. Today, rescued by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, news from the same Census report that fewer young adults are uninsured -- half a million fewer.
Cohn asks whether this is evidence that "Obamacare" could already be working, since it allows people 26 and under to stay on their parents' insurance policies. Followup question: Could Democrats convert this graph into votes?
Leave a Comment:
Follow up answer: No.
Recent Gallop pole:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-five percent of American adults reported getting their health insurance from an employer in January through May of this year. This is down from 45.8% in 2010, and has been steadily declining since Gallup and Healthways started tracking health insurance sources in 2008.
also:
The 25.3% of adults who so far in 2011 say they have government health insurance -- Medicare, Medicaid, or military/veterans' benefits -- is unchanged from 2010, although still significantly higher than in 2009 and 2008. The percentage of uninsured Americans -- which initially increased in 2009 -- continues to creep up and is at 16.6% in 2011.
Note: In 2008 uninsured was at 14.8%, it's gone up.
The Affordable Care Act has not been fully implemented yet. The eligibility for children to be kept on a plan until age 26 has been implemented. The point of this blog is that the number of uninsured in the younger age group has gone down significantly.
First, 26 is by no means a child, if they are in school I don't have a problem with it. I think the trend for rates to rise or companies not offer insurance is going to continue. Insurance have to take on "children" till 26 and any pre-existing conditions without penalty. Even with covering till 26, uninsured rose almost 2%, to say this is not a result of Obamacare is just silly.
Really? Did you look at the uninsured rate trend prior to 'Obamacare'? A bit biased to say that Obama started the trend.. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/health_insurance_web-logo.gif
And BTW, even at age 26 you are still someone's child. Perhaps we wouldn't have an argument over semantics if I had said 'offspring'.
It has nothing to do with Obama's Health Care plan. It has to do with unemployment!!! Of course uninsured people are on the rise. They're loosing jobs because of the economy! Less employer insurance goes hand in hand with less good jobs!
Actually there is an element in truth to Eric's statement. Insurance companies have been intentionally increasing the cost of health insurance in anticipation of, specifically, the health care exchange going in to effect (as well as the broader regulatory powers of state insurance regulators which I believe goes into effect next year). This is the same as the credit card companies increasing their interest rates and late fees (among other increases in costs) in anticipation of new credit regulations that were supposed to come about with Elizabeth Warren's new commission. In the latter instance these increases have been made with no regulation actually being implemented as the new Bureau hasn't been funded and therefore hasn't been able to enforce any of the new laws. So as of right now people with credit card companies who are participating in the let's-get-everything-while-we-can graft are getting ripped off (to put it mildly). As soon as the Bureau goes into effect, however, these card companies will no longer be able to price gouge and that will dramatically reduce interest rates, debt owed, eliminate late fees and other penalties, and change credit limits to something the average consumer can actually manage. In the case of Obamacare the policy will take effect, but it will do so over time. In the mean time several insurance companies have been increasing rates by as much as 50% in order to, like the credit companies, price gouge before the new regulations and lower prices set in. It's basically attempting to collect as much money as possible that the market naively perceives it will be losing after 2014. Once everything is set up and put into place we will gradually see insurance costs making a downward slope. But it will take time for this to happen. I honestly wouldn't be accessing the failure or successes of Obamacare until at least 2016, but 2018 or 2020 may be a far better gauge.
Yet another reason why private health "insurance" companies need to die.
The real questions are 1) do democrats really want to win? and 2) do democrats have the cojones to stay on message continuously pointing out that draconian rethugnikan policies have been the root of "our" issues?!?
Yes, I know that there are dems out there working hard and trying to make their case, and I applaud them; but I also know that there are just enough corporatist dems siding with rethugnikans and selling US out to the Oligarchy!
They don't have the cojones. They are to busy whining to put the facts out there. If all you can afford is a 30 second ad you gotta fill it with facts. Don't waste it regurgitating their argument. Don't restate their case for them. State your own. That's debate 101
RE: Blitzers' question about the 30 year old who chooses to forgo insurance that costs $200.00 to $300.00 per month causes me to wonder just which company offers a plan fat that price for quality insurance, I am not even sure that one can get a really poor plan for that price. Does this question not indicate that Wolff is more than a little bit out to lunch on this issue (and many more, I am sure).
If he was offered insurance through his employer he would not be given a chance to opt out.
???? What are you talking about? No one has to accept their employer offered health insurance (although I can't imagine why you would). I used to work for a company that offered health, dental, and vision for 200$/mo so it is possible. Although I don't know if that had anything to do with my age or medical history and I wasn't attempting to cover anyone else in my family.
Some employers will actually pay you a modest sum to opt out. They want to encourage their employees to be insured by their spouses employers if they have the option.
Could Democrats convert that chart into votes? Sure. Will they even try to? I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
But the overall number of uninsured Americans has still increased. Everything in the government's power to aid Americans struggling without health insurance and in the midst of a terrible economic situation must be done. The president promised that health care reform would make a serious dent in the crisis of uninsured citizens. It hasn't. Every American has a right to medical care. More needs to be done to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The short answer-CAN they? Yes.
The hard part-WILL they? TBD
These are the times that try dems' souls, as we see opportunities to make political hay and to generate real support for risks that were taken, political prices that were paid in the name of the greater good going wasted or underutilized at best. Do you believe that the GOP given this sort of real, concrete DATA wouldn't have already ginned-up the Frank Luntz spin machine to start bludgeoning the Dems with it? These are the things that can beat back the Fox noise factor, FACTS. Nothing shuts up my conservative friends in our tet-a-tete's like a good cold hard fact. The President himself needs to print this information out and hold it up in front of the American people and say HA!!! HERE'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! Let the GOP try to find a way to be against young adults being covered...paint them into a corner with their own words, it's not like they haven't given us paint by the drum!!!
Get on with it already!!!
Fact: Uninsured rose almost 2%
Fact: More insured going on Gov't (nee taxpayer) dime.
Both since 2008!
Those facts? Yeah, I hope he prints those facts out.
I'm not against young people getting insured, but why not 30? Why not 35? There needs to be a point where the chick leaves the nest. Why does the left keep taking away motivation for people to go out and succeed? All these entitlements are like a drug that keep people down.
Let 'em die, huh? Fine. If you don't want to be a part of the social compact, I'm more than happy to cut you loose.
Spin much? Never said "let them die". There should be low cost options available, I think having your parents pay is a knee jerk, quick band-aid fix and robs them of motivation.
Eric what is the average age of a college graduate? What is the average salary of someone who has just graduated college and gotten a job? What is the average number of college graduates entering in the workforce who are offered health insurance via their employer? What is the average number of college graduates who are able to afford individual insurance? What is the average cost of insurance for the average aged college graduate who is not offered health insurance by their employer? What is the average cost of insurance for the average aged college graduate who is offered health insurance by their employer? How do these costs differ between your average college graduate and your disabled college graduate? How do these costs differ between your average college graduate and your mentally ill college graduate? What is the average age a college graduate is able to leave home? What is the average time a college graduate spends looking for health insurance coverage if not offered by an employer and if not via their parent's insurer?
It's easy to talk about motivation when you are ignorant of the challenges faced by those who struggle. It also shows your lack of educated knowledge and quite honestly your brutality on the subject. Beyond all of this Eric: do you have a study that shows that college graduates who are currently on their parent's insurance are less likely to make money than those who are not? Do you have one that shows that the former students feel less motivated? That they will be less creative? That they will be less likely to achieve promotion? How are we defining "motivation?" Do you have a study that supports your claim that it deprives college graduates of your definition of motivation? Do you have a study that shows that college graduates on their parent's insurance are less likely to be happy than those who are not by the age of 26? Do you have any evidence to support any of your claims at all?
"Brutality." Good call, Mick. Kind of sums up the whole right-wing attitude on any subject that requires compassion and empathy.
I imagine that in the right-wing version of the parable of the good Samaritan, the Samaritan comes over to the injured man and says, "I'd like to help you out, but then you'd become dependent on my help and would loose the motivation to help yourself. Better to let you lie there bleeding so you can develop a spirit of personal responsibility. Ta."
Well to be fair to Eric! I was in a very cranky mood when I made that post. I don't know that his intentions are to be brutal and that was probably my hot-under-the-collarness coming out more than it was a legitimate statement. I do want people to answer their own assumptions. If you believe keeping kids on their parent's health insurance until the age of 26 causes them to be less motivated then you need to define what "less motivated" actually means, why the age group is important, and provide evidence that supports your belief. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. The average individual is not able to acquire insurance on their own until roughly the age of 24-25, which is why the cap was put at 26. Please keep in mind no one is forcing parents to keep their children on health insurance. This just mandates that a health insurance company must continue charging the same rates for a child who cannot afford their own insurance until they are aged 26. Additionally the insurance company cannot force that person off their parent's insurance until age 26. This is because most kids today are not financially able to even leave the home until after the age of 25 with the average right now being around age 30. Self-sufficiency is very, very hard for my generation and I do not appreciate people making claims that a bill like this "hurts us in the long run" unless there's some evidence suggesting that it does. Hey I could completely buy the conservative talking point if I saw a reliable, non-partisan study that showed such a requirement on health insurance was negatively effecting people in their 20's. But you cannot just make the statement "it does because I say it does." Facts aren't like young children, you can't boss them around.
I was angry when I posted because on the blog that I write for a woman brought up the issue of her health problems and talked about how she had been ran over and nearly killed (was in a coma for 3 weeks, her skull was fractured, and she has now suffered mental retardation as a result of her accident) by a drunk driver. A libertarian poster who I have now blocked from posting there responded back that it was her fault for being hit because she, and I quote, "was too stupid to look both ways before crossing the street." And in his own words "I should not have to pay for a retard who is too stupid to keep from being hit by a car." That is where my brutality comment was coming from.
A half million is not a significant number enough to change an election. If the Dems want to sell the health care bill, then they will to talk about the provisions that will kick in later. Of course, the issue could be moot if the SCOTUS strikes the law down.
The issue isn't half a million, but the 45 million who currently have no health insurance. If every one of them voted (in spite of republican efforts to prevent as many of the poor as possible from voting) it would definitely make a difference.
It's very good if you're a young adult…but some will look at this chart & say, "But what about the other age groups?"
My guess is that the increase in uninsured among others may have something to do with unemployment & people's being unable to afford their own insurance, especially after their COBRA runs out.
But of course the Right will look at this and say, "AHA! I TOLD you Obamacare doesn't work!"
What can I say? Some people will always throw the baby out with the bathwater…
Back in the day when I had a job, it cost me $18/month for single coverage. If I wanted to cover my spouse, it would have cost $165/month. I told him to get his own job and cover himself, and I did the same.
Great! The people who least need insurance are now forced onto the plans of working adults, driving up costs and pushing the rest of the population out. What a brilliant plan!
You miss the economics of insurance coverage apparently. The uninsured are the largest driver of healthcare costs. Because we DO treat them, usually in emergency situations they cost substantially MORE than if they had coverage and preventative care etc. Those costs are then passed on to the COVERED. More coverage equals a greater sharing of a smaller problem, both factors working to lower costs. It's the reality of insurance and the flaws that come with relying on private insurance as a system, which couldn't be more inefficient if it tried...
You also miss the point that when a parent PAYS to insure a healthy young adult, and that young adult does not get sick, then the insurance company makes out on the transaction. What it does not do, is drive up costs.
Who is "forcing" anyone to get insurance?
Non of this is relevant to the 20% of families like mine. The working poor. We don't make enough to buy insurance and we don't qualify for assisstance in our state. We are self employed and barely pay the bills, live below the poverty line and for the last 10 years even my children don't recieve any healthcare assistance. Their teeth are falling out, they haven't had a physical, and they only see a healthcare pro when required by law or in an emergency(which goes on the credit card.) I was bitten by a raccoon last spring and am now fighting the collection agency over the $15,000 bill for rabies shots. That's more money than we have made in any of the last 9 years. No, the health dept. here does not do rabies. IN this state they treat us po'folk but they make us pay.
Too bad you and family aren't illegal aliens, instead of tax paying citizens cause then you and your kids would be taken care of.
? illegal citizens aren't eligible for social security benefits (welfare benefits)? Additionally I know of no healthcare that is provided free of charge or at a disproportionately lower cost to illegal citizens by US companies or the US government? Additionally how does this help Susan or her family?
Parenthetically, I love how certain topics attract tr0lls like flies to rotting meat. (Affecting fake innocence): It's almost as if the proceedings are being monitored, so that a coordinated assault can be mounted.
Since the other comment areas are closed, I really need a space to comment about Rachael last night. She tried to use a chart showing that Bernake is one of the least inflationary fed chiefs in history, not the most as GOP claims. BUT...she left out the entire part that in the 80s and 90s, the way the fed calculated the CPI has changed and they no longer include things that have gone up dramatically under Bernie - Gas, food and housing. While I don't agree much with Rachael, it would sure help if she told the entire truth instead of being very misleading while at the same time accusing others of doing the same. REAL inflation, when calculated the old way, and against the others shown in the graph, is more like 10% - so factor that back into your chart Racheal which WOULD make Berny a VERY inflationary fed chairman. And what he has done to the money!!!!!!!! How come you didn't bring that up? Can't wait to hear you cry tonight about New York!
It's not always a bad thing for there to be more money of lesser value. A small decline in the value of a nation's currency almost always generates greater export sales, as well as inflationary dollars driving the basic growth of an economy. Since the GOP Congresscritter's refuse to allow any positive action legislatively, any advantage that can be derived through monetary policy has to be seen as a win.
I'm paying $380 a month for my 30-year-old daughter's health insurance. She has an M.A. in teaching, but cannot find a job so she's waiting on tables.
Today it is foolish to go without health insurance just one accident or major illness can put you in the poor house or worse denied treatment at hospitals. I think this is a good think because with out health care insurance no one but the rich can afford health care.
The major provisions of the healthcare reform act have not gone into effect yet. The increase in the uninsured among those over 24 is primarily the result of people losing their jobs, NOT any provisions from the healthcare act causing companies to drop coverage. This chart shows that the act has already helped increase the number of young people with coverage, while economic conditions further strengthen the need for the other provisions when they do take effect.
I wish I could read this as good news, but I keep coming back to the more fundamental question - why should the quality of ANYONE'S health care have to depend on their willingness and ability to buy a product (health insurance) from a private corporation?
Greed!!!
My wife has type ll diabeties. Throught the Oregon Health Plan, insurance for her alone started at $500/mo. 6 mo.'s later it was $590. With in 18 mo's, it was $680 with 3X the deductable and 1/2 the coverage. We had to cancel. Her Rx alone is $740/mo. I hear many people saying the only one not insured just don't want to buy insurance. To them I say BS. With all the complication asscociated with type ll, she could end up in the hospital, or worse, at any time. $6000/day.
I hear you Larry, That's why we have no ins. My husband was diagnosed bipolar in 2001, $1000 amonth for meds, but at least he's not manic to the point of psychosis anymore.