Insured Americans: Be Afraid
Don McCanne points me to To Great A Burden (PDF), a report by Families USA which analyzes data on health care expenditures, and finds some pretty scary numbers and trends (my emphasis below):
- More than four out of five people in families spending more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care costs are insured.
- 50.7 million non-elderly Americans with insurance are in families that will spend more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care costs in 2008.
- More than three out of four people (75.8 percent) in families spending more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care
costs are insured. - 13.5 million Americans with insurance are in families that will spend more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care
costs in 2008.
My point? These are the insured we’re talking about. The people who we quickly call “the covered.” And it’s gotten significantly worse in only 8 years:
Wake up, middle class. You don’t want to risk health care reform when you’re satisfied with your care, but how long until you’re part of the insured millions of families spending 25% of their income on health care?
And wake up, political candidates (and bloggers) that support individual mandates or continuation of the hodgepodge mess of private plans we have here–with their lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions, even the insured here are getting the rationing everyone’s so scared of under some sort of national system.
It sucks having to pay for the best health care in the world, doesn’t it.
To keep it in perspective, as a middle class nurse who works a ton of overtime, I spend about 10% of my income on my car and related expenses (gas, insurance, taxes/tabs) and minimal upkeep, and my car was a used Pontiac when I bought it. So, pretty much, you’re saying paying for the equivalent of a used Pontiac for the best, most comprehensive health care in the world is a bad deal?
Does this 10% or 25% include all the money I spend on OTHER people’s healthcare? That’s probably more than I spend on my own health care, and I have one fairly major chronic condition.
No, what really sucks is having insurance, which is supposed to pay for your medical costs when you’re sick (that’s why you pay for it while you’re well) and having it fail you.
“The best health care in the world,” is a joke, Kelly, once you start reading some health policy. Our health care system is clearly not the best by most indicators.
And the Pontiac analogy doesn’t hold: you don’t pay a monthly premium that is supposed to cover your other car-related costs.
If your car insurance or your health insurance policy doesn’t cover what it’s supposed to cover, you should talk to the State Atty General’s office. It’s illegal to not honor the policy, of course, and there are people who deal with each of those things.
Yes, my (real-life) analogy does hold. I’m including all the car-related costs not covered by insurance and those covered by insurance. The oil changes and routine maintenance and repairs are relatively cheap because of competition; therefore, there is no need to include them in any insurance policies. Right now I have a pretty nasty dent and a scratch mark that will be covered with a $250 deductible.
The junky Pontiac=10% of my income, health care=10% of income, but the health care should be cheaper than the car for some reason? Obviously, you have weird priorities. Most people in this country are willing to pay a little more to get a lot more. I’m more pissed that I’m paying the 30% of income to taxes (much of that going to other people’s health care), personally.
If you think making health care a tax is going to save money and improve or at least maintain quality for the average American on an employer-sponsored plan, you’re on crack, dear idealist intern.
If you think making health care a tax is going to save money and improve or at least maintain quality for the average American on an employer-sponsored plan, you’re on crack, dear idealist intern.
not a constructive statement. if you don’t think single payer will be an improvement over employer sponsored then provide some concrete examples why.
I would gladly give up to 50% of my income if I didn’t have to pay for school or healthcare (and other such social programs)…kinda like how scandinavian countries do it.
And really nurse K, ours “the best healthcare in the world”…LOOOL. that’s just laughable.
A few years ago my privately insured parents spent about 60,000 (200% of their yearly income) for my mom’s 2 craniotomies, 1 cranial angioplasty, and a gamma knife procedure to fix several aneurysms and a couple of AVMs. Under socialized medicine they might have spent nothing because she would have been allowed to die since she is “old.” Oh, they might have paid for morphine for her headaches. Maybe. She is 64.
Don’t be ridiculous.