It covers more than just sports related injuries. It isn't great insurance, and only the poor can get it, but it does cover more than just injuries at school. I know this is true as I have had several kids over the years use it for various things from falling off a moving car (long story) to an accident with a saw. The insurance (which costs about $25) covered that stuff. I also know it covered more than just sports related injuries because it is offered to ALL the kids at school, not just the ones who play sports. The things is, all these kids do have access to some sort of health care and very few take advantage of it. If the kid gets cancer it isn't going to help much, but if he gets a broken bone it will.

__________________

Fear leads to Anger...Anger leads to Hate...Hate leads to Suffering.

August 29, 2006

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”
Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”



Key Findings from the New Census Data

The number of people without health insurance was 46.6 million in 2005, compared to 45.3 million in 2004, and 41.2 million in 2001 (see table below).
The percentage of Americans without insurance rose to 15.9 percent in 2005, higher than the 15.6 percent level in 2004 and much higher than the 14.9 percent level in 2001.
The percentage of Americans who are uninsured rose largely because the percentage of people with employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, as it has in the past several years.
The percentage of children under 18 who are uninsured rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, while the number of uninsured children climbed from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005, an increase of 360,000.
Lack of insurance is much more common among people with low incomes. Some 24.4 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2005, almost triple the rate of 8.5 percent among people with incomes over $75,000.
African-Americans (19.6 percent uninsured) and Hispanics (32.7 percent) were much more likely to be uninsured than white, non-Hispanic people (11.3 percent)

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Dom can you send me your CBO link. Read the above link. It is the one used by the AMA and believe me while physicians support one payer they know they might have a slight decrease in income so they do not want inflated stats.

I get back to this later if I can to read your link.

It is for the school year I believe. Most don't take advantage of this and I know the kids are given detailed information . . . at least in my classes they are.

http://www.statecoverage.net/who.htm

Comparison betweent he CBO and the Census Bureau.


http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4210&sequence=0

The full paper.

I realize that it is 1998 stats, but it was done in 2003. There is no way they can do current stats each year. But, it doesn't matter. The stats cited come from this Census report and the comparisons between the two in the same years is relevant.

Thanks StormanNorman;

you are probably right. More generally, our economic system creates a great amount of wealth, the main downside being that it also entails more inequalities than in other Western countries.

Here's a start :

Cizungu,

Wow....that is a very drastic representation. The upper half spends nearly 25 times the amount of money on health care than the lower half of the population. Now, I assume that those are personal expenses and does not take into account government subsidies, etc....at least, I hope not.

Cizungu Intersting graphs. Dom i will look over your link late tonght if I can. I have only a few minutes and that was a long report!

One quick thought for everyone. Healthcare differs from all other sectors in that we have to provide the service. If a 400 lb person does not get care and lands on our ER floor we cannot say no. The bottom line for all of us is that we are going to pay one way or the other. The current systems we are paying for uninsured and we are paying multiple payer systems that do not even adequately cover those who are responsible tnad THINK they are well covered. The only ones winning right now are insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

Read this excerpt from PNHP .org:
Currently, about 64% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 17% of heath care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 19% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed this way: The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution. Currently, over 41 million people have no insurance and thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but they would receive health insurance for the same low rate as larger firms. Many small employers have to pay 25% or more of payroll now for health insurance – so they end up not having insurance at all. For large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would hold a competitive advantage over another because his cost of business did not include health care. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Oh another point all candidates that have officially announced from the Republican and Democratic parties...none of them are advocating socialized medicine!

I am not sure about any of the smaller political parties.

Really Universal healthcare with private medicine and private hospitals and free choice for making our selections and not paying inflated prices for the uninsured is probably the most viable system.