Oh, I'm fairly certain that that a whopping 82% of insured Americans are indeed happy with their health care, it's the 41% of moderate to middle income Americans who lacked health insurance for at least part of the year in 2005, that I'd like to hear more about.

The devil's in the details, John.

As John points out, it's not the Americans who have healthcare on whom we should concentrate, it's on those who don't. And the fact that we're virtually alone as the only advanced nation in the world that doesn't have some form of universal coverage, which leads to the fact that we can even have uncovered individuals is the point.

The lack of a universal health care system is becoming a serious drag on the american economy. From would-be entrepreneurs who can't execute on their dreams, because doing so would mean losing health coverage, to giant corporations who can't be globally competitive with their western European counterparts (because the latter don't have any direct health care expenditures), the saw that "socialized" health care would somehow mean the end of American exceptionalism needs to be re-examined and re-examined quickly.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world, unfortunately it's neither the most comprehensive nor the best. Health care in virtually every other advanced western nation is both better (on the aggregate), more comprehensive, and far less costly overall. It's time we adopt it here and move into the 20th century.

Its hospitals gleam. Waiting-lists are non-existent. Doctors still make home visits. Life expectancy is two years longer than average for the western world.

....For the patient, the French health system is still a joy. Same-day appointments can be made easily; if one doctor's advice displeases, you can consult another, a habit known as nomadisme médical. Individual hospital rooms are the norm. Specialists can be consulted without referral. And while the patient pays up front, almost all the money is reimbursed, either through the public insurance system or a top-up private policy.

For family doctors too, liberty prevails. They are self-employed, can set up a practice where they like, prescribe what they like, and are paid per consultation. As the health ministry's own diagnosis put it recently: “The French system offers more freedom than any other in the world.”

The Economist, on French healthcare 5/13/2004

greg

it's the 41% of moderate to middle income Americans who lacked health insurance for at least part of the year in 2005

Now there's a metric that's ripe for lying and misleading by statistics. I wonder how many of those who were w/o insurance for "part of" 2005 were simply transitioning from one job to another? Also, a large portion of the uninsured are healthy young people looking for their first real job.

Yes, we do have a challenge to make health care attainable to the chronically uninsured. But it's clear that insured Americans will not tolerate a system that diminishes their quality and convenience of care.

This is always an interesting subject - I knew a gal from Canada who worked in Detroit who told me that the Canadian system is fine unless you need something more specialized than general "well care" treatments. In that system, there would be only one, say, cardiologist and whoever that was is who you get, regardless of whether he was the first student in his class or the last.

Before I found my current job, I worked as a temp through a couple of different agencies, both of which provided some basic health insurance (referred to as "the young and invincible plan"), but the coverage didn't kick in until you had a certain number of hours on the clock. It was basically a bare-bones HMO, but it served its purpose.

I now have Blue Care Network which has been fine, but I'm still relatively young and relatively healthy. And relatively fortunate, since I work for a firm that provides good health insurance when I know there are so many that don't.

While on one hand there does seem to be a need for significant changes in the health insurance system, there also seems to be a need for individuals to take responsibility for those items relating to their own health that are within their control.

We've had this discussion here before on things like the use of emergency room care for colds, but I think at the individual level, any change in the insurance system should go hand in hand with people doing things that make their overall health better.

Diagnosis of Type II diabetes in adults and even in children is increasing at a terrible rate. Obesity is rampant. These are diseases that, while they certainly have a genetic component, also can be managed by lifestyle changes that can alleviate or minimize the symptoms, if not prevent the disease altogether. Heart disease is another one.

I don't think I'm overstating the case to say that aside from various cancers and other genetic/hereditary conditions, there are a number of medical treatments rendered for diseases that are preventable or the very least manageable without medical intervention.

It would be interesting to see projections for health care/insurance changes that took into account the savings and improvement of quality of life if people simply did things we already know will be beneficial to their health and medical treatment.

A lot of the things that are said against a national health insurance plan would disappear if people actually had to go through the process of having a loved one get sick when they have no health insurance.

Fair enough, Eric. Here's one you can hang your hat on, though: "About 45.8 million Americans did not have health insurance in 2004, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The percentage of individuals earning less than $20,000 a year without insurance rose to 53 percent, up from 49 percent in 2001. Overall, the percentage of people without insurance rose to 28 percent in 2005 from 24 percent in 2001.Overall, the percentage of people without insurance rose to 28 percent in 2005 from 24 percent in 2001."

So I'd rephrase that to the 28% of Americans who lacked health insurance in 2005.

From the CIA World Factbook: US Population in July 2006 is estimated to be 298,444,215.

From the Census Bureau:

Estimated population in July 2004: 293,656,842
Estimated population in July 2005: 296,410,404

So, say there were 45.8 million Americans without insurance in 2004 - that's 15.6% of the population. Given the 296.4 million Americans in 2005, 28% of that comes out to 82.9 million without health insurance, almost double from the year before.

Looking at the 2001 numbers from the census (opulation 285.1 million), 24% of that is 68.4 million without insurance (still 1.5 times the amount in 2004.

Either the numbers here fluxuate so much that it's impossible to take any lessons from them (how else to explain a decrease from 24% to 15% back up to 28%?), or there's something wrong with the numbers.

Perhaps the numbers JohnS quoted only include adults? Many (if not most, or all) states have some sort of system to provide health care to children whose parents cannot afford it themselves.

I consider myself middle-class. I make less than 20,000 per year. But in spite of that, I have no problems paying my bills or supporting my desired lifestyle. But that's all I have enough income to worry about. I'm not covered under any form of health insurance. The reason: I can't afford it. If the choice came between paying the electric bill over paying a monthly health insurance premium, I'd pay the electic bill. I can afford everything I have. I cannot afford anything more, including healthcare. I don't blame my employers or anyone else. But I do blame the government for taxing my income so others can. If I was allowed to keep ALL of what I earned at the end of every pay-period, I would certainly be able to afford healthcare and many other things that are just as important.

Eric, good point. Taking into account only adults (which I should have thought of) brings the numbers down a lot, but they're still not quite right.

I apologise about that poorly worded paragraph from the AP. I went back to reread the story.

It probably should have been written, "Overall, the percentage of working-age Americans with moderate to middle incomes without insurance rose to 28 percent in 2005 from 24 percent in 2001."

Again, sorry.

No need to apologize - I wasn't surprised by the numbers, I just couldn't get them to match up and wondered why.

I sincerely doubt it's because of the evil liberal media conspiracy, Eric. It's more likely due to people such as myself. My health insurance through work is a pretty good plan. But I consider the system that produces it flawed for a couple of reasons. Firstly, working for a relatively small company while I appreciate their efforts to keep their employees insured I also have been told that the absolutely outrageous increases in premiums are why I haven't gotten a raise. Secondly I would think that by now we should have gotten past the artificial distinctions between health care, dental care (non-cosmetic), mental health care and vision care. They all contribute to the overall health of any individual and their ability to work productively and none of them should be second class in an effective health care system.

In addition while my situation may be acceptable I know a lot of people for whom it is not. People who are unemployed or underemployed who have nothing or very little. The Republican government of our glorious state thought that maintaining some tax loopholes for business were more important than the many thousands of people who were cut from Medicaid and the thousands of more who saw many benefits cut though they technically are still insured. So it is entirely possible to feel that it is working for you while recognizing that overall I would still consider the system (or more accurately the lack of a system) a dismal failure for our country.

See, I tend to put more of the blame on my own profession and on those professions and businesses that my profession works with than on the government.

Back in the 70s and 80s, lawyers representing people who sustained "negative outcomes" from medical care took these doctors and hospitals to court and got huge damages awards.

Malpractice insurance premiums skyrocketed, making it difficult if not impossible for ordinary medical professionals to maintain their coverage. (Granted, there are those in the medical profession for whom making money is the principal reason they entered the profession, just like lawyers and business majors and others).

Adding to those costs the costs of new diagnostic equipment to run tests now required (or not allowed) by an insurance industry that dictates so much more in medical care than it used to, the cost of pharmaceutical research and development (not to mention the marketing issues and pressures), the demand for "the best" health care for every little problem/ER treatment for colds, and a fluctuating economy, and you get a perfect storm of health care crisis that just doesn't have one bad guy or one right answer.