• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

Here ya go:

STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.

Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.

Any reform should carefully focus on this group to avoid disrupting the vast majority for whom the system is working. We do not nationalize an industry simply because a small percentage of the work force is unemployed. Similarly, we should be wary of sweeping reforms of our health system if they are motivated by the fact that a small percentage of the population is uninsured.

The New York Times > Log In
 
If you are tired of all the right-wing lies....check the facts:


FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root - Yahoo! News

Fact #1: THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

Fact #2 : THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.

Fact#3: THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

Looky here at all the lefties jumping in to say Thanks. Thanks DD, you settled the entire problem in one post. :roll:
 
I doubt that the calculated estimate of the uninsured included illegals when it was done.

SO, what you're saying is Obama and his cohorts are too stupid to realize that the 47 million uninsured includes at least 10 million illegals?

Or are you saying that Obama says it's imperative we get insurance for the 47 million unisured, but he really doesn't mean that, he's just talking?
 
Last edited:
BWG said:
Notice it says foreigners, not illegals.

One of the first arguments from those in opposition to this reform was that the number of uninsured include...*gasp*...foreigners, when clearly Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. said 'Americans'. These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient. Where are these people supposed to go when they get sick? Back to Vietnam? Brazil? Indonesia?

What? In what world are illegal immigrants considered "Americans"? I'll grant you that it's a closer question when it comes to people who are permanent residents/on certain visas, but it's absurd to pretend that illegal immigrants should be considered "Americans" for the purpose of convincing people that we need health care reform (which won't cover them anyways).

At best it's a misstatement, at worst it's a lie. Nothing else.

From the census bureau on the uninsured

If you were to make a huge assumption and said that every 'not a citizen' was an illegal it would still be short of 10-12 million, but then that would leave no room for all the other 'not a citizen' living in the United States from all the other countries in the world.

And as was discussed in that thread, there are other studies that indicate the numbers may be higher, depending on the method of calculation. One study indicated that 64% of illegal immigrants did not have health insurance. Another study indicated that 59% did not have health insurance at any point in 07 (this means that the rate would likely be considered higher, as the government traditionally counts someone among the ranks of the uninsured if they are without insurance for any part of the year. Depending on the number of illegal immigrants in the country, that may place the number higher.

I addressed this also. While I agree that some can afford to buy health insurance, but for what ever reason refuse to do so. However the article made the sweeping assumption that everyone that made over X amount could afford insurance, without investigating as to the why. They may have been refused insurance because of a preexisting condition, they may have a child with an uninsurable condition, who knows. They made claims based on.....well really....nothing!

I'm not citing any article to prove anything other than the numbers I provided. It's true that there may be some reasons why someone making more than $75k is unable to get insurance, but I think it's clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.
 
I think it's quite telling how the followers can tell us what's not going on, but don't have a clue about what is going on.

Yet, you need Rush to tell you how to think. Without Rush, you have no opinion.
 
Indeed. Funny how they all know how it's going to turn out when the President himself doesn't have all the details... Then again, that's never stopped HIM from opening his mouth before.

What's funny is that you don't know how it will turn out either, yet, you drink conservative kool-aid.
 
Yes, it absolutely would. That's probably the best part of the plan.

Any government plan, just like any private insurance, involves decisions of cost-efficiency. If there is a 95 year old person in poor health develops a cancer that will kill them in 5 months, the government plan will not (or at least should not) pay for an expensive cancer drug that will expand that prognosis from 5 months to 10.

That is the very definition of government making end-of-life decisions. And it's completely okay.

Please show me in the bill where this senerio will take place? This is an assumption that has never been proven.
 
No problem!!!! just borrow $2,000,000,000,000 from the Chinese.

Oh wait.... they are divesting themselves of our dept as we speak.

I got it!!!! Just print more money.

Yeah, we are still paying for the search for WMD in Iraq. When Clinton left office there was not a deifict, when GWB left there was. It amazes me how conservative forgot that GWB put us in this mess.
 
HR3200
The article is wrong. The language is there--sugar-coated and glossed over--but it is still there.
If one reads it and adds to it things that aren't actually there.
Please take a look at the duties an responsibilities of this group and yo see a lack of power or design to do any of the things you say they will do.

It just isn't there.

We went through this before. You were quite unable to quote the language that lets them do anything like what you think.

Do they still teach sentence diagramming in schools these days?
 
buck said:
Regardless - take the low-end, there are 10 million illegals. Obama still claims it is a moral imperative to insure the 47 million uninsured.
Still no proof eh?



RightinNYC said:
What? In what world are illegal immigrants considered "Americans"? I'll grant you that it's a closer question when it comes to people who are permanent residents/on certain visas, but it's absurd to pretend that illegal immigrants should be considered "Americans" for the purpose of convincing people that we need health care reform (which won't cover them anyways).
Who said anything about considering illegal immigrants 'Americans'?

The Census Bureau says nothing about illegals.

The CNS article, along with many others, are using the argument that since President Obama and others use the term uninsured "Americans", rather than the term "people" - the term the census bureau uses - when describing people in the United States without insurance therefore the report breakout that shows that 9.7 million people are "not a citizen" and should be deducted from the total amount of uninsured.

My point is why are the foreign born not inclusive in the uninsured population of the United States?

Foreign born (both naturalized and not a citizen) and nativity breakout is used by the bureau in most all studies and cited by just about everyone imaginable.

When talking about Income and earnings of Americans..."not a citizen" is used.

When talking about Americans in poverty..."not a citizen" is used.

When talking about a population of 300 million Americans..."not a citizen" is used.

Why exclude them from the ranks of uninsured? Political convenience?
RightinNYC said:
...One study indicated that 64% of illegal immigrants did not have health insurance. Another study indicated that 59% did not have health insurance...
Of course the illegal immigration population is estimated, but since your first article gave no figures let's take the second one (Pew's). Their estimate is 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants. 59% or 64% (take your pick) of that figure falls well short of your estimate of 10-12 million.

No matter we still revert back to the census report as both of your cites are based on an analysis of data from the March Current Population Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau.

That report makes no mention of illegals. To clarify, there may be some illegals that responded to the census survey, but not to the extent that would exclude all other nationalities and legal immigrants covered under "not a citizen".

RightinNYC said:
I'm not citing any article to prove anything other than the numbers I provided. It's true that there may be some reasons why someone making more than $75k is unable to get insurance, but I think it's clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.
In the aforementioned earlier discussion you did make a sweeping accusation without exceptions. And no it's not clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.
RightinNYC said:
Of that 35 million, approximately 9 million are people who have household incomes of over $75k. These are not people who are unable to get health insurance, these are people who are uninsured either by choice or by their own action.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/healt...stry-parasite-our-country.html#post1057975668
 
The thing that most of the people I've talked to, at the town hall protest in Tampa, understand that Health Care Reform is not about putting a clean, streamlined bill together. It's about the fact that Americans understand that we cannot centralize control over our health care. It has no bearing that there is misleading information all over the place. We, as a country, cannot let the government dictate procedure, or payment, or direct health care in any way. No matter what administration has power over the country. The administration will change, in God willing 4 years. History proves that once the government has decision-making control over any entity, it never-ever loosens its grip. It only increases in size and control. If it fails, which it is designed to do, they will only push for more regulation, and more money "fix the unintended consequences". We used to be a free people who understood the Bill of Rights were not just Rights. They are really a Bill of Responsibilities. You have a Responsibility to use your Freedom of speech when concerns over any matter start to restrict your ability to your right of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have a responsibility to bear arms, again, when those rights are infringed upon by any source, and especially when it comes from the people appointed to represent our interests. Do NOT misunderstand, you should never use that right without exhausting ALL other options. We just cannot let the people in Washington forget that those "RESPONSIBILITIES" will never be delegated to them alone. They are not, nor have ever been, the smartest or most innovative among us. Our Freedoms are what have led us to the pinnacle of tremendous, unmatched wealth and widespread charity. The people who believe the government could ever Reform anything properly, misunderstand the fact that man is imperfect and will always create unforeseen problems. Those problems should never be under the dictate of government. Government is Force, and nothing less. It cannot coincide with liberty, unless minimilized and restricted.
 
Since this thread is about dispelling health care myths, I figgered i would post this from the Libbo loved Factcheck.org, dispelling the myth that abortions won't be paid for by the public plan.

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them.




Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating? | FactCheck.org
 
Please show me in the bill where this senerio will take place? This is an assumption that has never been proven.

This is how all healthcare works - there are a multitude of treatments available for any scenario, but only some are covered. I don't understand why this is controversial.

Who said anything about considering illegal immigrants 'Americans'?

You:

These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient.

The Census Bureau says nothing about illegals.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the 9.73 million uninsured "foreigners" in the census report are all legal immigrants, despite the fact that both of the studies I linked to indicate otherwise?

The CNS article, along with many others, are using the argument that since President Obama and others use the term uninsured "Americans", rather than the term "people" - the term the census bureau uses - when describing people in the United States without insurance therefore the report breakout that shows that 9.7 million people are "not a citizen" and should be deducted from the total amount of uninsured.

My point is why are the foreign born not inclusive in the uninsured population of the United States?

Because it's an out and out lie to say that there are 47 million "uninsured Americans" when a large portion of that number are not Americans. Plain and simple.

Foreign born (both naturalized and not a citizen) and nativity breakout is used by the bureau in most all studies and cited by just about everyone imaginable.

When talking about Income and earnings of Americans..."not a citizen" is used.

When talking about Americans in poverty..."not a citizen" is used.

When talking about a population of 300 million Americans..."not a citizen" is used.

Actually, I think that you'd find that most detailed reports clearly distinguish between the poverty rates of "Americans" and the poverty rates of people living in America. The fact that most reporters or people are imprecise in using the terms or describing things doesn't make that any less true.

Why exclude them from the ranks of uninsured? Political convenience?

Because they are not Americans. I can't believe that you're arguing that politics are the reason why I'm arguing that they shouldn't be included, when it's so clearly the other way around.

Let me put it this way - Do you think Obama would ever get up at a podium and say "When you include non-citizens, there are 47 million uninsured Americans."

Of course the illegal immigration population is estimated, but since your first article gave no figures let's take the second one (Pew's). Their estimate is 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants. 59% or 64% (take your pick) of that figure falls well short of your estimate of 10-12 million.

So now that you acknowledge that the minimum figure is 7 million, we can move from there. I would argue that Pew's figure of 11.9 million is a significant undercounting, mostly due to the fact that they're basing their growth figures on numbers from 2000, when all indicators are that immigration increased rapidly from there. Bear Stearns produced a report (PDF) that detailed all the reasons for this and which estimated that the number of illegal immigrants is close to 20 million. I would be inclined to say it's closer to 15, but that still puts us back at the 10 million figure.

Beyond all that, does it really make much of a difference if the number of illegal immigrants included in Obama's "47 million uninsured Americans" number is 7 million or 10 million?

In the aforementioned earlier discussion you did make a sweeping accusation without exceptions. And no it's not clear that that's the exception that proves the rule.

And I stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of uninsured people earning more than $75k a year are uninsured due to their own actions. I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. My apologies for not including the "vast, vast majority" disclaimer in my earlier statement.
 
Last edited:
And I stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of uninsured people earning more than $75k a year are uninsured due to their own actions. I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. My apologies for not including the "vast, vast majority" disclaimer in my earlier statement.
According to your source those making 75K that are uninsured is at 7.8%. For whatever reason they don't have insurance one of which is obviously that it may very well be a single income family with stay at home parent looking after many kids.
For some regions in the US, making 75K isn't all that much, particularily if the employer doesn't provide insurance then it's even more understandable.
For singles though, I don't see how 75K isn't enough.
 
Because it's an out and out lie to say that there are 47 million "uninsured Americans" when a large portion of that number are not Americans. Plain and simple.
Alright, drop 10million illegal immigrants, somehow 37million then just becomes fine and dandy?
As you had noted given that it really shouldn't matter than what is the argument you're making?
 
Alright, drop 10million illegal immigrants, somehow 37million then just becomes fine and dandy?
As you had noted given that it really shouldn't matter than what is the argument you're making?

Reread this thread and link me to where I said anything like that.

I thought I made my position fairly clear when I said:

That doesn't mean that it's not still an important issue, but it's important that all sides are coming from the same place.

My problem is with people lying and using false and misleading numbers to try to scare the public into supporting something.
 
Reread this thread and link me to where I said anything like that.

I thought I made my position fairly clear when I said:
I even pointed out that you made a note of that. I lurked through the thread and found your pointing out a difference of 10million to be immaterial to the broader scope of the facts.

RightinNYC said:
My problem is with people lying and using false and misleading numbers to try to scare the public into supporting something.
Should they be more politically correct and use 37million to get the factual basis across? Is it any different be it 47 or 37million? I think the underlying fact that there are a hella lot of people that can not afford insurance and the fact that there are a hella lot of people that have insurnace and still can't afford the co-pay or they are underinsured in itself makes any 10million figure completely immaterial.
I can agree with the philisophical principal of being as accurate and factual as one knows. However 10 million in the case in which you bring up is a distraction to the bigger and far more pressing problem that a hella lot more people are ****ed - particularily the underinsured.
 
I even pointed out that you made a note of that. I lurked through the thread and found your pointing out a difference of 10million to be immaterial to the broader scope of the facts.


Should they be more politically correct and use 37million to get the factual basis across? Is it any different be it 47 or 37million? I think the underlying fact that there are a hella lot of people that can not afford insurance and the fact that there are a hella lot of people that have insurnace and still can't afford the co-pay or they are underinsured in itself makes any 10million figure completely immaterial.
I can agree with the philisophical principal of being as accurate and factual as one knows. However 10 million in the case in which you bring up is a distraction to the bigger and far more pressing problem that a hella lot more people are ****ed - particularily the underinsured.

It doesn't mean much in the sense that anyone who is genuinely concerned about the plight of the uninsured will probably not have their minds changed by this, but it does mean quite a lot in terms of how the debate is framed. It's very important to come at these issues from an accurate perspective, for lots of reasons. If the total bill is going to cost $1T, it kind of matters a lil bit if the public assumes that's going to cover 47m Americans or 37m Americans.

If Bush were playing down the threat from global warming by saying it was only going to rise 2 degrees over 100 years when he knew that it was actually going to rise 3, or if he had said that he was sending 100k troops to Iraq when he knew that he was actually sending 150k, I'm sure that people would (rightly) argue that he should stop misinforming the public.

I'm still not sure why I have to defend my position that the president should not use blatantly false numbers to gin up support for one of his policy proposals. I think that if the roles were reversed, you certainly wouldn't be calling this a "philosophical" thing.
 
Repulibcans proposed amendments that would prevent rationing and stop illegal immigrants from possibly receiving healthcare. These amendments were voted down. Can someone explain to me why they would do this? Unless there is a loophole in the bill that Democrats don't want to close I don't see why these precautionary amendments wouldn't be passed...
 
BWG said:
Who said anything about considering illegal immigrants 'Americans'?
RightinNYC said:
You:
BWG said:
These foreigners live, work, go to school, pay taxes everyday right along with 'Americans'. We include them in everything we do, but now all of a sudden they don't count when it's politically convenient.
Since when did the term foreigners come to mean illegal?

RightinNYC said:
Are you seriously trying to argue that the 9.73 million uninsured "foreigners" in the census report are all legal immigrants, despite the fact that both of the studies I linked to indicate otherwise?
Are you seriously trying to interject other studies involving illegal immigrants into the census report that many people refer to?

As lazy, sloppy and disingenuous as Ms. Seymour's article is, even she doesn't refer to the immigrants noted in the census bureau report as illegals.

RightinNYC said:
Because it's an out and out lie to say that there are 47 million "uninsured Americans" when a large portion of that number are not Americans. Plain and simple.
[...]
Actually, I think that you'd find that most detailed reports clearly distinguish between the poverty rates of "Americans" and the poverty rates of people living in America. The fact that most reporters or people are imprecise in using the terms or describing things doesn't make that any less true.
It's not a lie when people commonly use the term Americans interchangeably with the term People that the census bureau uses in their reports. That's why I gave some examples of the way people use the term Americanswhen talking about people that include foreigners in other census reports.
RightinNYC said:
Because they are not Americans. I can't believe that you're arguing that politics are the reason why I'm arguing that they shouldn't be included, when it's so clearly the other way around.
Clearly people are using the census report as the source for uninsured people in the United States, the fact that the term Americans is used interchangably with the census use of the term People is seized upon by some people to discount the number of uninsured people in this country to support their political agenda.
RightinNYC said:
Let me put it this way - Do you think Obama would ever get up at a podium and say "When you include non-citizens, there are 47 million uninsured Americans."
Do you think, when people are referring to the population of the United States say - We have a population of 280 million plus 20 million non-citizens.

I don't think so, but I have heard the population referred to many times as '300 million Americans'

RightinNYC said:
So now that you acknowledge that the minimum figure is 7 million, we can move from there. I would argue that Pew's figure of 11.9 million is a significant undercounting, mostly due to the fact that they're basing their growth figures on numbers from 2000, when all indicators are that immigration increased rapidly from there. Bear Stearns produced a report (PDF) that detailed all the reasons for this and which estimated that the number of illegal immigrants is close to 20 million. I would be inclined to say it's closer to 15, but that still puts us back at the 10 million figure.

Beyond all that, does it really make much of a difference if the number of illegal immigrants included in Obama's "47 million uninsured Americans" number is 7 million or 10 million?
The only reason I even acknowledged the illegal estimations was to show that they don't fit the census report. You cite 20 million. The census bureau's breakdown of the population of the United States include 21 million non-citizens.

So by your reasoning - that is that the census report includes the illegals - that would only leave 1 million legal immigrants from around world, from Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America or North America living in the United States.

You claim that there are 10 million uninsured illegals, but the census report states that there are only 9.7 million uninsured non-citizens. That's less than the estimated uninsured illegals and we haven't even begun to count all the uninsured immigrants from around the world.

The estimated illegal figures don't fit the census report.

RightinNYC said:
And I stand by my assertion that the vast, vast majority of uninsured people earning more than $75k a year are uninsured due to their own actions. I think it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. My apologies for not including the "vast, vast majority" disclaimer in my earlier statement.
I don't doubt that you do stand by your assertions, that doesn't take away from lazy, sloppy articles written by someone (and referred to over and over) that just took figures from the census report and made a sweeping declaration, with out any type of investigation into why they are uninsured...
Julia A. Seymour article said:
But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

How many non-citizens are counted in both the non-citizen breakout and the above $50,000 breakout? Are some being brushed aside multiple times?
 
Fear & lies always sell more soap than the simple, undramatic truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom