While the candidates argue over this thorny issue, the number of uninsured Americans continues to grow. The U.S. Census put the latest number of uninsured at 47 million in 2006, up from 44.8 million in 2005. This group comes at a great cost. The U.S. spends nearly $100 billion a year providing health services to the uninsured, often for preventable diseases. Hospitals dole out about $34 billion in uncompensated care a year, while another $37 billion is paid by people with coverage for those who are uninsured, according to the nonpartisan group National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC).
Faced with out-of-control health-care costs and a growing number of employers cutting back on health benefits, state governments have decided that they can't wait for the next president to move into the White House and implement reform. Last year, 28 states proposed laws aimed at dramatically revamping their health — care systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
What they've proposed is as varied as the presidential candidates' solutions. But at the crux of the great universal health-care debate is whether a state should offer low-cost insurance for its residents to voluntarily pursue or whether they should impose a so-called mandate, requiring every uninsured resident to purchase coverage. Maine, for example, took the voluntary route, by launching a program aimed at providing all residents with access to affordable health care by 2009. But thus far, the results have been less than stellar. Launched in 2005, the program's initial goal was to insure up to 31,000 people in its first year. Two-and-a-half years later, fewer than 23,000 people have secured coverage.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is the first state to take the more hard-nosed mandate approach, requiring residents to buy health insurance or else face a tax penalty. Those who can afford to buy insurance in 2008 and don't, will lose a state tax deduction worth between $210 and $912 for the year. (The maximum penalty for 2007 was $219.) The mandate went into effect in July 2007 and thus far, 300,000 of the state's roughly 400,000 to 600,000 uninsured residents have bought health insurance.
That success rate is striking, but it's too soon to declare the Massachusetts experiment a complete victory. The mandate's critics argue that penalizing people who don't buy health insurance could have wide-ranging ramifications.
to jocelyn b'
dont blame the illegals for all the ills in this country.where i practice 100% of the non insured non paying patients are white blue eyed--even they dont pay for their healthcare--not their fault--they just cant afford to.as to people from all over the world coming here for health care--wake up--only very few coe here for a limited number of experimental procedures.yes,they do go to canada and now incresingly to centers of excellence in the middle east,india,singapore,thailand etc.travel more and read more widely instead of the trash the american news media feeds you. WAKE UP
ashnib md
The Federal Government can't do anything right! They can't build levees, they can't build a border fence, they can't handle issuing passports and there are those of you who want the Federal Government in charge of health care?
If we go the mandatory health care route, then each individual should have an array of plans to choose from with a cost attached to it that is amenable to the individual or family doing the purchasing, brought to you by the Insurance Companies following specific guidelines. People don't go to canada for their operations. People from all over the world come HERE for their health care.
While we're ironing out how insurance companies can offer those healthcare plans, we can stop picking up the tab for illegals. Let them pay just like everyone else. And if they don't - then send the bill to Mexico. Eliminate that burden off the insurance rolls and the uninsured tally become much more manageable, realistic allowing cooler heads to solve the problems... (Read more of this comment)
we are wasting time debating what sort of universal plan to adopt.we should make up our mind and adopt a single payor plan based on the canadian model.we can afford it.off the bat,we will save 30%which is wasted by the paperwork imposed by the insurance companies.we will save more later by treating diseases earlier and with providing preventive care.but to get the insurance lobby out our politicians have to be wened off the lobbysits--will they ever,who knows!!!
ashni b md
It's really great that people are finally talking about the nuts and bolts of the healthcare finance tangle I work in every day. It is indeed interesting that I see a comment that expenditures are rising beyond expectations, regardless of which agency might be trying to manage health care costs. The big problem here is trying to give everything to everybody. I applaud Mr Morrison's small step toward recognition of the reality of rationing for those who choose to take what the powers that be will give them for health care. Conversely, if you want to pay the cash you can and should get what you are willing to pay for.
We in this country have to acknowledge part of the health care problems are created by us, our own. Leaving the genetic disorders, why do we see so many obesse people and why only here, why dont we see them in Europe, majority of us are genetically same as them. I think we have been taking too many things for granted. I would say the plans should be provided by government and at various levels, and the charge should be based on persons lifestyle, why should a person with a healthy life style pay for disease for a person who does not care about his or her own health. As far as the illegals opinion that is wrong some may be getting the facilities but the cost is not increasing just becuase of them mostly its US, we need to improve rather tahn pointing finger somewhere else.