Debunking the new rightwing Uninsured talking point -- You need to know

[0rganism]

Lately, it's become apparent that the way the rightwingers are spinning the number of uninsured Americans (now at 45 MILLION in 2003, up from 43.6 MILLION in 2002) is by claiming the data reflects anyone who was without health insurance for at least two days of 2003. Then, they throw out an offhand guess that the number of truly uninsured people is about 5 million.

This is utterly, completely, absolutely 100% FALSE. Worse yet, it actually REVERSES the definition used by the study, insofar as a person who is covered for even PART of the year is counted as "insured".

The US CENSUS report released in August 2004 entitled Income,Poverty,and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:2003 is very specific about the methodology. Quoting,
"People are considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of health insurance for part or all of the previous year,and they are considered “uninsured” if they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year."
(Income,Poverty,and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:2003, page 14, subsection "What is Health Insurance Coverage?", 2nd para)

Now the way the righties are misconstruing this is fairly obvious, upon examination. They look at the second part of the definition, and say, "uninsured people were not covered by these systems at any time, well that could be one day." No. That's not how the definition works. IF that were the case, people receiving coverage for part of the year would be reported as both "insured" and "uninsured", and the numbers wouldn't add up for the total population. The correct way to read the definition is
insured = covered by any type of health insurance for any time in 2003
uninsured = not {insured} = not {covered by any type of health insurance for any time in 2003}

So you can see the insidious way in which the spinners manipulate words and take things out of context to the point where a simple census statistic is reversed and used to prop up their hero. They will resort to lying to understate the misfortune of their fellow Americans in order to live in their happy bushworld of make believe.

[shockingelk]

1. Here's maybe a good response

To ask them what their point is. That 5 million is OK but 45 million is not? What's their plan for the 5 million they acknowledge?

[0rganism]

7. See, that's caving in to their lies, and they'll run with it.

If you let them get away with the "five million" number, next thing you know they'll be talking about how it's a seven-fold decrease from Clinton's average. They'll say, "We don't need national health care, it's expensive and we've got 98% coverage as is!"

Don't let them pull this shit on you. I've seen and heard far too many people respond with the "are you okay with five million?" response, and it's weak compared to the full rebuttal these liars deserve.

I've done the research. Now you know. You can tell them they've got it upside-down and backwards.

[shockingelk]

21. I think it's you that's wanting to allow them to frame it

You're letting them turn the discussion to "Is it 45 million or 5 million?" instead of, "what are we going to do about the millions of uninsured in this nation?"

They don't want to talk about the problem, they're rather bicker about numbers. Don't let them. It goes nowhere but to their advantage.

I think it's better not to respond to ridiculous objections and stick to substance.

[0rganism]

23. There are both qualitative and quantitative concerns

By granting them their false premise, you allow them to turn the discussion to a question of whether it's a problem at all.

Unfortunately, while it is a disgrace that anyone should have to go uninsured, that's how it has been in this nation for a long, long time. So now we ask, "What is the difference between a problem that affects 5 million people and a problem that affects 45 million people?" Easy answer: "Forty million people," -- aka, one in seven Americans.

Decreasing the number of uninsured by an order of magnitude is not merely "bickering about numbers". It diminishes the entire situation to the point where it's more of a national nuisance than a serious national crisis. There's a certain urgency that gets tossed aside when a condition can be attributed to 2% of the population rather than 16%, and next thing you know we're debating the effect of capping malpractice suits on insurance premiums instead of the desparate need for a comprehensive national health care system that brings care to the huge segment of the population which requires it.

[beyurslf]

2. I have a question about "insured" then, I am covered by a Govt program

that covers treatment and medication for a specific illness only. I am not covered for treatment or medications for anything else. It is not a private insurance. I also currently have a "catastrophic" policy that would cover hospitalization due to an accident that is not covered by other insurances. (Such as, in a car wreck, one would assume the car insurance would cover.) It does not cover any doctor visits. It does not cover illnesses even if they result in a hospital stay. It does not cover prescriptions.

Am I "insured" under that question? I sure don't feel "insured."

[0rganism]

4. You are, in all probability, "insured" by this standard

From the same subsection, para 1:
"For reporting purposes,the Census Bureau broadly classifies health insurance coverage as private or government coverage. Private health insurance is coverage by a plan provided through an employer or union or purchased by an individual from a private company. Government health insurance includes the federal programs Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care; the State Children ’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP); and individual state health plans."

So if your specific disease coverage comes under any of those categories, you're insured. And your "catastrophic policy" counts. See? You're a "lucky ducky" with TWO types of insurance!

[beyurslf]

22. Wow. I feel so "lucky" now. :-)

[annabanana]

3. I think it's criminal that the Reservists and Nat'l Guard aren't insured.

That's right.....They grab you out of your life, stick you on the front lines and won't offer your family an insurance plan.

sucks

[0rganism]

5. Not criminal, but it oughta be

What bush has done to the Reserves and Guard is disgusting in the extreme. However, these guys have been uninsured long before he took office. We need to change that, and considering the current risk levels, it's going to cost a helluva lot.

Thanks, W.

[0rganism]

19. Incidentally, they could be counted as "insured" by this census report!

They would, if they were pulled off their coverage-providing jobs and sent to Iraq some time after January 2, 2003. Funny, eh?

[Strawman]

6. Thanks for this post

I'm sure if this is the latest talking point, I'll hear some rw asshole at work repeating it. That's terrible. I'm curious about who specifically is saying only 5 million are uninsured.

[0rganism]

8. Why five million? Well, it's about an order of magnitude less

It diminishes the problem to the point where it disappears from the scope of our national discussion. Think about it: instead of 16% of the population being uninsured, they've dropped it to 2%. That's a huuuuge difference if you're trying to talk about improving health coverage on a national scale, let alone get a single-payer plan considered.

[Strawman]

9. I get that

I asked who is saying this, not why.

[0rganism]

11. Sorry, my bad. My eyes be gettin' all wobbly after reading the fine print

Who is saying it? Well, we had someone show up on DU a day or two ago, pushing an article that appeared in some low-circulation paper with this lie in it. Then, I heard it on AAR this morning, someone called in to Morning Sedition with this talking point, and the Marks didn't know what to do with it. So it's new, it's being pushed, I'm not entirely sure from which direction, maybe the posted article was the original source and it got picked up by rightwing radio.

I'll see if I can dig up where I found it.

[0rganism]

14. I found the DU thread about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=896654

Looking at it now, I doubt that Alan Shirley of Joplin is the one who started this disinformation campaign with a LTTE. This is coming from a talking points plant in the blogosphere or radioland, or maybe it's part of a newsletter sent to rightwing activists.

[Strawman]

17. Thanks

Ugh. How long before this is a hoax e-mail in circulation? It reminds me of the math used in the "you and I are the only people who work" joke e-mail. Except that's presented as an obvious joke. Same tactic though.

[progressivejazz]

10. Great post! Here's another way to look at it.

The same report says that 243.3 million Americans were insured for at least part of the year.

Do these right wing liars expect me to believe there are only about 248 or 249 million Americans? The correct number is around 290 million or so, which leaves 45+ million who were not insured at all.

[0rganism]

12. Right. The numbers don't add up the way they want to read the census.

They try to play a little semantic trick with the second part of the definition where "uninsured" is defined, and they won't quote the first part that defines "insured".

[progressivejazz]

13. Exactly.

The definition of "uninsured" is ambiguous when taken alone. They're trying to take advantage of that ambiguity by quoting it out of context.

Thanks to your good work I won't be fooled for a second if one of these jerks tries it on me. In fact, I hope one does. It seems like an easy way to make $100, by betting the jerk I can prove him wrong. And it will be easy--his numbers don't add up, yours do.

By the way, I know you made the point I reinforced in your original post. I just thought putting the numbers in would make it stronger.

Damn good work.

[0rganism]

18. You had a new angle, actually

> I know you made the point I reinforced in your original post.

Well, it's related, but you were showing that their hypothetical lowball number doesn't add up to 290 million.

I had a different take on it in the original post, insofar as the people covered for part of the year would have to be counted as both insured and uninsured -- that is, they'd be counted twice -- by the rightwing rhetorical definition. In fact, they'd have to arrive at a total population of 330 million if the number of partly-insured people were counted as uninsured as well.

Either way, it's lousy math and it's dirty politics and I hope you win $100 from some freeper who tries to pull it on you. Better yet, bet a $100 donation to the other guy's presidential candidate preference!

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

15. thanks for this - excellent info /eom

[barb162]

16. there's more

another thing you hear is that uninsured can buy it on their own. Although certain insurers like Blue Cross run TV ads every so often, if you ever had the flu once, guess what, they reject you. If your blood pressure is 10 points above average, they reject you. I know people who are uninsured, have money and can't buy any private plan because of health problems or past health problems. Then of course, there are those who can't afford it at all.

The right will always make it seem like those who are uninsured are doing it to save money, or are careless or just choose not to buy it.

[0rganism]

20. bumping, because this one can be nipped in the bud

Remember, if you see it in the media once, it could be a fluke. If you see it twice, it's a coordinated move. If you see it three times, it's the beginning of a campaign. If you see it four times or more, it's a major propaganda point.

[0rganism]

24. bumping one last time before the debates

in case it comes up on the post-debate spin