Americans without health insurance will spend about $86 billion on health care this year. Of that amount, $43 billion will come from government programs and $30 billion will be spent out-of-pocket. The remaining shortfall of $13 billion (presumably shifted to other payers) is a little more than one-half of 1% of the nation’s annual health care bill.
Full study [gated, but with abstract] is at Health Affairs online. Wall Street Journal article is here. Hat tip to Tom Miller.
During the primaries, the Obama health plan could be summarized in two words: universal coverage. However, an editorial by Obama health advisors in today's Wall Street Journal devotes no more than two sentences (less than 5 percent of the total) to "insuring the uninsured."
My Monday Health Alert seemed almost unremarkable. (How much more is there to say about Census numbers on the uninsured?) Yet it provoked quite a stir, including this editorial from Paul Krugman in today's New York Times.
At my blog I wrote that millions of those without health insurance could become insured if the need arose. For example, one in four qualifies for free government insurance, but has not enrolled. Many of them can and will enroll when they seek care in an emergency room. This is one of many reasons why Census statistics on the uninsured are misleading and unhelpful.
Krugman interpreted this to mean that I (and through guilt by association the entire Republican party) believe people have no problem accessing or paying for care and that I believe people do not need health insurance. This is not my position and Krugman should know better.
In a column last week, Krugman advised Democrats to "accentuate the negative" because "politics is ugly." I now see what he had in mind.