30 percent of Americans get “socialized” health care
The new Census Bureau figures showing an increase in the poverty level are not at all surprising. The figures show, as well, that the numbers of the uninsured have also increased, from 45.7 million Americans to 46. 3 million. That’s not surprising, either. As workers have lost their jobs, they have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance.
What’s less well understood is how much government insurance programs — known in some quarters as “socialized medicine” — have done to keep the numbers of uninsured from being even higher. Approximately 30 percent of all Americans are now insured by either Medicare or Medicaid, government-run, single-payer health insurance systems. Without those programs — and without the low-premium insurance program known as SCHIP (PeachCare in Georgia), there would be many more uninsured.
Two points of clarification: Comments on this blog suggest that many readers are confused about who the uninsured are. They are not the typical poor, caricatured as lazy, shiftless, welfare queens. Those who live below the poverty level are already covered by Medicaid. The uninsured are typically those who are self-employed or employed by small businesses that don’t provide insurance; they earn too little to buy policies on the private market.
Picture a 26-year-old college graduate working as a waiter at a small restaurant.
Second point: I continue to puzzle over the number of elderly citizens who denounce Obama’s plans as “socialized medicine” when they enjoy the benefits of Medicare. While conservative talk show hosts have comforted them with the notion that they are simply collecting the benefits for which they have paid, that’s not true. Most Medicare beneficiaries are enjoying much more in benefits that they and their employers paid in taxes. In other words, they are enjoying a form of welfare.
Consider these numbers from the conservative American Enterprise Institute:
This typical person paid around $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes over his lifetime. Likewise, after netting out Medicare premiums, he’ll receive around $173,886 in lifetime Medicare benefits. The net? He can expect to receive around $108,915 more in benefits than he paid in taxes over his lifetime.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
19 comments Add your comment
DirtyDawg
September 11th, 2009
12:50 pm
Seems to me this didn’t include government employees (including Congress, the military and Veterans)…and what about members of the medical profession that, basically, rely on ‘Professional Courtesy’ for much of their, and their families’, care.
And as for that item about tort reform and/or mal-practice insurance costs. Since the number one underwriter(s) of mal-practice insurance in, at least, Georgia, is/are consortium(s) owned by Doctors, just how does that factor into their ‘costs’? Sounds like ‘a profit deal’ to me.
SteveDaily
September 11th, 2009
12:52 pm
What’s most curious is that the typical person paying $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes over his lifetime and receiving around $173,886 in lifetime Medicare benefits for a positive net of $108,915 in Medicare benefits will still find that all of that money is only going to cover 50% of his healthcare costs. – Just because a social program exists in the American system today doesn’t mean it’s working. I would like to think that at least some of the number of elderly citizens who denounce Obama’s plans as “socialized medicine” when they enjoy the benefits of Medicare that the author puzzles over recognize that disparity. Because, after all, if Medicare was a socialistic program that was working as intended, Medicare Advantage and Supplemental programs wouldn’t nearly be as available or effective as they are today.
Wally
September 11th, 2009
1:02 pm
Exactly!!
The difference between what we are paying in to our socialized healthcare programs and what we are taking out is driven primarily by twentieth or even nineteenth century morality and entitlement mentality and clashing with finite resources. It is not the fault of the systems’ design, and the difference cannot be made up by cutting waste and abuse.
Search on Richard Lamm on Amazon and get his book, “Condition Critical,” and you’ll see why.
Yes. There is fraud everywhere you turn. There is even premeditated, negligent ignorance on the part of the healthcare industry. Why should they produce the data bases and information that will cost them revenue?
Years ago, someone published a number for how many dollars were being saved for every dollar spent on policing Medicare and Medicaid providers.
But that’s (gasp) government regulation and bureaucracy!!
Besides. It won’t be enough.
My best guess is that we and our American descendants are out of luck. The Republicans are in the process of convincing enough of the electorate that the recent financial and economic debacle wasn’t their fault in order to get themselves reinstated to the helm of government. As far as I can tell, they haven’t changed one scintilla of their business, governing, or taxation practices that have brought us to this calamity. They haven’t relinquished even one of the contagions in their beliefs, behaviors, policies or leadership style that have been in place for 20 of the last 29 years, especially the first eight years of this century. They continue to practice partisanship and polarization.
So, kiss the goose that lays the golden eggs good-bye.
She’s dying right before our eyes, while Republicans play brinksmanship with our health, our economy, and our environment. Just to get themselves back into power.
Gentlemen, ladies, “Have you no decency!”
Me
September 11th, 2009
1:03 pm
“This typical person paid around $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes over his lifetime. Likewise, after netting out Medicare premiums, he’ll receive around $173,886 in lifetime Medicare benefits. The net? He can expect to receive around $108,915 more in benefits than he paid in taxes over his lifetime.”
Sounds like a scam to me.
Chris Broe
September 11th, 2009
1:05 pm
Cynthia, you don’t have to couch things with “as well” or “at all”.
Your open should have read, “The new Census Bureau figures show an expected increase in the poverty level, and a job-loss related increase in the uninsured who now total 46.3 million.
Data is hard enough to wade through, so don’t distract the reader with a lot of personality. It leads to contradictions like this: “As workers have lost their jobs, they have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance.” VS “..who the uninsured are….not typically the poor…”
I won’t even mention how you began a sentence with a preposition, which always leads to disaster.
Chris Broe
Editor in Chief (Gezundheit)
AJC
Gene Strong
September 11th, 2009
1:17 pm
Cynthia Tucker is but another sycophant supporter of our new National Socialist Party and President Pinocchio. Much akin to the German press of the early 1930’s who supported the infamous German
orator and promiser of change to eager gullible Germans . The liberal press is a waste of the first amendment..
jconservative
September 11th, 2009
1:19 pm
The population of the US is 307 million. 98 million are on health care from medicare/medicaid or schip. That is 32% of the population on “socialized health care”. The CMS, the agency that pays the medicare bills, will spend $803.1 billion in benefits during FY 2010
per their 2010 performance budget.
If you think 98 million is a lot wait until the baby boomers go on medicare. And if you think $803.1 billion is a lot of money wait until the baby boomers go on medicare. That $803.1 billion will be $2 trillion in a few years.
Everything I just said is a fact, whether you like it or not. I would highly recommend that all you readers get your congressmen & senators on the phone & demand that some reform of the health care system take place to reduce that $2 trillion bill that is around the corner. You know that the money is going come out of your paycheck.
But history proves that 90% of you will do nothing but complain to each other.
Tim
September 11th, 2009
1:27 pm
Unemployed = uninsured. Seems like this is going as planned for the ‘Dear Leader’. Keep up the great job PrezBO! You will also get your pink slip in a little more then 3 years. Can’t wait!!! What is the unemployment at again? How is that for your change.
Oh, and Cynthia pretty much blows as a columnist.
somewhereinga
September 11th, 2009
1:28 pm
Cynthia…you are just trying to upset people with your headlines! They don’t get socialized medicine. They get Medicare and VA benifits. We all know it’s not the same as government controlled healthcare.
david
September 11th, 2009
2:15 pm
Yes! Finally someone bringing up the hypocrisy of the senior townhall screamers. You bring up the point that seniors on Medicare are getting welfare in the form of medical care, even though they paid into the system for a long time. What you omit, however, is that many seniors didn’t pay a dime into the system and still receive the same benefits. Yet these people are some of the most vocal “don’t mess with my healthcare!” – of course, because they have a sweetheart deal! Why is it that we insure seniors and kids and poor folks, but do nothing to insure the working middle class, who are propping up the entire system with their tax dollars – it’s crazy! If these seniors had to trade health plans with me for a few months ($900/month premiums, lousy coverage & high deductible), they would be singing a different tune “where’s my public option?!”
david
September 11th, 2009
2:40 pm
Gene Strong, your embarrassing comment comparing Obama to Hitler gave me a good laugh. Turn off the TV/radio and go read some history books. Ignorance is bliss.
Michael H. Smith
September 11th, 2009
2:55 pm
Helping Comrade Cynthia with her puzzle over elderly citizens who denounce Obama’s plans:
With talk of cutting $500 billion from Medicare at a time when the Medicare rolls will increase as never before in history as the baby boomers retire it is very understandable why elderly citizens fear socializing the entire healthcare system. Yeah, the claim is made the $500 billion represents savings and ending waste, fraud and abuse in the system but all the sane of minds on the right and on left know these measures even if possible to achieve will not produce enough money to fund the Public Option without creating even more massive deficits or massive healthcare rationing or both. The claim of we have rationing now does not equally apply to the elderly on Medicare presently does it Comrade Cynthia? Under the Public Option it will. They understand this and that is why they fear a “completely socialization medicine system”.
Using Comrade Cynthia’s typical person argument she chose to use.
Typical person paid around $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes over his lifetime receives around $173,886 in lifetime Medicare benefits, which is around $108,915 more in benefits than he paid in taxes over his lifetime. Net result Comrade Cynthia, is a deficit.
Thank you Comrade Cynthia for explaining exactly why Medicare, Medicaid and the other government ran socialized healthcare programs NOW face trillions of dollars in liabilities (deficits) and if the entitlement programs remain on present course they will consume the entire federal budget. Comrade Obama reiterated that very statement in his healthcare speech before Congress.
That Comrade Cynthia is one big reason no one believes a single word Comrade Obama says in regards to the Public single payer government ran Option. The government has not managed and administered the present single payer government ran healthcare programs that exist today without creating massive deficits.
Fix what is worst broken and unable to pay for itself before you break what is best working that is at least able to pay off its own debts, Comrades.
Shawny
September 11th, 2009
3:20 pm
Excellent news from Cynthia. Raw numbers of uninsured only increased 1.3% since the last census (10 years ago), while the total number of Americans increased…how much??? Methinks more than 1.3%. Nice gains, relatively.
El Jefe
September 11th, 2009
4:16 pm
Our illustrious Editor says
“Second point: I continue to puzzle over the number of elderly citizens who denounce Obama’s plans as “socialized medicine” when they enjoy the benefits of Medicare. While conservative talk show hosts have comforted them with the notion that they are simply collecting the benefits for which they have paid, that’s not true. Most Medicare beneficiaries are enjoying much more in benefits that they and their employers paid in taxes. In other words, they are enjoying a form of welfare.”
Of course, I would think they are frighten of the $500 Billion cut from of Medicare.
Of the 30% uninsured, real reform would help them, the Obama plan won’t.
B N
September 12th, 2009
3:27 am
The reason for the 100k shortfall is simple. Medicare is insuring the part of the population that incurs the greatest amount of medical expense. But… how could we ever recoup such an expense? How? Especially if we… gasp! Socialized the rest, therefore incurring more expenses! Oh chicken little, how shall we ever survive?
Well, the sky ain’t falling. You know what insurance companies make? Money. A lot of money. You know how they make it? Selling health insurance to the core of the population. I have subsidized insurance through where I work, and it’s a pretty good plan- about 2k annual plus 200 dental. Clearly, either my employer or the health care subsidies cover the extra costs of my insurance (which is probably a 4k or 5k value due to bargaining over about 20k individuals). So there are about 4 or 5 thousand dollars being spent on my health care annually. The only problem? I don’t really get sick all that often. I see the doctor a couple times a year, maybe have an antibiotic or a flu shot. So… insurance company pockets that money. In fact, the insurance company is going to make tons of money off of almost anyone unless they have a catastrophic illness, as it is called. Like a big accident, cancer, etc. Most such illnesses don’t occur until you’re getting closer to Medicare age.
So let’s think this through. If I’m in the work force for 45 years, and there’s about 5k going annually into my health insurance- that is 225k. Well shucks. I’m willing to bet that most people won’t use 100k in medical expenses over their healthiest years (20-65). So there’s you’re shortfall money. I mean this is simple risk management and economics. The reason that Medicare is unviable is simple. You’re doing insurance over a risk pool of the worst bets. If the public option spread over the entire population and was competitive, it should actually make money- which could then be used to cover people in their older ages. Or alternatively, it could lower the amount of money spent by citizens on medical insurance (due to competition with the public option). This would let citizens have more money on hand, which could help them cover their own nursing home expenses. Since nursing home expenses and hospitalization is a key cost in the older ages, greater fee-sharing could be placed on citizens on these services- essentially taking back the money later to relieve the burden on Medicare.
But in general, this is simple risk management. If you give a bad risk group insurance at a reasonable price or for free, you lose money. If you give the whole group insurance at a reasonable price, you can make money or break even.
catlady
September 13th, 2009
10:38 am
Yep, you have hit upon one of the most striking things about the healthcare reform debate. Many of the teabaggers have “got theirs” and don’t like the idea that theirs might be diminished. Or that they didn’t “earn” it.
If you get Medicare you suck on the public teat just like the welfare queens do for AFDC and Medicaid. If you take a deduction for your mortgage, you suck on the public teat. Hard to face, isn’t it? You are no better than “they” are!
It has always bothered me to hear the elderly (mostly female) complain about not getting a big enough COLA. “MY check is being cut,” they cry, although they never worked outside the home a day in their lives. Or they did, but now draw on their deceased husband’s record. Whatever happened to “every pot on it’s own bottom”? They sound just like the teenage welfare moms I have heard complain about “their” check being late.
Maybe it is time to wean all these folks off the public teat!
(Notice that the teabaggers in Washington seem to be largely made up of the elderly and middle aged whites–guess they are the only ones who can afford to make the trip, thanks to benefitting from the public teat)
catlady
September 13th, 2009
11:02 am
And those of you who are so grandly self-deluded that you think you have earned it? I shudder to think how God must be angered by that. How can you claim that you have earned this great munificience we have in these United States? The things you have, however, meager, you have been given. Compare your lot to those of an average person in Bangladesh! And you have the gall to say you have “earned” it? Take off your sel-congratulatory, rose-colored glasses!
peanut123
September 13th, 2009
8:12 pm
Read Jackson Free Press articles on health care. According to them, and my experience in Florida, people who do not have children can never receive medicaid in many states, no matter how poor they are, unless they qualify for SS.
($500 per month?) I have watched friends, all of whom work hard, either for small businesses or self employed, struggle for any health care. Type 1 diabetes and many other debilitating diseases hit when you are young. One friend has a possible heart condition, another has severe back injuries from working too hard as a hairdresser, another had possible breast cancer, another suspects diabetes and one almost died from the treatment when diagnosed.
DarkKnight
September 30th, 2009
10:02 pm
I honestly have no idea how people on here come up with this stuff. The idea that the tea party protesters are protesting because they do not want their own benefits cut shows an astounding lack of critical thinking ability. This from the same group that criticizes Bush for being so simplistic.
They protest because the system is obviously unworkable. ~15% of people collect medicare/ade or both. The 85% of us that currently pay in to this mess can barely pay for those 15%. How exactly do you expect expanding it to %100 to work? There aren’t enough workers. They will try once again to raise taxes like they always do (punish the financially responsible) but how is it you can’t see that crippling existing workers who should be saving for their own retirement in order to to cover a government’s crime (raiding the trust fund in the first place) does nothing but push the problem?
Baby boomers will begin to collect in large numbers over the next few years. It is a time bomb and your idea is to run right for it. As the number of retired workers climbs it isn’t possible to pay the “benefits” out without major tax hikes. Covering more people costs more period. If the government was serious it would just give a tax deduction from your gross income for health insurance and get some of Obama’s billionair friends to set up a co-op for the truly uninsurable or something.
The problem here is that the government spent the money in the trust which they promised never to do when it began. Your plan is to trust them again? How is that rational?
The idea that people are complaining that their checks are small when they are “given” to them is hogwash. They earned that money and the government confiscated it and used it interest free for years. You sound like someone who gets excited when they get a tax return check oblivious to the fact that the fact they get a check at all means the government had their money to use for free for the whole year while they were paying 18% on their credit cards and getting penalties and interest assessed if they are late paying the IRS.