Good news everybody

The CDC  has released their initial 2015 uninsured population counts.  Good news, for all residents of the US in the US through September 2015.  Remember, this percentage will go down a bit more as Montana and Alaska are expanding Medicaid and the 2016 Open Enrollment period pulled in more people.

 

CDC 2015 uninsured rate

These numbers are a bit lower than Gallup and other sources because this data set includes kids and the elderly.  Both of those groups tend to have a higher insurance rate because there are more government programs aimed at those two populations.  Working age adults have a slightly higher than national average uninsured rate.






47 replies
  1. 1
    rikyrah says:

    Thanks for the info, Mayhew.

  2. 2
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    I blame Obama.

  3. 3
    Big R says:

    With President Trump, those bars will be YOOGE and CLASSY. Not shrinking, like with that low-energy Obama.

  4. 4
    guachi says:

    Thanks, Obama!

    And thanks, Mr. Mayhew. I post things like this to my Facebook page as I think it’s important for people to be aware of facts about such a big government program. Of course, I’m in favor of the program. But I try to keep the posts I make about it as fact based and anodyne as possible.

  5. 5
    MomSense says:

    Where would it be if the psycho states could expand Medicaid?

    Apparently our legislature is going to try again. Send good thoughts our way.

  6. 6
    Eric U. says:

    @MomSense: what state are you in? The lege is trying to get rid of Medicaid expansion?

    I just saw a Bernista walking across Penn State UP campus with a Bernie sign. I was thinking about telling him not to be discouraged if Bernie gets beaten badly on Tuesday

  7. 7
    Marc says:

    Something that I admit I don’t understand: given the structures in the affordable care act, how do you end up uninsured? Are these all people who decided to pay the fines for not being covered?

  8. 8
    p.a. says:

    This is great. About 10 yrs ago I knew 2 couples who legally adopted their grandkids because they had health insurance but the kids’ (working, waitress/handyman type jobs) parents didn’t. This also meant they couldn’t retire if their insurance didn’t follow them. They were approaching 65, but not there yet.

  9. 9
    hueyplong says:

    This happy news is what Republicans have fought against, tooth and nail, ever since ACA was passed in the first of their Stalingrad defenses against ever seeing graphs like this. (Or since their successful demonization of HillaryCare in 1993).

    And now they’re fighting tooth and nail to prevent a Supreme Court majority that will make this happy bar graph safe beyond their ability to conjure dozens of new, specious, legal theories, apparently because Leviticus mandates a 5-4 conservative majority.

    If Hillary (or Sanders) wins in November but the GOP retains the Senate, they’ll claim that “the American people” gave them a mandate to refuse to confirm anyone to the left of the late justice a-mouldering in his grave.

    Watch it happen.

  10. 10
    RaflW says:

    Emperor Trump will fix these sagging numbers! That’s the sign of a successful billionaire … charts showing growth, amirite?

    (eta: Or what Big R said)

  11. 11
    Xantar says:

    @Marc:

    For some people, the premiums are genuinely unaffordable even with subsidies. 9.5% of income is a pretty hefty chunk, and the tax penalty is going to be considerably less.

    Of course, paying the tax penalty means you don’t have insurance, but for some people that’s the only choice they have. It’s not totally irrational.

  12. 12
    MomSense says:

    @Eric U.:

    Maine. The legislature is going to try and get a combo private insurance/Medicaid expansion through. LePage’s administration opposes the bill. It’s sponsored by a Republican btw.

  13. 13
    cmorenc says:

    Still waiting for any concrete specifics about the HOOGE replacement plan the GOP has to replace Obamacare with. The ugly truth is that their true conservative vision for what healthcare insurance should be is pretty much a more lightly regulated version of the pre-ACA private health insurance system, supplemented by the ability of insurers to sell junk policies across state lines + tax-exempt health savings accounts people contribute a share of their wages to, like IRAs. The common thread here is the fundamental belief that individual people only deserve as much health insurance as they can pay for themselves in the private market, because otherwise the takers are dragging down the makers and the free market can’t operate. They realize they cannot politically directly attack medicare, so they’re going to try to turn that into a means-based block grant + private insurance subsidy system that they can then erode support for as a welfare-type program rather than universal entitlement. BOTTOM LINE is that they simply don’t believe the federal government has any legitimate role assuring individual health care insurance, and any plan they come up with has erosion of the program to an eventual vanishing point baked into the design.

  14. 14
    RaflW says:

    @hueyplong:

    If Hillary (or Sanders) wins in November but the GOP retains the Senate, they’ll claim that “the American people” gave them a mandate to refuse to confirm anyone to the left of the late justice a-mouldering in his grave.

    Watch it happen.

    Certainly what I expect. I wasn’t just being hyperbolic here last night when I said that we are watching democracy fail.

    It is great that the ACA is working, but even ACA was a kludge that barely managed to pass while Obama was widely liked.

    Our next presidential term going to make the Nixon-Carter years (oops …Ford too!) look like a cakewalk. I still hold considerable hope that the GOP will be humiliated in November due to Trump, but the bitter obstruction and willful disdain for accomplishing anything in Congress will continue at least until 2022.

  15. 15
    nutella says:

    @Xantar:

    Yes, I expect most of the uninsured are the ones with incomes a little above the Medicaid limit, plus the people who should have Medicaid but have the bad luck to live in one of the irresponsible states that refused that money.

    Those are two things I’d like to see fixed, if we can get the three branches of government into the hands of people who give a shit about governing.

  16. 16
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Marc: There are very real holes in it, especially in a state with out medicaid expansion. A buddy of mine lost his insurance even tho he has a union job. How? All the members are either ex cops or veterans who have other options for health care and they were given the choice of applying that money towards health care or their 401Ks.

    He got screwed.

  17. 17
    MattF says:

    @cmorenc: The winger health plan is ‘die of a pre-existing condition– in the emergency room, if you’re lucky.’

  18. 18
    hueyplong says:

    MattF gives the wingers too much credit for compassion. They’ve complained for years about how the poors and the browns get top flight health care for nothing in emergency rooms on the dime of the (white) American People. They’d close that one out as part of their “plan” for increased efficiency. You die of a pre-existing condition, and they don’t give a rat’s tail whether you go quickly or slowly. People who said their plan was “die quickly” were also overstating the level of compassionate conservatism.

  19. 19
    dedc79 says:

    @hueyplong:

    If Hillary (or Sanders) wins in November but the GOP retains the Senate, they’ll claim that “the American people” gave them a mandate to refuse to confirm anyone to the left of the late justice a-mouldering in his grave.

    It’s even worse than that. I expect the GOP will do their best to block the nominee even if they lose their majority in the Senate. It takes 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster. The most “reasonable” Republican senators in the 2016 Senate are also the Senators least likely to still be around in 2017. [edited for clarity]

  20. 20
    hueyplong says:

    @dedc79:

    Agreed. But in that scenario, it won’t be because “the American People mandated it.” It will be simply because they can.

  21. 21

    @MomSense: probably around 8% as 3 million people are uninsured with household income under 100% FPL and are uninsured and live in a refusal state. 3 million is about 1% plus some wood workers who qualified under Legacy Medicaid but never signed up thinking they could not qualify.

  22. 22
    different-church-lady says:

    You’re getting pretty passive-agressive with your category choices.

    I approve.

  23. 23

    @dedc79: Assuming a Dem White House win in November and 50 or more Democratic Senators in office on the day the next Senate is organized, the filibuster will go out the window as part of the organizing principle as every Democratic Senator will have been radicalized.

  24. 24

    @different-church-lady: The blog rubs off on you after 900 posts

  25. 25
    dedc79 says:

    @Richard Mayhew:

    as every Democratic Senator will have been radicalized.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. Or to put it another way, I don’t believe it because I’ve never seen it.

  26. 26
    dww44 says:

    @Richard Mayhew: Methinks you ought to have a more national platform. Maybe we could get a verbal version of them on NPR at the very least. I heard a bit yesterday afternoon on one of their programs, probably ATC, and it was all about how voters are really really upset with the continuinually rising premiums, deductibles, and/or out-of-pocket costs. The inference was that the ACA had not helped matters. This was one of NPR’s regular jabs at the ACA. They cannot help themselves. I recollect this was in context of comparing Clinton’s healthcare proposals versus Bernie’s. To me it was another effort to take another stab at the ACA.

  27. 27
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @different-church-lady: Hey, remember back in the day when categories were going to be the most important part of every post, and rule everyone’s life, as opposed to being an in-joke? Good times.

  28. 28
    Brachiator says:

    Damn. Obamacare works. Let’s kill it.

  29. 29
    lowercase steve says:

    Of that 8% (after Medicaid expansion), some chunk is undocumented. I have heard the undocumented population has been falling over the last several years for other reasons…I wonder how much that contributes to the drop in the uninsured rate.

  30. 30

    @dedc79: Then please explain how Reid was able to get the nuclear option votes from Senate procedural conservatives like Leahy and Levin — radicalization and learning by doing

  31. 31
    Brachiator says:

    @Xantar:

    For some people, the premiums are genuinely unaffordable even with subsidies. 9.5% of income is a pretty hefty chunk, and the tax penalty is going to be considerably less.

    Households are exempt from the insurance mandate and penalties if their income is low. Households are also exempt from the insurance mandate and penalties if insurance coverage would be unaffordable.

  32. 32
    Gelfling545 says:

    A relative of mine has insurance (Medicaid expansion) but still can’t get treatment. She has lupus & needs to see a dermatologist to evaluate a couple of lesions but while there is a list of doctors who “accept” her plan none of them are actually taking patients. (My impression is they set a quota.) She is not the only case of this type I’m familiar with. Getting insured is only a first step. We need to make sure that people can get actual treatment before we start congratulating ourselves.

  33. 33
    dedc79 says:

    @Richard Mayhew: I agree that this is your best evidence that the dynamic has changed. But when it comes to SCOTUS, I fear they’ll balk.

  34. 34
    martian says:

    @Xantar: Not being able to pay the premium is why my family is presently uninsured. They base it on your projected salary, not your most recent year and, with a new job, we might be middle class again this year instead of poor. We’re hoping to pay in and be covered by early March, but life is really fucking stressful right now. Also, one of my kids is medically high needs and paying the high deductibles is crushing. A couple of years ago, we made our deductible by the end of January. Brutal.

    All that said, as the mother of a child with a list of preexisting conditions as long as my arm, I’ll crawl through glass for the party that has made her future less precarious. I’ve genuinely lost sleep worrying over how she’d take care of herself after we’re gone. Thanks, Obama!

  35. 35
    gene108 says:

    @Gelfling545:

    I do not think anyone expected the PPACA to be anything more than a first step.

    The problem is how do you inspire people, with the triumphs of more people getting access, while seriously looking at ways to fix the short falls?

    As it is we are in an all or nothing situation. Either something is 100% perfect from the get go or the media, as posted up thread, will only emphasize the problems.

    Having a public adult conversation about fixing things is not possible.

  36. 36
    Gelfling545 says:

    @gene108: I think you are incorrect. I think many people expected actual rather than symbolic medical care even as a “first step”.

  37. 37
    japa21 says:

    @Gelfling545: In that case, the ACA was definitely an actual “first step”.

  38. 38
    RaflW says:

    @Gelfling545: Are you suggesting that the 5% of America that has gained insurance all have illusory coverage? I’m fairly confident that many of the 15,000,000 now covered have received care.

    No doubt, there are gaps, problems and people needlessly burdened by premiums and deductibles. But it is absurd to categorize ACA gains as symbolic.

  39. 39
    VFX Lurker says:

    I have a question for Richard that may be grist for another post.

    What is the benchmark for “universal healthcare,” and how might we reach it? Would Medicaid expansion in all 50 states be enough? Or, in addition to Medicaid, do we also need to expand coverage to illegal immigrants?

    Or, in addition to covering everyone, does a “universal” system need to also reach certain benchmarks of affordability/accessibility?

    I’m for “universal healthcare,” but I would like to know where we currently fall short of that definition.

  40. 40
    Eric U. says:

    I have a relative that runs a subsistence business and she has a batch of friends in the same situation. People like that barely have enough money, so any copays or deductable is a big expense. So if they have something that isn’t life-threatening, they are still self-rationing. I’m not sure how we would fix that under the ACA, especially with the Republicans holding on to either the House or Senate

  41. 41
    MomSense says:

    @Richard Mayhew:

    Ok, thanks.

    @Gelfling545:

    It’s not a topic I know a lot about but I have been wondering if we can tie loan forgiveness to providing treatment to Medicaid patients in some fashion. One of my kids will teach for 2 or 3 years in an underserved school in exchange for loan forgiveness. One of the things we have to do if we are ever to transition to single payer is to make medical school much cheaper.

  42. 42
    RaflW says:

    So, Obama has a guest post up on SCOTUSblog this morning. He does know how to communicate directly and leave the crapassed media in the dust.

    A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.

    Vintage Obama trolling.

  43. 43
    gene108 says:

    @Eric U.:

    I have a relative that runs a subsistence business and she has a batch of friends in the same situation. People like that barely have enough money, so any copays or deductable is a big expense. So if they have something that isn’t life-threatening, they are still self-rationing. I’m not sure how we would fix that under the ACA, especially with the Republicans holding on to either the House or Senate

    Find a dedicated revenue stream, most people could live with, i.e. not taxing the 99% and funnel it into increasing pay outs for Medicaid, to make it more attractive, and / or to increase premium subsidies and lower deductibles on the benchmark silver plan.

    This is one of those situations, where throwing money at the problem, will fix the problem for many people.

  44. 44
    Eric U. says:

    @gene108: I agree that most people would be happy with that, but since the republicans have made such a political mess out of healthcare and they have gerrymandered their way into controlling a lot of the government, nothing requiring revenue will pass. They are killing people.

  45. 45
    Chyron HR says:

    @Gelfling545:

    That’s fascinating, because even the self-proclaimed True Progressives feverishly joining forces with the Tea Party to “kill the bill” were only trying to blackmail Democrats into enacting single payer health insurance. I don’t recall anyone at the time demanding that the government nationalize all the health care providers, or otherwise force them to take every patient that comes to them.

  46. 46
    agorabum says:

    @gene108: yes, anything wrong with the system really can be fixed with more money. Higher subsidies that go up to help people making 125k (family of 4, and with all lower tiers boosted)and higher medicaid levels. Plus some subsidies for those in cruel states with the medicaid gap.

    I also favor some truly socialized medicine, with cheap government clinics.

  47. 47
    Gelfling545 says:

    @Chyron HR: I’m not suggesting that they do. I’m saying that any insurer should be required to have a network that actually accepts patients.

Comments are closed.