The Virginian-Pilot
©
The number of adults younger than 65 without health insurance in South Hampton Roads remained steady between 2009 and 2010, as Virginia's uninsured rate passed that of the region, according to estimates released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
About 16.9 percent of South Hampton Roads residents between 18 and 64 held no health insurance in 2010, compared with 17.8 percent in Virginia.
Children younger than 18 and seniors 65 and older reported much higher rates of coverage because they usually qualify for government insurance, such as Medicare or Family Access to Medical Insurance Security, Virginia's children's health insurance program known as FAMIS.
The data cover only the civilian, non-institutionalized population. Increases in coverage for young adults under last year's national health care overhaul law weren't captured in the data because many started to be included in their parents' plans this year.
Norfolk showed the same proportion of uninsured adults in 2010 and 2009: about 1 in 4.
Norfolk's rate was the highest in South Hampton Roads and tied with Richmond's for the second-highest rate in the state among areas with populations of at least 65,000. Roanoke had the highest.
The proportion of adults without coverage in the other four cities was below the state rate and below the national rate of 21.4 percent. Chesapeake's was the lowest at 12.9 percent, followed by Suffolk at 14.4 percent, Virginia Beach at 15.2 percent and Portsmouth at 17.6 percent.
The numbers came from the American Community Survey, a questionnaire sent by the Census Bureau to 3 million households every year. Answers from that sample are used to calculate estimates about communities. The survey began including questions about health insurance in 2008.
Amy Jeter, (757) 446-2730, amy.jeter@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Heritage Foundation, 1992
"…Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs.
All Heads of households would be required by law to obtain at least a basic health plan specified by Congress..."
It was a plan put forth by the conservative think tank to tackle the issue of affordability for health insurance.
It was a good idea, but now that the Dems have put a package together using that idea…well, the rest is history.
Insurance companies know this: in order for insurance to be affordable, there has to be broad based participation so the healthy outnumber the sick.
Nothing new. But, of course, the GOP knows better.
When will an idiot understand
I you don't have the money, you can't buy anything. Is it so important to have health insurance that you don't eat or have a place to live?
If you don't have a place to live
no money and no food, then you probably qualify for Medicaid, which was mentioned in the Heritage proposal.
Obama care
I believe that Obama had a good idea. The health care does need overhauled. However, it must start with caps on costs. My wife worked at a hospital pharmacy. They charged $3 for a tylanol when the hospital payed $.12 for it. By putting a cap on medical charges, insurance companies would not have to put out so much per person. With that, insurance plans would be more affordable to everyone. The old saying, "the profit is not in the cure, it is in the treatment". Next time you go to the ER, look at your bill. You have the following: a charge for the doctor, ER, lab,radiology, and pharmacy. All are billed from different departments at the same hospital. The cure for insurance costs is "COST CAPS" not bailouts.
Over Simplification
Saying that the hospital paid $.12 for a tylenol and charging $3 for it used to bother me. But then I came to understand that there are many costs outside of the actual cost that go in to delivery of a product. You'd be surpised at the raw material costs on many of the things that we buy. Taking the costs of that tylenol for instance - you have to pay for ordering, delivery, space to store it until needed, the person to put in the request (nurse/Dr or both), delivery to that person, delivery to the patient, any monitoring that may be required for the patient, and the computer system(s) used in the process. It's a lot more complicated than the raw material cost.
Sorry...
...but I just don't think these percentages are correct. Maybe that is the percent that actually does go to ER for treatment. There are many individuals and famlies that are not covered because they have lost jobs or have jobs that don't offer costly insurance. They have the choice to have a place to live and food to eat or pay outrageously high cost of health insurance. ER does not treat if there is no insurance so many people just don't go at all.
you cannot be denied
you cannot be denied treatment at a public hospital just because you do not have insurance and or no other means of payment. period
Haves vs. Have nots
Those that can afford health insurance are paying for the rest! If you can afford to buy insurance and don't you should be ashamed to be a parasite. There are free clinics and services out there for those that can't afford to pay and they don't use it. Why?
grossly mistaken
My insurance is about to expire in 1 week. I've been paying 1039 for my premium since BC/BS raised it from 639 to 1039 this May or thereabout. I am now unemployed and literally cannot make a 1039 premium/cobra. I need knee surgery, show me a clinic that will fund such an operation. Coughs and colds are one thing, surgeries....especially non life threatening are another altogether. I think you, like others will always find a reason how free health care is out there for the picking. Its not that simple, especially when they review your income and say you make too much. It becomes a choice of literally no place to live or health insurance. I can show you the numbers, I've researched this already.
Quick breakdown on reality
Unemployment without my choice, deducts my child support obligation, it cannot be changed. So I literally net 165.40 a week on unemployment. I went to apply for health care through the state and I make too much money according to their math, because my pre child support obligation to my unemployment tallies about double what is considered too much income. The same state leaves no choice in the matter of child support, they take it off the top no matter what. I am not alone in this, many others are in a catch 22 scenario. My cheating wife that filed for divorce will not let me fund my cobra from the sale of my home....yes your theory is broken and for many with unrealistic considerations by the state.