Let me see if I understand...
1) The number of uninsured Americans stands at about 45 million, give or take. That works out to about 15% of the population, based upon a number of 300 million..
2) The CDC estimates that 50% of Americans (150 million) will contract H1N1 this year.
This leads to a few potential outcomes:
* If everyone who contracts H1N1 has insurance, the insurance companies will either posts large losses or limit the care for which they will pay.
* If everyone who contracts H1N1 does NOT have insurance, indigent funding will need to increase to pay for emergency-room care, or the providers will post losses for failure to reimburse.
* Those that don't have (adequate) insurance will find themselves in difficult circumstances as they try to pay out-of-pocket for their expenses. At rates, by the way, that are jacked up in the hopes the insurance companies' percentage of reimbursement will cover the provider's costs. Those stuck paying the full rate will be hit hard.
* There will be many people who either choose not to seek treatment or are unable to do so.
* Some combination of the above.
At the very least, we the people will find our own costs increasing due to the first two (or an increased debt, which amounts to the same thing). The third and fourth options will have (perhaps) more indirect costs for each of us, and perhaps not so indirect. If (from the 2007 numbers) 62% of bankruptcies were tied to medical costs - and 78% of those filers already *had* insurance, then I'm thinking this doesn't look good. Especially when we look at things like credit defaults - cards, mortgages.
I'm trying to figure out who actually benefits from this sort of situation. If the answer is "no-one," then isn't it obvious that *something* has to change, at least so that fewer people end up getting screwed? I may not be a big fan of (some of) the current healthcare reform proposals, but the current situation is one that is ripe for a collapse.
2) The CDC estimates that 50% of Americans (150 million) will contract H1N1 this year.
This leads to a few potential outcomes:
* If everyone who contracts H1N1 has insurance, the insurance companies will either posts large losses or limit the care for which they will pay.
* If everyone who contracts H1N1 does NOT have insurance, indigent funding will need to increase to pay for emergency-room care, or the providers will post losses for failure to reimburse.
* Those that don't have (adequate) insurance will find themselves in difficult circumstances as they try to pay out-of-pocket for their expenses. At rates, by the way, that are jacked up in the hopes the insurance companies' percentage of reimbursement will cover the provider's costs. Those stuck paying the full rate will be hit hard.
* There will be many people who either choose not to seek treatment or are unable to do so.
* Some combination of the above.
At the very least, we the people will find our own costs increasing due to the first two (or an increased debt, which amounts to the same thing). The third and fourth options will have (perhaps) more indirect costs for each of us, and perhaps not so indirect. If (from the 2007 numbers) 62% of bankruptcies were tied to medical costs - and 78% of those filers already *had* insurance, then I'm thinking this doesn't look good. Especially when we look at things like credit defaults - cards, mortgages.
I'm trying to figure out who actually benefits from this sort of situation. If the answer is "no-one," then isn't it obvious that *something* has to change, at least so that fewer people end up getting screwed? I may not be a big fan of (some of) the current healthcare reform proposals, but the current situation is one that is ripe for a collapse.