The Undercovered

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: Having been on the receiving end of a letter-writing campaign, we are acutely aware that many are concerned about the plight of the uninsured. Too bad they're not similarly aware of the facts.

---

IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure

---

"It is no longer acceptable to have over 46 million Americans without health care," says one of the letter writers, touching on the recurring theme that it's somehow immoral to let a part of the population go without medical insurance.

The debate over the uninsured generates a lot of heat. That's why more than 50 letters supporting the White House's public option plan were e-mailed to us over an 18-hour period beginning Tuesday afternoon.

What's missing is some light, which is exactly what economists David and June O'Neill provide in a recent report prepared for the Employment Policies Institute.

The O'Neills classified the uninsured in two categories: the "involuntarily" uninsured, made up of those "likely unable to afford" coverage; and the "voluntarily" uninsured, 18- to 64-year-olds who have incomes at or above 2.5 times the poverty line and "likely have the means to obtain health care coverage."

At least 43% of the 46 million, the O'Neills say, belong to the voluntarily uninsured group.

That leaves 27 million Americans who aren't covered because they ostensibly cannot afford it.

There's much more to the story, though. The O'Neills found that:

• One-third of those who are involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts; only 7% of the privately insured didn't graduate.

• A "disproportionately large" portion — almost 52% — of the involuntarily uninsured are young, 18 to 34.

• Immigrants make up a third of the involuntarily uninsured.

• Almost half of those the authors placed in the involuntary column are single and childless.

• While the uninsured tend to have higher mortality rates, their coverage status is "not likely to be the major factor" because they "have multiple disadvantages that are associated with poor health," such as "education, socioeconomic status and health-related habits like smoking."

Lost in the debate is the key fact that lacking insurance is not the same as lacking access to care. The uninsured do receive treatment, spending roughly 40% of the amount spent on health care by insured Americans each year.

The uninsured are screened for conditions such as cancer, as well. And the services they get are no worse than what they would get under a socialist system.

"When compared with screening rates for Canadians (who largely receive health care coverage through a nationalized, single-payer system), the uninsured in the United States actually compare favorably," write the O'Neills.

These statistics do not make a compelling case for Washington to seize control of 18% of our nation's economy just to make sure a small part of the population has medical insurance.

Punishing the many who are taking care of themselves to reward a few at an absurdly high cost is an abuse of the trust that the voters have put in their elected officials.