Obama's Health Plan

[ageofknowledge]

http://www.patientassistance.com/profile/abbott-22/

Since I can't go to a doctor and afford the expensive tests to get properly diagnosed they simply won't give it to me. I've been to two doctors. Both took the doctor fee. One said take Alieve and come back when you have money or insurance (I'm uninsurable) and they can help me. They knew I was deforming in front of their eyes but they didn't care. I was their last appointment and we both walked out to the parking lot where they said "good luck" and jumped in their high end Lexus and raced off to the racquetball club to party. The other sat there scared stiff to have a potential liability sitting in front of him and ignored everything I told him talking about how well his kid was doing in college until I left. Hunting and pecking around the net looking to self-diagnose and self-medicate is not a solution. This argument some of you raise of fearing you'll lose (just a fear at this point not a fact) your health insurance at work only to have health insurance anyways isn't much of an argument imo. The problem is already solved. We need a real medical solution for all Americans in this country.

[zoegirl]

Hunting and pecking around the net looking to self-diagnose and self-medicate is not a solution.

While you were working did you not get diagnosed with arthritis? Why would you need to go back and get diagnosed now?

I went and saw my long-term doctor's who had left my insurance group and paid the full amount and he had no problem seeing me or diagnosing. Seems like you should try another one.

I'm certainly not suggesting self-diagnose...

The great irony is that under Obama's plan, the medical community will slowly lose the ability to provide the best medicine. For arthritis, Humira, Remicade, and other biologics are someof the best long-term treatments out there, and yet they are expensive (which is why the pharmaceutical companies *do* try to provid finacial care).

If my school, under Obama's plan, decides to drop me and I have to go to his plan, I really doubt that they will pay for it. After all, there will be no incentive to fund the more expensive treatments when they can go with good old steroids.

YOu might be screwed either way...

[Jac3510]

Unfortunately, zoe, you are exactly right. There will only be so much money to go around, which means that some people won't get the care they need. People like AoK will be denied, not coverage, but treatment, because it won't be cost effective. The people who will actually get the treatment will be young people like me -- people who have very inexpensive procedures or people who, if you take care of their needs, will go right back into the workforce and be taxpayers for forty more years.

If anybody doesn't believe this, they can look at the death rates of cancer in countries like Britain and Canada compared to the US as one example. The hard numbers are there. I know AoK is just looking for some way to get to see a doctor, which he seems to believe right now is impossible, and I feel for him there. But, sadly, he's been hoodwinked into thinking that Obama will give it to him. Under Obama's plan, he'll be guaranteed no treatment, forget the coverage issue.

Thankfully, it looks like it won't pass anyway, so this is really all an academic exercise. Rasmussen's numbers today give Obama a -11 approval index and a -1 general index, and that with the stockmarket up. When inflation starts to hit us later this year, and when the deficit numbers Obama delayed come out next month, the market will begin to sink again, and yet more people will begin to jump ship. The CBO released a report saying that Obama's plan will ADD to the deficit, not reduce it as he is claiming. Blue Dog dems are rebelling because of it. And RomneyCare, which is the basic model on a state level for what Obama wants to do nationally, is only showing itself to be an absolute disaster. As more and more people look that, they'll continue to see Obama's plan for what it is. Once a president's approval ratings hit the low 40's, he's lost all political clout, and already the general approval for his plan is around that. They will go lower, and it won't be long before his personal numbers are there, too.

So he won't get it this year, and next year, Congress will be more concerned with reelection than with getting healthcare (and cap and trade, and card check, and all those other stupid programs) done. Republicans will definitely pick up some seats in the House and Senate, and who knows, maybe they'll take one or both back over. 2010 will be a referendum on Obama, and at this pace, Republicans have something to look forward to.

This isn't, of course, to say that the more rational among us should sit back and twittle our thumbs and wait for the end. We have to keep fighting this, keep blogging about it, keep commenting on news stories about it, and, of course, keep talking to our representatives about it. We've been doing that, which is why we are winning. We just need to keep on keeping on, and if we do, we'll dodge the ObamaCare bullet just liked we dodged the HillaryCare bullet.

[zoegirl]

that's not to say that there shouldn't be reforms...we should really tighten up the abuses of the malpractice and the abuses of the emergency care.

Those are som eof the highest financial costs

[ageofknowledge]

Hunting and pecking around the net looking to self-diagnose and self-medicate is not a solution.

While you were working did you not get diagnosed with arthritis? Why would you need to go back and get diagnosed now?

I went and saw my long-term doctor's who had left my insurance group and paid the full amount and he had no problem seeing me or diagnosing. Seems like you should try another one.

I'm certainly not suggesting self-diagnose...

The great irony is that under Obama's plan, the medical community will slowly lose the ability to provide the best medicine. For arthritis, Humira, Remicade, and other biologics are someof the best long-term treatments out there, and yet they are expensive (which is why the pharmaceutical companies *do* try to provid finacial care).

If my school, under Obama's plan, decides to drop me and I have to go to his plan, I really doubt that they will pay for it. After all, there will be no incentive to fund the more expensive treatments when they can go with good old steroids.

YOu might be screwed either way...

No I wasn't. My doctor never diagnosed me even though I complained about pain in the joints for years. No medicine. Nothing. I found out later that under the HMO and PPO models they receive more income and less hassle from insurance companies by managing costs regarding patients and so isn't economically in their best interest to be aggressive and proactive.

The great irony is that under Obama's plan 47 million (and rising each year) Americans will get the ability to receive medicine and that includes biomeds which will be fast tracked to generic less costly alternatives under the Obama plan .

They won't be relying strictly on steroids, of course not. Those are for short term use only and everyone knows it in the medical community. Non-pharmacological treatment includes physical therapy and occupational therapy. Analgesia (painkillers) and anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as steroids, are used to suppress the symptoms, while disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are often required to inhibit or halt the underlying immune process and prevent long-term damage. In recent times, the newer group of biologics has increased treatment options (will be going to generic under Obama plan).

Oh I know I'm screwed right now. I have fingers that look like roller coasters. This is for the poor souls that follow after me.

But you never know. Maybe God will intervene. Or maybe he'll just let it all go bad. It's His choice no? Maybe I'll find a way through. Or not. I really don't know yet for sure. I just know that even if I find a way to get it under control, how can they fix what's already happened (and didn't have to happen)? I don't know the answer to that on any level. I'll know in a couple more years though and if that's not going to happen then I'll never lead a normal life again. Sayonora because that will be off the table from now until I die or the Lord returns. Hopefully the latter won't be too far off. I only stick around because I'm a Christian and it's a mortal sin to destroy the "temple" (e.g. body). I'm not going to do that. I'm not putting my immortal soul at risk.

[zoegirl]

that includes biomeds which will be fast tracked to generic less costly alternatives under the Obama plan .

And you know what this will do? Stifle the research *for* the new medicines. The only way pharmaceutical companis can fund their research is through the payment of those medicines. So the patents are their to stimulate the profit from the new meds.

For every new medication out there, at least 20 have failed in the research labs. But that is the way of research if we want to find new cures and remain the country with the best health care.

If they become too generic too quickly, the companies lose money and guess what, there goes any new research. Obama's plan to shift them to generic will reduce the profit for the pharmaceutical companies and while many people feel that this is, for some reason, a good idea (those greedy pharmacetical companies)m research is terribly expensive and they mkeup that money through the medicines.

Of course, guess what will then have to make up for it? New taxes!! Yeah!!

Before I was on Remicde, predinisone was the only thing keeping me on remission and I was on it close to a year....with no hope of getting off it. Yes, it's *supposed* to be short-term, but there have been plenty of arthritis, asthma, and MS patients, not to mention Crohn's and ulcerative colits poatients who have been on it long term. Of course DOctors know that it should oly be short-term. My GI really wanted me off them...he *knows* the long-term side effects and therefore he suggested the Remicade.

Predinisone's cheap...even though it produces long term side effects, unfortunately there have been plenty of people who have had to be on it long term.

Remicade has been out for ten years and yes it's expensive, but it's side effects are very minimal.

Under his health care, he may *want* to be able to provide it, and maybe he will in the beginning, but it will cost and it will be paid for in higher taxes. If he wants to keep costs low, then there will have to be some element of control of what services are provided. Hmmm....prednisone....cheap....Remicade and HUmira....expensive....

And you know, people shouldn't be *that* excited about generics....its much harder to regulate them and if they come from countries that have lower regulation over the purity of their drugs, you don't know how similar they are to the original product. That's partly why they are cheaper.

[ageofknowledge]

that includes biomeds which will be fast tracked to generic less costly alternatives under the Obama plan .

And you know what this will do? Stifle the research *for* the new medicines. The only way pharmaceutical companis can fund their research is through the payment of those medicines. So the patents are their to stimulate the profit from the new meds.

For every new medication out there, at least 20 have failed in the research labs. But that is the way of research if we want to find new cures and remain the country with the best health care.

If they become too generic too quickly, the companies lose money and guess what, there goes any new research. Obama's plan to shift them to generic will reduce the profit for the pharmaceutical companies and while many people feel that this is, for some reason, a good idea (those greedy pharmacetical companies)m research is terribly expensive and they mkeup that money through the medicines.

Of course, guess what will then have to make up for it? New taxes!! Yeah!!

I disagree. They'll still make plenty of money. They will receive contracts to sell their medicines to over 300 million Americans under Obama's plan. To say that won't translate into massive profits for them is simply incorrect. Right now health care is soaring at three times the rate of compensation with fewer and fewer Americans insured or under insured every year. It's all going to tumble down anyways in due course. Before that happens; however, it will reach a point where only the wealthy few have access to those drugs. You have it all wrong.

Before I was on Remicde, predinisone was the only thing keeping me on remission and I was on it close to a year....with no hope of getting off it. Yes, it's *supposed* to be short-term, but there have been plenty of arthritis, asthma, and MS patients, not to mention Crohn's and ulcerative colits poatients who have been on it long term. Of course DOctors know that it should oly be short-term. My GI really wanted me off them...he *knows* the long-term side effects and therefore he suggested the Remicade.

Predinisone's cheap...even though it produces long term side effects, unfortunately there have been plenty of people who have had to be on it long term.

Remicade has been out for ten years and yes it's expensive, but it's side effects are very minimal.

Under his health care, he may *want* to be able to provide it, and maybe he will in the beginning, but it will cost and it will be paid for in higher taxes. If he wants to keep costs low, then there will have to be some element of control of what services are provided. Hmmm....prednisone....cheap....Remicade and HUmira....expensive....

And you know, people shouldn't be *that* excited about generics....its much harder to regulate them and if they come from countries that have lower regulation over the purity of their drugs, you don't know how similar they are to the original product. That's partly why they are cheaper.

You have it all wrong. Steroids are only used for the short term and everyone in the medical community knows it. Various treatments are available. Non-pharmacological treatment includes physical therapy and occupational therapy. Analgesia (painkillers) and anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as steroids, are used to suppress the symptoms, while disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are often required to inhibit or halt the underlying immune process and prevent long-term damage. Only the newer, non generic, drugs are really expensive. I think a year of generic Methotrexate costs a few hundred dollars a year for the average patient.

There simply is no pathway currently in our system to allow for the newer group of biologics to go generic and that is something Obama's health plan addresses.. a good thing.

Right now health insurance is soaring at three times the compensation rate of Americans. That is resulting in fewer and fewer Americans being insured at all each year and many more becoming underinsured. Eventually, the current system will fail economically because it is unsustainable. Before it does; however, we will reach a point where only a wealthy few have access to new drugs. That's not much of a system imo.

Drug companies will continue to make large profits under the Obama plan simply because they will contract to sell their drugs to a population of over 300,000,000 people. In addition to the profits they will make off of contracting for this market, they will receive grants and stipends to continue research as will universities and other government organs engaged in this type of work. And many more Americans will have access to them.

Taxes? It took from Andrew Jackson to the administration of Bush Jr. to get the tremendous deficit to the point it was when Bush Jr. took office. Then it only took these fiscal conservatives eight years to double it while mismanaging our economy and trade in so many critical ways that ran contrary to the economic well being of the country. Bush suspended the free market "to save it" at the end. Obama's a socialist voted in to do something with the pieces. I aced economics during my MBA and argue his banker's solution probably saved us from a Great Depression; however, is not by itself the way to long term prosperity. I also argue it is too condependent toward the people that got us into this in the first place. I'm divided on bailing out the auto industry though. But the point is a banker's solution is not enough. We have to trash can the trade agreements not in our interest and begin innovating, making, and selling things the world needs and wants again. Not innovating some here while watching new innovation take off overseas (a direct result of our relocating our manufacturing, technology, and industrial bases overseas), then giving a material amount of what we still do innovate to foreign countries to produce using slave labor, and then ship it in cheap containers and dump it all over our country through retail companies like Walmart. We also have to manage our demographic properly again. Inflation is coming and taxes are going up allright but not materially because of Obama's health care reform. The economic environment is such that If we did nothing with health care they will go up and this current generation of consumer minded twitterers who sacrificed inventing, engineering, and manufacturing for twittering and retail certainly cannot save us.

[nd925]

Aok, Please take into account the fabricated and inflated numbers of uninsured Americans. The number given is 47million uninsured. What our President failed to subtract from that number is the approx 10 million illegals that are in our country that would not and should not qualify for government medical benefits, the millions of young, single Americans that do not wish to participate in a health care plan, and not to mention those that can afford to see a doctor without the need for a health care plan. Subtract those numbers and the uninsured figure is roughly 10 million. Check out Mark Levine's website for more accurate figures. Don't take this as being harsh, but for 10 million people, the rest of the Americans are going to get screwed? I can totally sympathize with you on your medical issues. My parents are not in the greatest health and have no insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. My father is on disability and my mother is unable to work either. My father has had 3 open heart surgeries so you can imagine what kind of meds he's having to buy each month not to mention the doctors visits. He also has a bad back and arthritis in his hands to the point where his fingers are beginning to curl. He's had surgery on one of his hands and it did nothing. My mother has kidney problems that has plagued her for a long time and requires medications as well. Only now that my father has turned 65 will he qualify for Medicaid or Medicare which ever it is, which will be a hassle to get started in. And it will only cover him and not my mother. Do you think a socialized medicine program will be any easier? Is there anything easy when dealing with a governmental agency? Ever go to the motor vehicle department? Deal with the IRS? And don't forget, the elderly are going to suffer the most on his plan. The government will have the right to deny treatment based on age.
Why are you not insurable? Does Obama's plan specify that you'll be covered under his plan?
I am sorry for your issues with your health and pray that God will restore you.

[cslewislover]

This isn't, of course, to say that the more rational among us should sit back and twittle our thumbs and wait for the end.

Jac, why would anyone care to listen to your opinion with an attitude like that? Except for people with the same attitude?

I do think government-run things end up being incompetent money-pits, yet something needs to be done, somehow. I believe the bad examples from other countries and other states, yet something still should be done. If conservatives (I'm moderate) would provide something to go on, instead of just fighting people with different ideologies and methods of getting reform enacted, people would respond positively. When all's people hear about is concern about money, instead of concern about people, well, it's a total turn-off. Even Orange County here, which has been such a bastion of conservatism, is becoming more liberal.

Health care cannot be purely market driven, since it isn't a commodity that way. It seems through time that it has become more and more market driven (see AoKs example), and people suffer for it and it ends up being a real waste of money. I don't know what the answers are, except that I know nonprofits are good, and that maybe getting rid of HMO type care altogether would be good (instead, people pay for office visits like in the past, which would make the prices much less), coupled with major medical insurance only.

In any case, just because there are bad examples of govt. run or controlled health care, doesn't mean that any new one that is enacted would be the same. People can learn from past mistakes and bad examples to come up with something better. So this kind-of argument doesn't totally convince me.

So, I want to hear what WILL work better than what is happening now, and it would help an awful lot if I heard about concern for people more than concern for money. There are people out there willing to pay more taxes, since that's where their charity is. They may not give to a church or to something else that helps people, but in their view giving to the govt to help others is the same. It's not a bad thing, it's just different.

[ageofknowledge]

Aok, Please take into account the fabricated and inflated numbers of uninsured Americans. The number given is 47million uninsured. What our President failed to subtract from that number is the approx 10 million illegals that are in our country that would not and should not qualify for government medical benefits, the millions of young, single Americans that do not wish to participate in a health care plan, and not to mention those that can afford to see a doctor without the need for a health care plan. Subtract those numbers and the uninsured figure is roughly 10 million. Check out Mark Levine's website for more accurate figures. Don't take this as being harsh, but for 10 million people, the rest of the Americans are going to get screwed? I can totally sympathize with you on your medical issues. My parents are not in the greatest health and have no insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. My father is on disability and my mother is unable to work either. My father has had 3 open heart surgeries so you can imagine what kind of meds he's having to buy each month not to mention the doctors visits. He also has a bad back and arthritis in his hands to the point where his fingers are beginning to curl. He's had surgery on one of his hands and it did nothing. My mother has kidney problems that has plagued her for a long time and requires medications as well. Only now that my father has turned 65 will he qualify for Medicaid or Medicare which ever it is, which will be a hassle to get started in. And it will only cover him and not my mother. Do you think a socialized medicine program will be any easier? Is there anything easy when dealing with a governmental agency? Ever go to the motor vehicle department? Deal with the IRS? And don't forget, the elderly are going to suffer the most on his plan. The government will have the right to deny treatment based on age.
Why are you not insurable? Does Obama's plan specify that you'll be covered under his plan?
I am sorry for your issues with your health and pray that God will restore you.

Annual Census Bureau estimates released in August 2008 show 47 million people, or 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance during 2006 — a 4.9 percent increase. In 2005, census figures showed that 44.8 million people, or about 15.3 percent of the population, lacked health insurance coverage. The number of Americans rises (and has risen) each year (since then) due to population expansion but also statistically due to the rate of medical care and medical insurance rising three times faster than compensation. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 9s0148.pdf

[zoegirl]

You have it all wrong. Steroids are only used for the short term and everyone in the medical community knows it. Various treatments are available.

aGE,

1) I would have *had* to be on it long-term...*you* are not listening to my experiences nor of the at least five people who I can name who have had ot be on prdnione long term. Steroids *are* supposed to be short-term. But for those diseases, other dugs may not work.

2) Of crse he medicalcommunity knows it. Basic medical 101. Its nt the issu of whether or not thy know it, its wha is working for the patient.

Non-pharmacological treatment includes physical therapy and occupational therapy. Analgesia (painkillers) and anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as steroids, are used to suppress the symptoms, while disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are often required to inhibit or halt the underlying immune process and prevent long-term damage. Only the newer, non generic, drugs are really expensive. I think a year of generic Methotrexate costs a few hundred dollars a year for the average patient.

There simply is no pathway currently in our system to allow for the newer group of biologics to go generic and that is something Obama's health plan addresses.. a good thing.

They can't if we want the research into newer treatments to continue. How do you supposoe the compaies will finnce their eserach without the mony they make?

Right now health insurance is soaring at three times the compensation rate of Americans. That is resulting in fewer and fewer Americans being insured at all each year and many more becoming underinsured. Eventually, the current system will fail economically because it is unsustainable. Before it does; however, we will reach a point where only a wealthy few have access to new drugs. That's not much of a system imo.

Age, the wealthy will *always* have access to better care, r a least, custom care (Michal Jackson comes to mind). In fct, Iwould predict that with Obama's plan, we will see more and more octors becoming boutique cares for people who can afford it. Unless you want to go to complete socialist government, the wealthy will always have better access.

Drug companies will continue to make large profits under the Obama plan simply because they will contract to sell their drugs to a population of over 300,000,000 people. In addition to the profits they will make off of contracting for this market, they will receive grants and stipends to continue research as will universities and other government organs engaged in this type of work. And many more Americans will have access to them.

No, they won't....these biologics cost $600 each infusion without insurance. This pays for the research. Now I'm not deabting that there are abuses. But stopping the profit frm thee new medication by going generic will fore the companies to be funded but grants.

Age, whjere in the world do you suppose the grant mony comes from ?!?!?! From the taxpayers!!

Taxes? It took from Andrew Jackson to the administration of Bush Jr. to get the tremendous deficit to the point it was when Bush Jr. took office. Then it only took these fiscal conservatives eight years to double it while mismanaging our economy and trade in so many critical ways that ran contrary to the economic well being of the country. Bush suspended the free market "to save it" at the end. Obama's a socialist voted in to do something with the pieces. I aced economics during my MBA and argue his banker's solution probably saved us from a Great Depression; however, is not by itself the way to long term prosperity. I also argue it is too condependent toward the people that got us into this in the first place. I'm divided on bailing out the auto industry though. But the point is a banker's solution is not enough. We have to trash can the trade agreements not in our interest and begin innovating, making, and selling things the world needs and wants again. Not innovating here and there, giving it to foreign countries to have slave labor produce, and then dumping it all over our country via containers through retail companies like Walmart. We also have to manage our demographic properly again. Inflation is coming and taxes are going up allright but not materially because of Obama's health care reform. The economic environment is such that If we did nothing with health care they will go up.
Last edited by ageofknowledge on Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ageofknowledge
Established Member

I crtainly agree that Bush spent more than he should have. Hewas not as conservative as he should have been with regards to spending.

AND Obama;s plan will do nothing to decrease the cost. The Congressional Budget Office itself has predicted this.

Want to decrease som costs? Get the illegal aliens to becme citizens and paying *their* taxes. THey are going to the energency rooms and causing the costs to increase. The are gettgin free care without paying into the system

[Jac3510]

Jac, why would anyone care to listen to your opinion with an attitude like that? Except for people with the same attitude?

I'm not sure what the attitude is? I said that we should not twittle our thumbs, that we should continue to fight for what is right. As far as offering alternatives, I've already offered one:

1. Tort reform, which will MASSIVELY reduce the cost of insurance doc's have to pay, and thus massively reduce costs to me and you;
2. Make medical coverage more portable, which will increase competition and thus reduce costs, along with having the added benefit of moving our society away from employer based insurance to privately owned insurance;
3. Encourage prevention rather than intervetion, which will massively reduce the total expenditure we, as a nation, spend on healthcare, which will, in turn, reduce the deficit significantly. More money wil then become available to come up with a real plan for insuring the uninsurable rather than this retarded, and downright evil, government takeover we're looking at now.

All three of those are government issues, and they aren't original with me. There are dozens of ideas that have been proposed by conservatives and Republicans. They just don't get reported on. To take one example, did you know that Walmart wanted to start putting PA's in their stores to provide free checkups and free generic prescriptions, and Congress told them they couldn't? It was a great plan for Walmart, because it gets more people into their store. They know people would shop while they were waiting on the prescription to be filled, but that would have taken power away from the gov't, so they shot it down.

Bottom line, CSLL, we have a big government because greedy people vote for a big government. It's wrong, plain and simple. And unless it changes, the game is over for us as a nation. We're out of money. There's no politics to this statement. It's just the facts. So, I'll keep trying to instill a moral understanding of government in people, which I think is the only answer, and pray that it gets better while preparing for the fact that it probably won't. I just thank God my salvation is in Jesus and not in politics, or any politician . . . there's only one Messiah, and He doesn't hold public office.

[ageofknowledge]

Reread my posts zoegirl. I argue that inflation is coming, taxes are going up anyway with or without health care reform, drug companies will make a profit under Obama's plan and research will continue, and most importantly this generation are not properly equipped nor tooled to save our economy. I AM now listening to you on steroids being prescribed in some cases too long. Since research will continue and a pathway for generic created; however, they will become cheaper and more accessible to the average American. Another positive factor will be the cost of getting FDA approval will come down by the way.

[cslewislover]

Jac, why would anyone care to listen to your opinion with an attitude like that? Except for people with the same attitude?

I'm not sure what the attitude is? I said that we should not twittle our thumbs, that we should continue to fight for what is right.

You left out "the more rational among us." Besides that, how do people know what's "right?" Often, or more often, it's what's from their heart, not just their head (rationality).

Kaiser does some of what you say; they are very big on prevention and early detection (but they don't cover everyone with pre-existing conditions). It's good, but for what's going on in our country, it's not near enough (this doesn't have much to do with emergency rooms and peoples' ability to pay, including illegal immigrants). Unless they all become non-profits! Lol. Yay! By the way, my HMO dental coverage is really really really horrible. For a long time it's been this way. It'd be better if there was no such thing. To me, it looks like this is what happens when business or corp.s get involved with personal health.

[nd925]

Annual Census Bureau estimates released in August 2008 show 47 million people, or 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance during 2006 — a 4.9 percent increase. In 2005, census figures showed that 44.8 million people, or about 15.3 percent of the population, lacked health insurance coverage. The number of Americans rises (and has risen) each year (since then) due to population expansion but also statistically due to the rate of medical care and medical insurance rising three times faster than compensation. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ...9s0148.pdf

The Census Bureau doesn't not filter out the illegals and others that I mentioned before. It's not 47 million people in need of insurance. The census bureau doesn't take into effect the illegals and others that chose not to take the insurance.