Jane's post arguing (in part) that the growth in the uninsured over the last decade has come mainly in the foreign born population is an important one, and should be taken seriously. However, I think they almost obscure more than they illuminate, and deserve a bit more context. What's fascinating about the data she cites is that the actual percentage of both natives and foreign-born residents lacking health insurance has changed relatively little. Since 1993, the number of native-born Americans with coverage has ranged between 86.3% and 88.1%, with 2005 seeing 86.6%. As for the number of foreign-born Americans, their coverage numbers have remained between 65.5 percent and 67.7 percent, with 2005 ending at 66.4%. Which is to say the percentage covered among both groups has remained relative stable.
What did happen is that the foreign-born population increased from 22 million to 35 million over that period: a far more rapid expansion than the native population saw during the same timespan. Indeed, while in 1993, 32 million native-born Americans were uninsured and 7 million foreign-born Americans lacked coverage, in 2005, 35 million native-born Americans were uninsured while 12 million foreign-born Americans went without protection. While the uninsured of each population remained approximately the same, the foreign-born population exhibited a great absolute increase. None of which really changes the basic narrative: 35 million uninsured natives, 12 million uninsured foreigners, 47 million uninsured total. Nothing to be proud of.
