As of late, we've had some commenters hanging around demanding we redefine the word "uninsured," attempting to downplay the problem of lack of coverage, denying all widely accepted measures of the uninsured, and, when that fails, writing the uninsured off as statistical artifacts of momentary lapses in coverage. Soon enough, they suggest, insurance is procured; no harm, no foul. So this struck me as relevant:
When it comes to insurance, the stability of coverage matters. Indeed, what we tend to see is that the effects of having uncertain coverage -- or insufficient coverage -- are very much like the effects of being totally uninsured. The intermittently insured ignore prescriptions, forego specialists, skip treatment, and deny themselves doctor's visits at nearly the rate of the uninsured.
Meanwhile, so far as the total number -- 45.3 million Americans uninsured -- goes, I was struck to see that even the insurance industry uses it. Hell, they even think (or at least say) that "Politicians need to prioritize this issue. Our community has put forth a workable approach to meet the needs of the uninsured - a diverse population that needs targeted solutions which can be implemented in the short term."
The insurance industry isn't prone to overhyping the millions of Americans without insurance, and if they thought themselves capable of calling it 15 million rather than 45 million, they would. They don't. And so, if you're a denier, ask yourself: Are you really comfortable with a world in which the insurance industry is more intellectually honest than you are?
