IHT Does Another Hatchet Job on American Health Care System

There are plenty of legitimate problems with the American heath care system. Medical insurance companies are bogging doctors down with truckloads of paperwork and ensnaring them in a Gordian knot of red tape.

Malpractice insurance is dramatically cutting into their profits, pushing a lot of them to retire or to leave private practice. As doctors become scarce, burdens are shifting to overworked, underpaid nurses, who are themselves in short supply.

Following the lead of Medicare and Medicaid programs, large private insurers have negotiated ridiculous discounts on procedures for their insured, leading to huge price inflation as hospitals try to recoup lost revenue by overcharging everyone else.

Sometimes, the patients who need health insurance the most are unable to get it because of preexisting conditions. And on and on.

Also Visit: flashofgenius.net

But, instead of exploring these legitimate problems, today’s IHT articlechose instead to trot out the tired lefty boilerplate and polemicize the issue of insurance access and affordability.

More than romance, the couple readily acknowledge, it is Huggins’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMO policy that is driving their rush to the altar.

In a country where insurance is out of reach for many, it is not uncommon for couples to marry, or even to divorce, at least partly so one spouse can obtain or maintain health coverage.

I’ve heard of couples who were already engaged getting married on paper before their “actual” wedding ceremony because it covered a gap in health insurance - such as in the transition between grad school and employment.

But getting married for health insurance despite clear reservations? It’s certainly uncommon.

However, the author would have us believe that it’s a regular occurrence. To support this prevarication, he presents some of the weakest evidence I’ve seen in a straight “news” article.

He leads with the obligatory sketchy pseudo-statistic:

In a poll conducted this spring by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research group, 7 percent of adults said someone in their household had married in the past year to gain access to insurance.

The foundation cautions that the number should not be taken literally, but rather as an intriguing indicator that some Americans “are making major life decisions on the basis of health care concerns.”

I’m curious as to why this figure is solid enough to be evidence that people are making marital decisions on the basis of health care concerns, but not solid enough to be taken “literally.”

Either it was a good poll that produced a result reliable within expected margins, or it was not. If not, it’s not evidence of anything, other than that the MSM will report as fact any garbage that suits their agenda.

I suspect that the foundation’s cautionary qualifier is due to the fact that the number is nonsensical to anyone who can multiply.

There are an estimated112 million households in the US. Assuming the 7% described in the poll, that makes about 7.8 million Americans who married for health insurance last year.

However, according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, in 2005 there were only 2.2 million marriages in the US. Survey says: your poll is trash.

Appallingly, while trying to explain this wonky result, the Kaiser Family Foundation confused their own 7% figure for 7% of the total American population, not 7% of American households.

But, hey, it’s only a difference of 13.4 million people. Being off by a factor of 3 is no big deal in a health care policy foundation.

The only other evidence offered to support the author’s argument (and it’s an argument, not a news report) is the unsupported one couple in ten statistic offered by a single wedding chapel officiant in Covington, Kentucky, and the anecdotal tales of woe described in the article.

I empathize with Ms. Brady, but she isn’t without resources. Her monthly disability check more than covers her Medicare AND private supplemental insurance costs (even at the new, higher rate) with a few thousand dollars a year left over.

Assuming she’s a Louisiana resident, she probably qualifies for food stamps and public housing.

She seems to be exactly the type of person these programs were designed to help - a hardworking woman who fell onto hard times because of an extreme medical condition - and therefore the government would take care of her food, housing, and all medical costs.

The author has presented her case as a false dilemma: get married or die.

A few days ago, Jason at PoliGazette wrote a thoughtful, intelligent, balanced post about the strengths and weaknesses of America’s current health care system.

It’s well worth a read. But I suspect that this author doesn’t know the first meaning of “thoughtful,” “intelligent,” or “balanced,” and is primarily concerned with painting America in a bad light at all cost. It’s a damn shame.

Also Read: WHAT IS IDP.ALEXA.51?