Jump to content

Talk:Health insurance coverage in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Almahern.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Underinsured

[edit]

The movie Sicko pointed out that many people in the US actually run out of insurance because they have caps or because the insurance company weasles its way out of compensating the insured for incurred costs. I think the term used was underinsured. People think they are insured but in practice they are not. Isn't this as signinficant an issue as the uninsured? Should this article include reference to such people? Should the title reflect this? Or is a new article needed? --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Underinsured" is a much trickier concept than "uninsured." There is no single broadly accepted standard for what is "enough" health insurance. When you look at it in detail, the issue often turns into "when does a deductible or a maximum annual out-of-pocket limit become too high?" It's not an easy issue to resolve: on the one hand, there's concern that cost sharing presents a barrier to necessary and appropriate care - on the other hand, others are concerned that overly generous third party payment for health care promotes unnecessary and inappropriate use of services.
Bottom line, it's much harder to draw a bright line definition for when someone is "underinsured" than it is to talk about people who are "uninsured." EastTN (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated Number

[edit]

It's worth mentioning, that if someone loses their job and thus their healthcare, they are counted regardless of whether or not they get health insurance again, in the same year, the number of those actually uninsured is closer to 20 million204.193.194.51 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)== Move ==[reply]

Move

[edit]

I'm going to move this to Health insurance coverage in the United States unless there are any objections. That creates a logical outline:

—Designate (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Health uninsured in the United States

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health insurance coverage in the United States → Health uninsured in the United States – I think the previous move from "Uninsured in the United states" to "Health insurance coverage in the United States" by Designate was for the better overall, clarifying that it's about health insurance. However, it must still be pointed out that the emphasis is on the uninsured. The current naming of this article does not invite to contribute anything about uninsured people, such as assistance programs that could help them - it only makes the article appear to cover the demographic aspect of health insurance coverage. With the current classification, there is no article to add information about people without health insurance in the United States. Therefore, I think this article needs to be moved to People without health insurance in the United States or, as suggested above Health uninsured in the United States. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all suggested alternatives are at least better than the current title. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Health uninsured" is an awkward neologism. This article derives much of its data from US Census information, which is published in an annual document called Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. That document is focused entirely on people without insurance. The term "health insurance coverage" implies a shortfall, in the same way that a documentary about "literacy" or "clean water access" would be focused on illiterate people or areas with water shortages, respectively. —Designate (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entry by Designate has convinced me to Oppose my move request. The current name is reflected in the article's references, and if it works to have illiteracy redirected to literacy, then I assume it works to have this article under current naming as a target for People without health insurance in the United States. Other designations used among references are not perfect either, including Americans without health insurance (which is not specific as it appears to include, for example, South America as well) and Lack of health insurance in the United States (which may be regarded as not fully neutral). So, it appears that the current article name is not perfect, but it's better than the one requested above, and, as long as there's no better alternative that we can agree upon, it appears to be best to keep current article name. Still, thanks everyone for comments and suggestions Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirections

[edit]

The alternative naming suggestions above are currently red linked, but I'm thinking of redirecting all of them to this article, to prevent anyone from creating duplicate articles in the belief that this one does not sufficiently cover the uninsured. Any objections to redirecting them? Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm redirecting them now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How have the numbers changed after Affordable Care Act? Shouldn't that have a new section in this article?

[edit]

See title 24.249.78.196 (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need to be careful of WP:recentism on this subject, especially since stats so easily cherry picked for sensational rather than informative effect, and sort of like the DOW Jones, the apparent significance of short-term fluctuations often belie long-term aggregate data. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Health insurance coverage in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion regarding NormSpier's recent edits

[edit]

There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the neutrality of NormSpier's edits to this article (Special:Diff/905346028/912738497) and other articles related to Medicaid estate recovery. If you're interested, please participate at WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier. — Newslinger talk 17:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On this article (of 6 involved), all additions by me, NormSpier, considered out of bounds according to Wikipedia standards, by NormSpier have been removed. However, I am bringing up the issue removed in the next "talk" section, just to alert people making future edits to the issue involved, because it may help create articles which inform the reader as best as possible about what the statistical coverage percents mean.

NormSpier (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health Insurance Coverage rate a little misrepresentative (sort of phony) due to Medicaid estate recovery?

[edit]

There is an issue, unknown to most, that some of what is considered insurance coverage in Census and other statistics is Medicaid and expanded Medicaid (the latter actually a good half of ACA coverage). In maybe half of states, all Medicaid expenses, including all ordinary medical expenses coverage, from Medicaid and expanded Medicaid, is subject to estate recovery for people 55 and older. That means, the bills get paid by Medicaid or expanded Medicaid, but when the person dies, the estate has to pay back all of the medical bills paid out. (Thus, a quantitative person would say "that's not insurance--that's a loan--and it's financial a bomb for people".)

Here is a decent reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20190905015802/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Medicaid_estate_recovery . It's an archived version of Medicaid estate recovery, which Newslinger indicates will be substantially shortened, possibly the issue entirely removed. (The removal is on account of Wikipedia standards of recent years, and I have been told that Wikipedia is aware that the standards have something of a mainstreaming / censoring affect, but they are trading off various issues in setting that policy. Newslinger and I have had some discussion, on the bulletin board page WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier if anyone is interested. )

Essentially, in states that do the Medicaid estate recovery of all medical expenses, in the statistics, about 25% of people considered "insured" in U.S. coverage statistics are covered by Medicaid (including ACA expanded Medicaid), and about 1/6 of them, maybe 4% or all people, are 55 and older. Thus, in tho states that do Medicaid estate recovery of all medical expenses, one might view that those 4% of total population are misrepresented as insured in the stats. Or at least, it's a case like, or perhaps worse than, being "underinsured".

So I'm mentioning the issue here, in case editors of this article feel it is relevant to point it out to readers of the article, by some means considered legitimate by more recent Wikipedia standards. NormSpier (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninsured" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Uninsured. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Uninsured until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SecretName101 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States&oldid=1225635578"