Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

WireTap

Young and Uninsured

By Holly Beck, WireTap. Posted November 23, 2005.


Twenty-somethings have the lowest rates of health insurance coverage in the country.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Holly Beck

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Think about your plans for the next four years. Do they include going without health insurance?

Perhaps they should. A study published by the Commonwealth Fund [PDF] projects that if past patterns continue, two-thirds of all Americans between the ages of 19 and 29 will lack health insurance at some point in the next four years. In 2003, the most recent year for which data is available, over 30 per cent of 19- to 29-year-olds didn’t have health coverage, almost double the rate of 30-64-year-olds who lacked coverage in the same year.

This makes 20-somethings the age group with the lowest rates of health insurance coverage in the country. While children’s health and retirees’ prescription benefits are often prominently featured in public policy discussions, these groups are in fact covered at far higher rates than young adults. This is often because children and the elderly are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare; young people, considered among the healthiest segments of the population, are more often ineligible for public programs.

They are also the most unstable, a factor that contributes greatly to their difficulty in obtaining insurance coverage. Nationwide, over half of all employers who offer health coverage for employees and their dependents will not cover dependents who are over 18 or 19 and do not go on to post-secondary education. Young people who received public health coverage as children are also likely to age out of the system at 19. Young adults who are able to maintain health coverage through college are often only delaying the loss of coverage until graduation.

Sara Collins, senior program officer at the Commonwealth Fund, points out that within this age group, issues of income and poverty are also very much at play. “This is a relatively low-income group of people that doesn’t have access to health insurance,” she said. “Seventy-two per cent of uninsured young adults are under 200 per cent of the poverty line.” What this means is that even those uninsured young adults who are not below the poverty line are still close enough to poverty to be considered highly vulnerable.

When a young person does not attend college and enters the labor market, the types of jobs they are qualified for tend to not offer benefits. Even young adults who do graduate from college are likely to work temporary or part-time jobs, work for smaller firms, and change jobs more frequently -- all of which lessen their chances of being offered health insurance through work.

Collins says that it is largely due to these factors -- income and employment status -- that young adults find themselves with or without health insurance. A competing theory, which argues that young people view themselves as invincible and don’t see coverage as an important issue, is largely unfounded, says Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California.

“There’s a myth of the ‘young immortals,’ people in this age group who believe they’ll live forever so they don’t need coverage,” Wright said. In fact, available statistics counter the presumption that young adults don’t value health insurance. When adults ages 19-29 are offered coverage, they generally accept it at the same rates as people in older age groups.

“If you actually control for income and type of jobs, young people take up coverage as much as any other age group. So if they turn down health coverage, they do it because they can’t afford it,” Wright said.

A Commonwealth Fund survey also found that 70 percent of young workers say that health insurance is an important factor for them when they choose a job, a figure comparable to other age groups. So does the ‘young immortal’ theory carry any weight? Wright believes that while there is some truth to it, it pins the responsibility on individuals, rather than on the system that excludes them. “I’m not saying you can’t find individual people who have this [young immortal] world-view,” he said. “But that’s not the problem with our health system.”

Risky Business

If health insurance is unavailable or too expensive, young people may end up going without coverage while fully aware of the risks involved. But in the event that they require medical attention and don’t have the insurance to cover the expense, they could be faced with an extremely difficult choice between personal health and financial solvency.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Holly Beck, 23, is a paralegal at a national child welfare advocacy organization. She lives in New York City.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from WireTap! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Health Insurance
Posted by: Landmeister on Nov 26, 2005 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Health Insurance should be goverment mandated, Single Payer system. Presently 27% of medical costs go to administration where on the 'single payer system' only 5% will go. Congresswoman Sheila Kuehl is trying to get this for Calif.
The present Healthcare is not fair to individuals. The drug industry has doctors prescribe drugs for the things you can correct with proper diet 'cos if they prescribe medication they can raise your rates. John Garamendi says the present health system is on a 'death spiral'! Yea they try to scare people into buying health insurance with the expense of hospital stays. With 'the domestic partnerships law' you can do a quick marriage with someone with good health insurance of either sex and get your services for practically nothing. What's wrong with that? Isn't marriage about caring? Even if it is about financial solvency it's still caring about someone's welfare? We need to scrap the present healthcare system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alan
Posted by: asager on Nov 30, 2005 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very valuable article. It is smart and well-written. Most important, it overthrows the myth that kids are too self-indulgent or reckless to buy coverage.

Rather, it isn't offered or they can't afford it.

For the $2 trillion devoted to health care this year, we certainly spend enough to care for everyone.

OK, we can begin with single payer if you wish. But that's only a beginning. We have to find a way to actually make it work. That means working with doctors since they control some 80-90 percent of the health dollar. They are going to be crucial to squeezing out, capturing, and recycling some of the money we now waste on health care. And we waste half of all spending.

Yes, that means that U.S. health care WASTE alone is double U.S. defense spending.

Why are doctors essential? Because single payer cuts only the portion of administrative waste that's associated with administrative complexity and eligibility determinations. But most administrative waste stems from mistrust between caregivers (mainly doctors and hospitals, but also Rx) and payers. Single payer alone won't cure mistrust.

The challenge is to organize and pay doctors in ways that encourage and oblige them to diagnose and treat us with the care that actually works.

That means ending financial incentives to over-serve or under-serve, ending defensive medicine, and giving doctors evidence about what works. It means asking doctors to use finite dollars well--by making careful trade-offs.

Other wealthy countries have figured out lots of ways to do these things. They do them differently, but they all care for all their people, live longer, and spend much less.

U.S. health care's got the money to do the job. Let's make it work for all of us. That will take much more than passing a single law, even a single payer law. The law's just the start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]