THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[texaspackerbacker]

The "80s" thread got me thinking about this. A lot of people have come to believe things are so bad these days, and to blame George W. Bush for the "problems" they think exist. You hear all the time talk from leftist politicians and media about Bush's "failed presidency"--of course, with no specifics given.

I, of course, don't believe the propaganda, and will in a later thread, detail why.

The poll question is whether or not ya'all buy into those anti-Bush ideas? Or your own observations, feelings, and senses tell you otherwise.

[bobblehead]

we have big problems, but not the ones the media report. The economy is stable, unemployment is reasonable, the dollar is weak, but can recover if handled appropriately.

the big problems are the unfunded liabilities we hide by not reporting them and no politician other than Paul or Tancredo will dare talk about them.

[sheepshead]

whats #3 say? If democracy holds in Iraq, he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest presidents in history. This will be an historical perspective that many of us will not be around to see however.

[The Leaper]

Bush has been a relatively poor president.

He initially did a great job with 9/11...but then flubbed things up by not using that as capital to SECURE OUR BORDERS.

His choices for advisors and leaders have been horrific. Far too many people have had to resign due to either scandal or incompetance.

Overall, our economy struggles because neither side is truly willing to protect the interests of the American people. Free trade should be limited to those nations and companies that earn the right to utilize it...it should not just be given carte blanche to everyone.

I'll be glad to see Bush go...but at the same time, I will feel that way for 95% of presidents after 8 years. I am a strong supporter of term limits, because it promotes new ideas and new agendas getting a fair shake. This is precisely why Congress has become a disaster...LACK OF TERM LIMITS.

I can't vote in this poll, because I don't fit in any of the categories...although I have no idea what the hell #3 is trying to say.

[Scott Campbell]

The economy is stable............

People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

[GoPackGo]

The economy is stable............

People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

When you say bailouts do you mean foreclosures or free money from the Government to people who's homes lost value?

[texaspackerbacker]

Most forecasts are for the housing downturn to level off and turn back upward in the second half of '08. The economy in general is expected to grow at a better rate the last half of this year too. My source on this is a guy named Paul Bishop, the head of the National Association of Realtors.

Spending for a possible bailout has little to do with the stability of the economy. Growth in conjunction with reasonable inflation is the key to a good situation. Despite media attempts tp promote panic, the macro-economic situation is not that bad, and the micro-economic situation for practically all individuals also is fine--even though many inexplicably believe that others are not as well off as themselves.

Regarding foreclosures, interest is still in the 6% range. There was a FAR BIGGER rate of foreclosures several times in the last few decades when interest was as high as the mid-teens.

[oregonpackfan]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

[bobblehead]

The economy is stable............

People who think this economy is stable are in for a rude awakening when they're finally able to put a price tag on the bailouts from the housing bubble.

Please, why do we need a bailout?? Yes I agree if we pour billions into some mythical bailout it will hurt the economy, but not much. Anyway, someone who put 0 down, paid interest only ect who loses his house has lost nothing. The lenders were the ones who lost money here and its their own fault. I won't get into the whole derivatives market and what caused the housing bubble, its pointless and has NOTHING to do with politicians. Yep, you heard me right, I'm actually not blaming politicians for something here. Now if they continue to leave it alone, its a problem that will fix itself.

On a sidenote, even if we do bail it out, its a drop in the bucket compared to other gov't spending, while I admit the capital markets coming to a halt has put a damper on the economy, it IS in stable condition in the now, no matter how often Obama, the media or anyone else tells you its not. Look at EVERY indicator and it will show you that things are doing fine, not thriving like 03-07, but still fine.

[bobblehead]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

1) I think I covered at nauseum why we had to start a war in Iraq, and no one lifted a finger to make the situation otherwise.

2) I 'm all for clean air, nuclear has ZERO greenhouse gas emissions....lets start building. But if you think there is any possible way to stop using oil without crippling the entire way of life we enjoy....please, fill me in, and don't get me started on the validity of man made global warming.

3) Agree fully, too much nepitism in this administration, although many that were criticized as good old boys were still very qualified. Every president does this and gets embarassed some, but I agree, its still wrong.

4) During bushs term "poor" people increased their earnings and wealth by a much greater percentage than "the rich" (don't have numbers at my disposal right now) If your point is that a guy making 1 million got a 1% raise and a guy making 20k got a 10% raise the the millionaire got 400% more of a raise than the poor guy, congratulations you passed number fudging 101. Now if you can show me ANY system that works better than capitilism as a way to raise the standard of living of EVERYONE I'm all for learning, but it will take an entire new thread to show you the full folly of the points you make here.

While I'm at it I guess pointing out that every person in america who paid taxes under clinton got a tax cut from bush and that as a percentage of taxes paid the poor got much bigger tax cuts. Again, if the rich pay all the taxes when you make sensible tax cuts....well, they might actually get more of the benefit.

5) If you wanna look at the source of the healthcare issue, again this is an entire new thread, but look at the Kennedy HMO bill back in the day. It stifled competition, put in new regulations was touted as "a breakthrough so every american can afford healthcare" and basically ran the costs of care thru the roof and allowed a few corporations to dominate the playing field without actually competing for business....interestingly the very thing libs complain about. EVERY time gov't tinkers with the free market model the results are disastorous. I do agree though that bush did little to help this problem like deregulating the industry and allowing companies to cross state lines, allowing start ups to offer individual disastor insurance to compete with the big boys without a crushing amount of red tape in the way.
sidenote: Most people can afford healthcare and choose not to, here in nevada a disastor policy with a 5k decuctible for a middle aged person is under $100 a month. This protects against bankruptcy and puts a person in charge of his own healthcare if coupled with a healthcare savings account (another tax cut for middle america that bush put through)

6) there is no law anywhere that says if you fire at our troops you get a fair trial. there is no law that says if you aren't wearing a uniform you get the geneva treatment. As far as gitmo goes, after the libs threw such a fit we solved the problem....when they tried to surrender on the battlefield we shot them since we had nowhere to put them (you won't here that in the news will you). I agree with you on torture, we don't need it, with al qaida there is no jack bauer situation going on. But to call people who took arms against our troops "political prisoners" thats laughable. Just like in any war when we leave iraq and the war is over the PRISONERS OF WAR will be released to their countries of origin, what would you do, release them back to the battlefield?? Should we re-arm them while we are at it?

7) While bush won't be considered a great president, the title of worst ever still goes to LBJ who decided the social security trust fund was there for him to spend and started the idea of unfunded liabilities in our govenment....you know, spend now pay when I'm dead. This opened us up for programs like medicare and medicaid that we can't really afford, ooo....oooo....and national healthcare.

[texaspackerbacker]

George W. Bush, IMO, has been a terrible President. His presidency has been marred by:

1. Starting a war in Iraq based on false accusations of Iraq'sWMD's, Hussain's involvemtent in 9/11 and al-Qaida. This has led to the loss of over 4,000 American service people, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and $500 billion in costs where the bill is still running...

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

3. As Leaper noted, W. assigned many unqualified people to positions of authority. Michael Brown was appointed head of FEMA. He has previously directed a horse breeding farm. Though Harriet Miers graduated from law school, she never appeared in a court room as a lawyer or a judge. W. tried to appoint her to the U. S. Supreme Court.

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

Kudos for having the courage to discuss some issues, Oregon.

1. Nobody EVER accused Saddam of being involved in 9/11. He indeed DID have links to al Qaeda, though. Remember Zarqawi? It is well documented that he was in Iraq with Saddam's blessing long before we invaded. And then there is the Ansar al Islam al Qaeda terrorist training camp within Iraq which our troops overran. Arguably, the cost would have been a helluva lot more than 4,000 deaths and $500 billion if al Qaeda had successfully perpetrated repeats of 9/11, which the war in Iraq and al Qaeda's prioritizing of screwing up Iraq over hitting us at home was in large part responsible for preventing. THAT is the jewel in Bush's legacy--preventing repeats of 9/11 or worse.

2. Manmade global warming is a fiction which is being used to HARM the economies of America and other western capitalist countries. The Kyoto Accords, in addition to being stupidly unnecessary in general, were grossly one-sided against us, and should NOT have been signed.

3. I'll give you that one. So did every other president that ever came along. Bush also appointed far more highly qualified and competent people than the few bad examples. His judicial appointments in particular, have been spectacular--other than Miers--strict constructionist people rather than the rotten judicial activists for all the wrong things that some presidents have appointed in the past.

4. What those stats don't reflect is that virtually everyone is comfortable, prosperous, and free to enjoy their comfort and prosperity. Does it really HARM any of us to have Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. be filthy rich? Or is that just irrational class envy?

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

6. First of all, it would be interesting to hear how you define "torture", as nothing we have done comes close to classical or traditional definitions of torture. As for what we have done, hell yeah, terrorists have been harshly interrogated and locked up without due process in Guantanamo. And it damn well better continue, as that has verifiably prevented terrorist acts against Americans. Due process of law is a right reserved for us--citizens and possibly legal immigrants of this country. No way these Guantanamo terrorists should ever be afforded those rights.

Yes, history probably will treat Bush with the same irrationality and unfairness as the present. The historians, as part of the leftist educational establishment, after all, are the ones who determine such things, and as soon as all of the good sense Americans who know otherwise die off, that's the way it probably will go down. The scumbags will probably even revise history to make idiot Jimmy Carter out to be something other than the loser he was.

[HarveyWallbangers]

2. lack of concern for the nation's and world's physical environment. The USA is the only major world power to rufuse to sign the Kyoto Clean Air Act.

This is a good thing. The Kyoto Protocol was seriously flawed. It looks even worse now. Even some lefties are willing to admit it. Some that were even authors of the agreement.

http://www.aussmc.org/Time_to_ditch_kyoto.php

4. helped facillitate transfer of wealth in the country to an elite few by tax breaks aimed at the primarily very rich and corportations. In America, 1% of the country owns 33% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 80% owns 26% of the nation's wealth(Stats from Thom Hartmann)

Liberals always love class wars. It's easy to say tax the rich. They said the same things about Reagan. Over-taxing the rich doesn't do much for the economy, but it sure sounds good.

5. Did little to address the growing issue of health care in the country. 47 million Americans cannot afford health insurance.

Something that dozens of other Presidents (including Bill Clinton) have failed to accomplish. It's the elephant in the room. You have two extremes on the issue. One side that wants a socialistic system that covers everybody but will inevitably lead to poorer care and will be a financial burden on everybody. The other side wants a market system that will drive down costs and provide better care for most people, but will inevitably lead to some people being left out. I think both sides can agree that something needs to be done, but there's a big difference on what changes to implement. Some people have a utopian idea that a socialistic system would be available to all, cheap, and would provide wonderful care for all--which is laughable.

6. Violated both national and international law through the use of torture and holding political prisoners for years without even charging them or giving them a trial. Perhaps some of the people held at Gitmo are terrorists. There is a strong chance many of them are not. All of them should at least be charged and given a fair trial.

Yeah, I have concerns about the government overstepping its bounds when dealing with U.S. citizens. I don't much care what they do to enemy combatants. I'd rather they do what they can to keep terrorists from flying 747s into 100 story buildings. It's a dirty little secret, but no government has really cared much about the rights of enemy combatants. I'm not saying you torture every prisoner you get, but if there is a prisoner that you think can provide vital information, you interrogate them. And not in a nice way. It's always been that way. It will always be that way. You just won't hear about it.

Whether it be 20 years from now or 100 years from now, history will show that George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents the country has ever had

I'm shocked you could come to this conclusion. Like all things, history will more accurately judge Bush in about 50 years. Time will be an outstanding judge.

[HarveyWallbangers]

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

Not only that but 47M is a bullshit figure. That includes, among other things, people that were between jobs for a week or two and may have not been covered for a brief period of time. It's called Fuzzy Math. It's also dishonest.

[oregonpackfan]

5. Many of those 47 million including myself are uninsured by CHOICE. Nobody in this country goes without vital health care, even if they are uninsured and can't afford it. And our health care system is far and away the most advanced in the world in terms of research for new cures, etc. I agree, formalizing what is now accomplished informally--health care for everybody--should be done. However, it should be done without screwing up the wonderful system we now have--as the proposed Dem/lib programs undoubtedly would. BTW, Bush did propose programs, but a hostile Congress shot them down.

Not only that but 47M is a bullshit figure. That includes people that were between jobs for a week or two and may have not been covered for a brief period of time. It's dishonest.

Harvey,

The 47 million figure is from the United States Census Bureau.

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”



Key Findings from the New Census Data

* The number of people without health insurance was 46.6 million in 2005, compared to 45.3 million in 2004, and 41.2 million in 2001 (see table below).

* The percentage of Americans without insurance rose to 15.9 percent in 2005, higher than the 15.6 percent level in 2004 and much higher than the 14.9 percent level in 2001.

* The percentage of Americans who are uninsured rose largely because the percentage of people with employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, as it has in the past several years.

* The percentage of children under 18 who are uninsured rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, while the number of uninsured children climbed from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005, an increase of 360,000.

* Lack of insurance is much more common among people with low incomes. Some 24.4 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2005, almost triple the rate of 8.5 percent among people with incomes over $75,000.

* African-Americans (19.6 percent uninsured) and Hispanics (32.7 percent) were much more likely to be uninsured than white, non-Hispanic people (11.3 percent).

[HarveyWallbangers]

Analysis: Politicians Using Flawed Data on Uninsured Population
By The Heartland Institute

Prior to the November election, presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wrote in an October essay for Health Insurance Underwriter magazine, "Roughly 45 million American have no health insurance at all."

Ever since the U.S. Census Bureau released its August 26, 2004 report on the nation's uninsured population, politicians have used the data to make health insurance policy decisions, and single-payer activists have used the data to lobby for government-mandated or -administered national health insurance. By the Bureau's own admission, however, the data are incorrect: The number of uninsured is greatly overstated.

After a closer look at the data released in August and a consideration of analyses performed since then, a more accurate picture of the uninsured problem emerges. The good news is that the number of Americans without health insurance policies is not indicative of a crisis requiring more taxpayer-funded government regulations and mandates. The bad news is that policymakers are relying on extremely flawed data.

A Million More Insured

According to the Census Bureau's methodology and published numbers, there were 44.9 million Americans without health insurance for at least a part of 2003, an increase of approximately 3 million over the previous year's figure. At the same time, however, the total number of people with insurance increased by one million, to 243.3 million.

Devon Herrick, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), noted, "While it is true that the number of uninsured has grown, it is equally true that the number of people with insurance has grown steadily for the last 15 years. Despite recent economic hard times, there has never been this many people with health insurance."

Although there were three million more people uninsured in 2003 than in 1996, the percentage of the U.S. population that is uninsured remained the same, at 15.6 percent.

Possible 15 Million Over-count

On numerous occasions, Census Bureau officials have acknowledged the uninsured number is inflated because the Bureau reports as "uninsured" those adults and children who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but are not enrolled.

As Herrick observed, "Being uninsured in America is often a matter of choice. Most uninsured people either can afford health insurance or qualify for government-sponsored health care programs; they just choose not to enroll."

While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported Medicaid enrollment at 51 million in 2002, the Census tabulated only 33 million, a difference of 18 million people. This same kind of undercount happened again in 2003: The CMS reported 2 million people became eligible for Medicaid, but the Census Bureau recorded only a 350,000 increase in Medicaid enrollment.

This is no minor statistical snag, as the Census Bureau reports there are more than 15 million "uninsured" individuals in households with less than $25,000 of income. Many of these individuals meet the income test for Medicaid or SCHIP eligibility, but they are not technically enrolled and are therefore considered by the Census Bureau to be uninsured.

However, as soon as a person who is eligible for Medicaid, but not enrolled, enters the health care system through a hospital or clinic, he or she is automatically enrolled into the Medicaid plan. Therefore, counting this population as "uninsured" distorts the data significantly, since these individuals can enroll at any time and have their medical expenses paid whenever they require health care.

The social policy implications of this over-count are important because the inflated numbers send the wrong message to politicians. One of Kerry's health care proposals singled out the Medicaid population for special legislation. His campaign literature stated there are "millions of uninsured children who are eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled."

Given that no one who is eligible for Medicaid can be correctly described as uninsured, spending millions of dollars to enroll these people would do no one any good at all. These folks are not uninsured.

Many Unaware They're Insured

In addition, many people may not be aware that they or their children are covered by a health insurance program, either private or government, if they have not used covered services recently. Thus, they fail to properly report their insurance coverage.

Research I conducted in 1999 while at the Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Missouri-Columbia discovered many Medicaid recipients say they don't have insurance coverage, but when interviewed by a trained researcher and asked if the government paid for their medical care, they respond in the affirmative. When asked if they remember the name of the program, they cite Medicaid and sometimes Medicare. Many interviewees said they don't consider government-run health care to be insurance because they do not pay premiums and often have no co-pays or deductibles.

Also inflating the uninsured figure is a sizeable increase in the nation's immigrant population. Roughly 9 million documented and undocumented aliens are generally included in the Census estimates. Many immigrants hesitate to participate in a government program of any kind, for fear of establishing a paper trail for immigration and national security authorities. Cultural mores, folkways, and language barriers also conspire to keep these people uninsured.

Middle-Income Uninsured

Interestingly, the Census data for 2003 show almost 15 million uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $50,000, with 7.6 million of them in households with incomes of more than $75,000. That is certainly adequate income to afford health insurance in most states.

Another 18 million of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34, and many people in that age group voluntarily take a pass on buying health insurance. According to Greg Scandlen, director of the Center for Consumer Driven Health Care at the Galen Institute, "This attitude is actually encouraged by 'guaranteed issue' laws in many states, which assure individuals that they can buy health insurance after they become ill or injured."

Dueling Surveys

Data from three federally sponsored national surveys--the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)--also seek to make an accurate count of the nation's uninsured population.

All three surveys conclude that at any given time during a year, being uninsured is a much smaller problem than we are led to believe by the Census data alone. For example, only about 30 percent of the non-elderly population who become uninsured in a given year remain uninsured for more than 12 months. Nearly 50 percent regain health insurance within four months.

Writing in response to the new Census data, Dr. Kirk A. Johnson, senior policy analyst for the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, highlighted the problem of taking the statistics at face value. The Bureau's numbers may make for eye-popping headlines, he noted, but, "When it comes to health insurance, the Census Bureau's own statisticians argue that SIPP [Survey of Income and Program Participation] provides a better measure of health insurance coverage than CPS [Current Population Survey].

In a recent research report on the differences between CPS and SIPP in this regard, Census Bureau statistician Shailesh Bhandari wrote, 'Since the SIPP collects monthly information and allows us to see changes from month to month, SIPP may be closer to the truth.'"

"In short," wrote Johnson, "the CPS data provide an incomplete picture on poverty and health insurance in America. Policymakers would be well advised to look to other data, such as SIPP, to gauge what actually happens to people who fall into poverty or lose their health insurance. Only then will public policy be fully informed, and America can truly have an intelligent debate on how to better address these problems."

The Census Bureau's own admission that the CPS "is not designed primarily to collect health insurance data" speaks directly to the issue that the methodology used to collect this important information is not up to the task.

New Thinking Needed

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, suggests that since the uninsured rate has been static for the past 11 years, policy analysts and policymakers need to get their thinking "out of the box."

"We would be gloomy were it not for last year's public policy changes that can begin to shift the balance back to private health coverage," said Turner. "Health Savings Accounts will help. Broader ownership of health insurance is the ultimate solution."

The percentage of Americans without health insurance has been almost level for more than a decade. In 1993, the year of the great health care crisis, it was 15.3 percent. Last year, a nearly identical 15.6 percent of Americans were uninsured.

"At what point do we start to rethink the problem?" Turner asked. "The number of uninsured is slowly going to get worse without policy changes. " Adding 45 million people to government program rolls just isn't an option," she noted.

"Refundable tax credits for the uninsured, deductibility of individually purchased health insurance, and new purchasing options are crucial to begin to give more people more options to buy affordable health insurance--insurance they can take with them even if they lose their jobs."

Derek Hunter, a research assistant for the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, summed up the situation in his August 26 report, Counting the Uninsured: Why Congress Should Look Beyond the Census Figures.

"At the very least, the undercounting of Medicaid recipients and the undercounting of insurance coverage, as admitted and described by Census officials, demonstrate that the Census Bureau's figures on the uninsured do not accurately reflect reality and may lead policymakers and the public to incorrect impressions about the uninsured."

"The issue of uninsurance is simply too important for its public face to come from an indifferent and inaccurate survey," wrote Hunter.