>Tracy, both sides of this debate make assumptions to suit themselves.
>
>Those who want to minimize the problem need to include access as well as affordability in their calculations. We know that insurers will drop singleton policies if they become expensive and/or will charge heaps or impose draconian limits that render policies useless, so without knowing the personal situation it is not possible to assert that uninsured people have made free choice in a balanced market to be that way. The danger of this sort of approach is that plan supporters easily can wheel out families desperately wanting insurance and being blocked and now Johnny has a disease etc etc.
>
>In addition, your reviewers expect that uninsured people earning 50-75K could afford insurance if they felt like it. If you review that article I linked earlier, it's not that simple especially at a time when employers/insurers continue to lower the boom. The issue needs to be adequate cover not just access to something called "insurance." Similarly it is not valid to assert that somebody earning over $75K (who is more likely to be a contractor/self-employed in many industries) automatically can access insurance if they feel like it. They probably can if they are a good risk, suggesting that pre-existing conditions or other "bad risks" probably over-represent in the uninsured population.
>
>And then there are 10 million who "aren't even American citizens," LOL.
>
>Certainly I agree that the <$50K people are significant but don't they already have access to Medicaid?

No. The cap on qualifying for Medicaid is ridiculously low. Basically, you have to fall under the federal poverty line:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/Downloads/POV09Combo.pdf