I am tired of hearing about the "46 million uninsured." That number, though at the basis of all our health care debate, is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie. Or at least so misleading as to be indistinguishable form a lie.

First, the number is old. It came from 2004 figures and has never been updated. I doubt it has changed significantly, but before we start, we need to make that clear. It came from a single survey in 2004, that was appealing to those pushing for universal healthcare, and it stuck.

Second, it does not mean what it says. There were 46 million people in 3004 who were without health insurance at some point during the year. Does that mean there were 46 million people who could not receive healthcare? No. It means that 46 million people either did not have a job, opted out of health insurance because they were young or didn't want to pay premiums, used a health savings plan instead, or, like me, changed jobs in 2004 and had a period between jobs where their insurance lapsed. (Yes, my wife and I are both counted in the 46 million, as I changed jobs, was unemployed for a week in the month after my previous insurance ended, and my wife was on my policy.) It does not mean there were 46 million people who did not have ehalth insurance for the whole of 2004.

Third, it does not mean there were 46 million people who could not receive health care. How many people in 2004, or currently, cannot receive health care? Maybe a few thousand, if we count fugitives form the law who can't show up in a hospital. Other than them, any emergency health care is denied to no one. Can they get non-emergency health care? Most often the answer is yes. Granted, the poor can't get liposuction, often have to wait for care, and don't have the best care available, but they have health care. Granted, they have to pay for it, and it can be a strain on their budget, but almost every medical facility has a payment plan of some sort, and there are countless assistance programs available. Yes, the poor who aren't disabled or don't have children don't get free care, but that doesn't mean they can't get care.

And, yes, I will admit that those without health insurance can be bankrupted by a catastrophic illness, but that is life. Under socialized medicine, catastrophic illness will be just as costly, the only difference will be that you and I will pay for someone else's catastrophic illness, or, more likely, no one will, a socialized medicine often does not provide for expensive treatments. So, rather than bankrupting the poor, a catastrophic illness will now simply kill anyone who suffers it (excepting probably politicians, and maybe celebrities rich enough to pay their own way, if that is still allowed).

But I am getting away form my point. I am not here to argue the merits of socialized medicine, I simply want to point out that the 46 million figure, often used even by conservative sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, is simply wrong. It is a figure that has some meaning, but not the meaning it is often given. We do not have 1 in 6 citizens without insurance. In fact, we really don't know how many individuals are chronically without insurance. Thanks to the prevalence fo that 46 million myth, no one has bothered to look.

So please, do not perpetuate the myth, when you hear the figure of 46 million, ask the speaker to prove that number, to explain exactly what it means. Odds are good, they won't be able to, which is good for everyone. When a figure has no foundation, it is best that everyone know that fact.

POSTSCRIPT

I wrote on this topic once before, saying many of the same things. That earlier argument can be found in my post "A Most Dishonest Commercial".

UPDATE

I am not sure how accurate the post is, as it lacks a link to check the citation, but the numbers sound more accurate. On this page, you can find the following post:
I worked for over 2 years determining eligibility for food stamps, cash assistance (at the time AFDC) and medical assistance. From my experience, there were a number of sad cases, people who could not qualify for health assistance for one reason or another. (Eg. A woman who had a lung removed, but had to continue working and was thus not disabled. Or an 18 year old with bone cancer whose doctor would not say she would be unable to work for 12 months.) However, the number of people I saw applying for health care who did not recieve it were far from 1 in 6, not even close. Then aagin, I doubt it would even support 10 million chronically uninsured.

But that is an admittedly inexact measure. Then again, the 46 million isn't exactly accurate either.