In a page right out of Professor Warren's book, the New York Times today reports that, "Solidly middle-class people are one of the fastest growing subgroups of uninsured Americans." The source? The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute, who released a new report showing that "more than one-third of the uninsured ... have family incomes of $40,000 or more" and "more than two-thirds of the uninsured are in households with at least one full-time worker."

For the sake of politics, this sort of data is important. Health insurance is not an us-versus-them sort of issue. Rather, it strikes squarely at the center of the electorate.

The NYT story highlights two other aspects of the problem:

First, self-employed individuals have a particularly tough time getting coverage. Isn't entrepreneurship supposed to be central to the American pathos? Surely, we can find a way to get those folks covered. The NYT story quotes an industry rep, explaining why health premiums are prohibitive for those outside group plans:

In a group health plan, the employer typically pays a large share of the premium, so most employees sign up as soon as they are eligible, regardless of their health status. The health plan covers a mix of sick and healthy workers. By contrast, individuals and independent contractors are more likely to defer coverage until they need it, so the pool of people insured is, over all, less healthy. Sick people consume more health care. As a result, the cost to insure them is higher.

This is a classic collective action problem. Even if some people were prudent enough to join an individual plan early, too many others "defecting," making coverage unaffordable to all. It seems that a health coverage mandate, like that included in the new MA law and under consideration in CA now, may be the only way to resolve this social dilemma. It seems a little odd to force people to buy coverage, but that seems to be the rational remedy to the problem.

Second, the NYT story says,

Politicians are once again speaking about universal coverage as a goal, though opinion polls show that many voters still oppose the idea of a government-run health care system.

This is pretty lame reporting on NYT's part. OK, "many" voters oppose the idea, but HOW MANY and what is your source anyway? As Derek Lindbloom reported right here at Warren Reports last week, the New York Times's own poll found that, "64% of Americans believe the government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans (against only 27% who say it should not)." Moreover, "60% said they would be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care." See the original NYT story here. The title? "Most Support U.S. Guarantee of Health Care."