Data: Only 13 percent of "the poor" couldn't obtain medical care due to cost

(GoinsReport) - A 2011 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation shows that the picture of poverty in the United States isn't what it is painted to be by anti-poverty advocates, including access to healthcare.

Among the Census Bureau data compiled by the Heritage Foundation, the data on healthcare access shows that only 13 percent of poor households couldn't afford healthcare.

According to the report: "Although it is widely supposed that the poor cannot obtain medical care, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to the doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable to do so because the family could not afford the cost."

What makes a poor household varies by the family’s size.

In 2010, a family of four is considered a poor household if its counted cash income is less than $22,314 a year; a family of three, $17,374.

The counted cash income does not include the numerous cash benefits provided by the Federal government.

According to the Heritage report, which uses data from the Census Bureau’s annual poverty report, 46.2 million Americans were poor in 2010.

The Census Bureau told GoinsReport.com that what counts as unaffordable medical care varies.

Video: Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell on Poverty

This is the video I was referring to in the second paragraph of this blog post.

College Students Reject Jesse Jackson's Ideas

Finally, someone spoke up against the reverend:

During the moments preceding Jackson’s speech and continuing into his introduction, students representing the OU organizations Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty passed out fliers urging those in attendance to “help the poor; reject Jackson’s ideas.”

“We heard Jackson was coming to speak, and we thought, ‘Well, he’s kind of wrong about everything,’” said Nathan Kelly, a junior studying English education and a member of Students for Liberty.

And these kids are smart! They don't just offer something for nothing:

ederal assistance for poverty creates dependence on the government rather than effectively eliminating poverty, he said.

Instead, local initiatives that create ways for the poor to help themselves should be emphasized, Hennen said. These include abolishing minimum wage laws and removing barriers on trading.

“Instead of throwing money at the problem, Rev. Jackson could advocate a platform of individual empowerment and sound economic logic to mitigate the destructive forces of poverty,” the flier states. “We applaud Rev. Jackson’s crusade against poverty, but his remedies amount to a weak placebo.”

Students urge crowd at poverty rally to ‘reject Jackson’s ideas’ | The Post @ Ohio University

Benefits of Social Security Privatization to the Poor

It lifts poor out of poverty:

The higher returns and benefits of a privately invested system would be most important to low-income families, as they most need the extra funds. The funds saved in the individual retirement accounts, which could be left to the children of the poor, would also greatly help families break out of the cycle of poverty

And:

Similarly, the improved economic growth, higher wages, and increased jobs that would result from an investment based Social Security system would be most important to the poor. Moreover, without reform, low-income workers will be hurt the most by the higher taxes or reduced benefits that will be necessary if we continue on our current course. Averting a financial crisis and its inevitable results would consequently be most important to low-income workers.

Excerpted from Chapter 17, Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Edition (2009).

Are the poor getting poorer?