Unmarried, uninsured, out of luck?
Hunter, our demographic research intern, has put together some important, disturbing and highly motivating statistics.
Unmarried people are concentrated in economically disadvantaged categories. For example, unmarried Americans are disproportionately
- African-American: 69.1% of blacks adults are unmarried; 19.8% of all unmarried Americans are black.
- Women: 56.4% of unmarried adults are female.
- Young: 33.7% of unmarried adults are 18-29 years old.
- Poor or low-income: 14.7% of unmarried people aged 16 years or older live below the poverty level; 38.6% of unmarried households earn under $30K.
- LGBT: 100% of people in same-sex partnerships are currently counted as unmarried (though it looks like the Census will start crediting same-sex marriages soon!); of course, many bisexuals and transgendered people are married to different-sex partners, as are some people who identify as lesbian or gay.
Not coincidentally, the demographic groups that are most likely to be unmarried are also the same groups that get less health care, get sick more and don’t get well as much as other Americans. Making health insurance more affordable for unmarried people, and taking other measures to increase their access to care, could decrease disparities and increase health equity.
Unmarried workers disproportionately lack health insurance: 40.5% of the workforce is unmarried, yet unmarried people constitute 59.7% of all workers without coverage and only 36.4% of workers with coverage. The impact of marital status is even more pronounced among part-time workers, who more frequently lack coverage: 67.1% of uninsured part-time workers are unmarried. Unmarried people are also the majority (56.4%) of the unemployed uninsured. In all, 59.8% of uninsured Americans are unmarried.
Obviously, these stats do not mean that all unmarried people are out of luck, and clearly getting married would not solve everyone’s problems. But they should make you wonder, why aren’t health care reformers promising equal costs and access to all Americans regardless of marital status?
Do something about it! Download our free one-page fact sheet or tri-fold brochure “Why You Should Care about Barriers to Coverage for Unmarried People” and get it into the hands of the health reform advocate you admire most – be it your doctor, your state health coalition, your Congressperson, or the President. And let us know what they say!
Share: 
economics & poverty, health care
Comments 4
September 15th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
And we need to take relationship status out of the health care equation too. Most large companies, per something I read along time ago, now offer domestic partner benefits on an equal basis with spousal benefits. But the uncoupled get no benefits other than those they earn directly. No benefits simply for having a “relationship”.
I am sick and tired of everything being framed in terms of married vs. unmarried. The real problem in this country, and ATMP, is COUPLEMANIA – that all couples should get benefits and to heck with the uncoupled.
DAMMIT ATMP. We uncoupled are 7/8 of the unmarried.
September 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Jim, you’re right and we’ve always agreed on the principle. This principle is front and center in our commentary on the Senate Finance Committee’s draft health reform proposal and in our campaign for plus-one federal employee benefits. In fact, nearly 150 AtMP members were perfectly happy to urge the President and Congress to create plus-one benefits and not one said benefits should only go to romantic couples.
When AtMP says “unmarried” we are very conscious of who’s included. I urge you not to read couples into our fact sheets and proposals unless they are really there. We are still looking for the perfect terminology. Our board has long conversations about the meaning of marital, relationship and conjugal status discrimination. We feel strongly that it is wrong to privilege some relationships over others simply because of their names. However, we do see a role for laws that treat some relationships differently from others because of their function, and we do see a role for society to protect dependents when their relationships end. Until we find the perfect phrase, I’ll keep describing our work as fighting marital status discrimination and proposing alternatives that focus on the function of a relationship not its sexual or intimate character.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I’m glad to see more inclusive language regarding health benefits.
But over the past years, including the past year, I’ve seen innumerable times on ATMP-TALK when you and others favorably post about expansion of Domestic Partner benefits without any consideration or even a mention for those — the uncoupled — who will have to pay for them. I’ve pointed this out many times. If I was wrong or misreading ATMP policy, you might have pointed that out to me then.
Likewise, I see ATMP supporting gay marriage, which is fine, but I never see any mention of the gay (and straight) unmarrieds who will have to pay for these benefits.
Thank you for all your work,
Jim Larson
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 am
I might add that the newsletter is also another example of ATMP bias towards partnered people — even Kay Trimberger commented on the Spring Issue’s coverage, in part —
“I was very taken with the headline “ATMP Cautiously Optimistic on Getting Marriage out of Health Care Reform.,” by Nicky Grist in the ATMP Spring newsletter. But when I read the article, I found that the optimism referred only to cohabitating couples, and that uncoupled singles, like myself, were invisible.”
I am also concerned to hear that ATMP privileges some relations over others, based on their function. Uh oh. I worry that my relationships (simple friendships, and not living together) might not make the cut? Why are people having “the right kind” of relationship with someone who has benefits to bestow entitled to unearned benefits, while someone not having the “right kind” of relationship with such a person not entitled?
As for “our campaign for plus-one federal employee benefits” — O.K., so employees will be able to name any one adult person to receive benefits. But what about someone who is not lucky enough to be named by anyone for benefits? This is also discrimination based on “relational status” as I’ve discussed in the previous paragraph. Health care or any other benefits should not depend on being lucky enough to be named by someone with benefits to bestow.
Best,
Jim Larson