• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do people without health insurance live?

RightinNYC said:
I don't understand why people still try to draw conclusions by looking at what states are most or least likely to do this or that and then looking at how those states vote. That's not how logic or statistics work.

First off, insurance is a useless measure because the absolute poorest among us have it (via Medicaid) while the lower middle class is less likely to have it. Due to that, I fail to see how it correlates with income.

Secondly, age distribution has a lot to do with this. The vast majority of the uninsured are between 18-34. The states that have the highest rates of the uninsured also happen to be the states that have the most people who fall into that bracket.

United States by States; and Puerto Rico - GCT-P5. Age and Sex:**2000

Finally, minorities (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat) are much more unlikely to be uninsured. According to Census figures, blacks and hispanics account for 22 million of the 46 million uninsured, while white people only account for 20.8 million. This is in spite of the fact that whites outnumber hispanics/blacks 196 million to 81 million.

Given these facts, I'd be hesitant to try to draw any conclusions based on the distribution of the uninsured, especially as it pertains to party.
Click to expand...
This bring up an important point. Now these folks have been voting Democrat basically forever, but at least since the 50's or 60's. The Dems controlled the House for all but 10 of those years. In all that time they had the chance to give the "poor" or anyone else for that matter, health insurance or some equivalent solution. As of 2009, we're still dicking around with this problem, yet now some believe that the Dems will solve this problem finally? Pullleazzze, they are no more likely to solve this problem than they ever were.
 
Jerry said:
I guess I just don't understand what you're asking, what you're talking about, or how any WWJD reference relates to anything on this thread in any way :confused:

I don't understand the biblical reference in your question, to understand your question and then choose to not answer it.
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with your sig, clinging to your guns and BIBLES.....
 
American said:
This bring up an important point. Now these folks have been voting Democrat basically forever, but at least since the 50's or 60's. The Dems controlled the House for all but 10 of those years. In all that time they had the chance to give the "poor" or anyone else for that matter, health insurance or some equivalent solution. As of 2009, we're still dicking around with this problem, yet now some believe that the Dems will solve this problem finally? Pullleazzze, they are no more likely to solve this problem than they ever were.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

The democrats pushing it are trying to turn it into a republican/democrat or liberal/conservative issue.
When, obviously, it is not that.

They can't and never have been able to get their democrats to be truly united in this area - why blame everyone else but theirselves?

But this also points to the fact that just because one party holds the domination in government (president and Congress being under the control of one political party - a unified government) There still are vast differences within their own political-parties that prevent issues from passing, etc.

Only 4 times has the government been unified. . . so it's rare and doesn't necessarily give it strength.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Excellent point.

The democrats pushing it are trying to turn it into a republican/democrat or liberal/conservative issue.
When, obviously, it is not that.

They can't and never have been able to get their democrats to be truly united in this area - why blame everyone else but theirselves?

But this also points to the fact that just because one party holds the domination in government (president and Congress being under the control of one political party - a unified government) There still are vast differences within their own political-parties that prevent issues from passing, etc.

Only 4 times has the government been unified. . . so it's rare and doesn't necessarily give it strength.
Click to expand...
In my opinion the real reason this can't be solved by Democrats, is simply that their policies and their fundamental ideology doesn't work.
 
UtahBill said:
I think it has to do with your sig, clinging to your guns and BIBLES.....
Click to expand...

But what did Jesus supposedly say that I'm allegedly am not living up to?

I'm not making the connection :confused:
 
American said:
In my opinion the real reason this can't be solved by Democrats, is simply that their policies and their fundamental ideology doesn't work.
Click to expand...

The "healthcare" lack is not even the problem (this is what many who are pushing the idea don't get)

The problem is that people demand everything - for the lowest price they can pay - and demand it still be top-quality and infallable.

Expecting too much from too little . . . like getting something for nothing.

Life doesn't work that way. It won't WORK even if they do pass it and eventually overhaul the entire healthcare system to try to accomodate everyone.

When something costs money you can't just give it away to everyone.
If you have to provide a service to people and the givers of the service *must* be effective, efficient, intelligent and near perfect in their practice you cannot make it dirt cheap and expect stellar results.

I don't know why people don't understand THAT - it's very simple. That's how things work - no matter what type of economic circle you're in!

You get what you pay for.
And if you're only paying 1/3 the cost - then you're only going ot get 1/3 the results.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Er, he's from Utah, so he's Mormon of course... :2razz:
Click to expand...

you might be surprised how many Utahns are not LDS....and not conservative. There are a lot of liberals/democrats in the SLC area.

I suscribe to the majority of the teachings of Jesus where they don't appear to be in conflict with the overall tone of his teachings. I believe that the bible has been manhandled way too much over the years, and that many churches have lost sight of who the churches are supposed to follow. Too many are more Paulist than they are followers of the teachings of Jesus.
And I think Jesus would say healthcare is a community effort. Actually, Paul said pretty much the same on that issue.

We should take care of the poor, the sick, aflicted, etc. but at the same time, there are limits. I have a sister who has scammed Baptist churches in Texas, going to one then another, seeking help.
That takes funding away from the truly needy...and should be a crime.
 
American said:
Are you a religious person?
Click to expand...

What does "religious" mean? I suscribe to a higher authority in all things beyond my abilities to understand. And I believe in helping the needy, along with prosecuting the greedy...
 
UtahBill said:
What does "religious" mean? I suscribe to a higher authority in all things beyond my abilities to understand. And I believe in helping the needy, along with prosecuting the greedy...
Click to expand...

I think he's asking if you conform to the stereotype.
 
I'm actually surprised no one has commented on this snipet from the OP's linked article:

Those who lack health insurance now are far more likely to live in states that usually vote Republican — the states whose senators and representatives are least likely to support healthcare reform and will undoubted choose to opt-out of a government run health insurance scheme. Denying heath insurance to the people they allegedly represent is a bedrock, conservative value.
Click to expand...
That last line got me thinking about some comments I've read throughout this board concerning the responsibility of politicians to their constituants. Should they be voting "the voice of the people" or should they be voting "the needs of the people".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom