• 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?

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Where Do Those Without Health Insurance Live? - Christopher di Spirito - Open Salon

1010-biz-webchartsrefer.gif


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.

Interesting finding. It's also no coincidence that some of these states also have some of the lowest per capita incomes, lowest per pupil expenditures, and highest unemployment rates.
 
How is it possible they at all without goverment run healthcare?

They should not even know how to breathe without it right?
 
Denying heath insurance to the people they allegedly represent is a bedrock, conservative value.
:roll:

The only time that I am aware of any conservative arguing that someone should be denied health care is if they cannot pay for it.

Why should you receive goods and services that you cannot pay for?
 
How is it possible they at all without goverment run healthcare?

They should not even know how to breathe without it right?

I was wondering about that myself. These poor heathens by all rights should have not survived.
 
People without health insurance in part live in grad school. Can't afford that **** here (health insurance, not grad school...I suppose it's mostly one or the other).
 
Where Do Those Without Health Insurance Live? - Christopher di Spirito - Open Salon

1010-biz-webchartsrefer.gif




Interesting finding. It's also no coincidence that some of these states also have some of the lowest per capita incomes, lowest per pupil expenditures, and highest unemployment rates.

We typically pay our own bills with cash, is why.

We don't expect insurance to pay for a yearly physical any more than we expect GEICO to pay for our gas.

If we get a cold we take to MyQuil before heading off to work instead of taking a copy of Time with us to the ER.
 
Where Do Those Without Health Insurance Live? - Christopher di Spirito - Open Salon

1010-biz-webchartsrefer.gif




Interesting finding. It's also no coincidence that some of these states also have some of the lowest per capita incomes, lowest per pupil expenditures, and highest unemployment rates.

I've never been to concerned for working, able bodied adults who choose not to get coverage for a variety of reasons ... and the article doesn't really focus on them, anyway. The article says "those who don't have insurance" but it is ONLY citing numbers concerning CHILDREN who are not insured.

The article says:
For the first time, in a survey taken last year and released in September, over all it found that 9.9 percent of children lack any health insurance, half the rate for adults under 65.

So with the availability of CHIP - which is available to all qualifying people IN the Middle Class (We're not even talking about people who are otherwise in the category of assistance through Medicaid/care/welfare) - and is available in every state - there's currently no excuse for children to be uninsured.

With a program already implimented to cover middle-class children who were previously uninsured it's just pure laziness or a lack of concern for a child's wellbeing or maybe an overall lack of knowledge on the program that IS available to be blamed.

From the CHIP website:
Any adult who lives with an uninsured child and provides care for that child can apply. This includes parents, step-parents, grandparents, other relatives, legal guardians or adult brothers or sisters.

For the Democrats to have pushed the program (which I fully supported) I think it's hypocritical to just ignore that it's there, fail to improve it, and then just start ANOTHER program and dissolve CHIP and absorb these children into the ACHAA - when these children who DO qualify for the CHIP *might NOT* qualify for coverage under ACHAA.

It's a baseless issue - there IS coverage for most who are currently uninsured - and everyone's just ignoring it.

All the while - the real issue at the heart of debate isn't about children not being covered, it's about adults not being covered - BIG difference. So you can't site statistics for children when making an arguement concerning adult-issues.
 
Last edited:
We typically pay our own bills with cash, is why.

We don't expect insurance to pay for a yearly physical any more than we expect GEICO to pay for our gas.

If we get a cold we take to MyQuil before heading off to work instead of taking a copy of Time with us to the ER.

Most policies do pay for physicals. They'd rather catch a problem earlier than later, it's cheaper.
 
Texas unemployment is around 5 percent. More like 1.5 percent if you only count those who want to work. Our economy is thriving, our housing values are stable, our crime rates are low (except on the borders), and our education system is strong.

Meanwhile, California just jacked up their state tax withholdings (we don't have those in Texas) by 10 percent to pay their bills
 
I've never been to concerned for working, able bodied adults who choose not to get coverage for a variety of reasons ... and the article doesn't really focus on them, anyway. The article says "those who don't have insurance" but it is ONLY citing numbers concerning CHILDREN who are not insured.

The article says:


So with the availability of CHIP - which is available to all qualifying people IN the Middle Class (We're not even talking about people who are otherwise in the category of assistance through Medicaid/care/welfare) - and is available in every state - there's currently no excuse for children to be uninsured.

With a program already implimented to cover middle-class children who were previously uninsured it's just pure laziness or a lack of concern for a child's wellbeing or maybe an overall lack of knowledge on the program that IS available to be blamed.

From the CHIP website:


For the Democrats to have pushed the program (which I fully supported) I think it's hypocritical to just ignore that it's there, fail to improve it, and then just start ANOTHER program and dissolve CHIP and absorb these children into the ACHAA - when these children who DO qualify for the CHIP *might NOT* qualify for coverage under ACHAA.

It's a baseless issue - there IS coverage for most who are currently uninsured - and everyone's just ignoring it.

All the while - the real issue at the heart of debate isn't about children not being covered, it's about adults not being covered - BIG difference. So you can't site statistics for children when making an arguement concerning adult-issues.

You are correct. A few months ago, Kentucky had a huge advertising campaign to get kids enrolled in Chips. According to the articles at the time, there were thousands of kids here that were eligible for Chips, but were not enrolled.
 
I guess we don't need a policy to pay for ours.

But you probably need one if a major health problem is discovered at your physical.
 
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.
 
Where Do Those Without Health Insurance Live? - Christopher di Spirito - Open Salon

1010-biz-webchartsrefer.gif




Interesting finding. It's also no coincidence that some of these states also have some of the lowest per capita incomes, lowest per pupil expenditures, and highest unemployment rates.

MAJOR pet peeve: people pointing to all the problems of the South and saying, "see? Liberal states are better than conservative states!". The South has its own damn problems, very few of which have to do with ideology. You'll notice that other conservative states, like Utah, do not share the problems of the South.

The rate of the uninsured is possibly an exception, since liberal policies specifically aim at reducing uninsurance- but the question we must ask is, does it matter? Massachussetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured population, and yet only 37% of its very liberal residents actually like their new health care system. Is there any proof that a higher rate of uninsurance causes actual problems in itself?
 
MAJOR pet peeve: people pointing to all the problems of the South and saying, "see? Liberal states are better than conservative states!". The South has its own damn problems, very few of which have to do with ideology. You'll notice that other conservative states, like Utah, do not share the problems of the South.

The rate of the uninsured is possibly an exception, since liberal policies specifically aim at reducing uninsurance- but the question we must ask is, does it matter? Massachussetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured population, and yet only 37% of its very liberal residents actually like their new health care system. Is there any proof that a higher rate of uninsurance causes actual problems in itself?
If everyone were rich enough, would they even need insurance to begin with?

I think we need less people insured, and better economic distribution of proffessional care. I'm thinking if there was less fear of lawsuits for every little thing, more people would want to become doctors and more new companies would want to compete.
 
Well - at least this does pinpoint who will be fined in the future for not having insurance.
 
You are not adequately represented on the map. ;)

My contention would be that people in the red states are more likely to be the working poor, particularly the rural poor, and that they do not have the opportunity to purchase health insurance through their employer, for a variety of reasons. For instance, people who work at Walmart in low-skills categories are usually kept at a 32-hour-per-week employment status so that Walmart can avoid the cost of providing health insurance.

The assumption by many conservatives is that the people who don't have insurance coverage aren't willing to pay for it, or are on welfare. In fact, it isn't AVAILABLE to many Americans, and it is often extremely cost-prohibitive to those who are in the category of working poor. They earn too much to qualify for state benefits, but too little to afford insurance.

These states are also, in many cases, "right to work" states, so people in the skilled trades, who would have had insurance benefits through a union in another state, instead work in small non-union shops without access to affordable healthcare benefits.
 
Last edited:
The assumption by many conservatives is that the people who don't have insurance coverage aren't willing to pay for it, or are on welfare. In fact, it isn't AVAILABLE to many Americans, and it is often extremely cost-prohibitive to those who are in the category of working poor. They earn too much to qualify for state benefits, but too little to afford insurance.

If they can't afford private insurance, they will likely not be able to afford public insurance, even though they will be forced to buy it. Few people making too much for Medicaid, but less than $30,000. can afford to pay 5% of their take home pay for the government option insurance they will forced to buy.

These states are also, in many cases, "right to work" states, so people in the skilled trades, who would have had insurance benefits through a union in another state, instead work in small non-union shops without access to affordable healthcare benefits.

Being in a union is no guarantee of insurance or other benefits. My daughter once worked in a union grocery store. She was forced to pay $30. a month in union dues, but was paid only $8. an hour, never got more than 30 hours a week, and received zero benefits. The union really did a lot of good for the people that worked in that business didn't it??
 
If they can't afford private insurance, they will likely not be able to afford public insurance, even though they will be forced to buy it. Few people making too much for Medicaid, but less than $30,000. can afford to pay 5% of their take home pay for the government option insurance they will forced to buy.

On the other hand, the rest of us are already paying for them. These people seek out healthcare, typically through the Emergency Room, and the rest of us, with health insurance, end up paying for the cost of their care through higher insurance rates already. This will hopefully stabilize this system. I would prefer to see subsidized clinics in low income neighborhoods with preventive care readily acccessible. That would ultimately be much cheaper than what we are currently doing.

Being in a union is no guarantee of insurance or other benefits. My daughter once worked in a union grocery store. She was forced to pay $30. a month in union dues, but was paid only $8. an hour, never got more than 30 hours a week, and received zero benefits. The union really did a lot of good for the people that worked in that business didn't it?

Your argument here is called a hasty generalization. It relies upon an isolated incident to make a larger argument, without sufficient basis. Overall, union employees in skilled trades are MORE likely, not less likely, to have health insurance coverage.
 
Back
Top Bottom