From the New York Times, “The Divided States of Health Care”
“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 a law to extend coverage.”
“The figures show that residents of blue states are far more likely to have health insurance than are residents of red states, with residents of purple states in the middle.”
“Children in Texas, the state with the least health insurance, are more than eight times as likely not to have it than children in Massachusetts, the state with the broadest coverage.”
“Another way of looking at the figures is to imagine two Senates — one chosen by the 25 states where residents are more likely to have health insurance, and the other chosen by the 25 states where there is less insurance.
“The Senate from the states with less insurance would have 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats. But the one from the states with more health insurance would have a 40-to-10 Democratic majority.”
Within “red” states, the districts with the least insured people tend to be minority districts that vote Democratic. However, many of the red states still have worse numbers for health insurance even with those districts excluded.
Tells you something.
Hey, just found your website. Very interesting. Looking forward to reading more.
Didn’t you write a post a year or two ago about which states put the most money into federal programs, and which states receive the most federal money? iirc, the blues were clearly shown to be supporting the reds, and have been for decades. I’m beginning to understand why the blue states are getting fed up with the rest of us, and ideas like “opt-out” are gaining favor. If we’re going to cost you guys a public option, then adios, I suppose.
I wonder how long it would take the red states to notice that the blue states’ reforms are working, and want to opt in. But if we haven’t been paying into a public option, should we be allowed to?
The only thing that bothers me about the opt-out notion is that the U.S. could return to a kind of pre-Civil War patchwork of extremity, where citizens live healthy long lives in some states, brutishly short ones in others. If that happened, we’d need a Roe v Wade-type of Supreme Court decision (or the opposite of Dred Scott), to force unification. That wouldn’t address the economic inequity problem, though.
Argh. My brain hurts. I don’t know what to think.
Pingback: The Mahablog » No Surprises in Health Insurance Stats | daveramsoy
Joan,
I don’t want it to come to the opt-out option. I think it’s a political move to force some peoples hands. The US Senators will decide on their version of the bill. And while their current posturing is great play-acting, if a bill is passed, it will be up to the Governor and legislatures of the states to decide. There may already be some pressure on those Senators from their local politicians. I don’t know because I haven’t read any articles on this angle in the press. That’s probably because it’s a more local story. Maybe there are some state blogs that are covering it. I would love to see some of what they’ve uncovered.
All that being said, if it comes to most states having it and others not, well…
And, if it does come down to the opt-out, there’ll have to be an opt-in as well – so that states can “rejoin The Union.” I think that there’ll have to be some sort of waiting period though before they are allowed back in or there will be no incentive to join in the first wave. I don’t know how long that should be. I think 3 to 4 years would be a good number. That would give the citizens of those states an election cycle or two to change to the kind of leadership that sees value in insuring there constituents health so that those lives aren’t “brutishly short ones.”
Ooops, in the last sentence, it should be “their,” not “there.” I blame it on lack of sleep because I went to a college reunion of fellow thespians last night. Jesus, it you told us 30 years ago only a beer or two would do what it now does, we’d have laughed our asses off and called us wussies… Oh well, I’ll catch a little nap before the Giants game this afternoon.
The Republican health plan is cheap and effective.
The plan is really a “kit” which includes a roll of duct tape, a bottle of asprin, and a Bible.This is all a “real man” should ever need……….
erinyes,
You forgot the whiskey. You gotta have whiskey to kill the pain of an amputation. And you need it to cauterize any wound. Otherwise, I think you have the list exactly right.
Pingback: The Mahablog » No Surprises in Health Insurance Stats | health
Guys… you forgot bullets too. Lots and lots of bullets. Because if you cain’t shoot it, it ain’t no kinda threat to your health!
It will be up to the Governor and legislatures of the states to decide.
See, Gulag, this is why I’m afraid I’ll end up living in the Health-Care Confederacy. My state government is conservative, Republican, and of course very very short-sighted. Yee haw.
I went to a college reunion of fellow thespians last night.
Ouch! I hung out with Theatre majors in college. Way too much fun. We had our own private upstairs room in our favorite bar, probably for the safety of the general public.
Well, if those children in Texas were really bothered by their lack of health care, they’d kick the troglodytes out of office.
Anonymous Liberal has a good post on why opt-out may be better than the public option. He makes a very compelling case.
But that’s the central art of politics: convincing people to vote against their own best interests.
Easier to do with the stupid.
There was an interesting plea on FireDogLake, On Behalf of Those of Us Who Live in Red States: Reject Opt-Out. It’s an interesting moral dilemma – whether to push for opt-out and get the damn thing done, or to take an all-or-nothing position – in other words, if everyone can’t be covered (on a state by state basis) then no one should be covered. I’m inclined to say that if the choice is opt-out or nothing, I’ll take opt-out.
You get what you pay for. I had a friend whose job transferred him from Minnesota to Mississippi. He couldn’t believe the utter lack of parks, trails, even little league baseball fields in Mississippi – things he took for granted in Minnesota. If you want to live in a fucked up red state and pay low taxes, expect to get a whole lot of nothing.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score’s the baucus plan at $829 Billion over a 10 year period, that is paid for. The CBO also states that it will lower the deficit by $80 Billion and it would be much lower if there was a public option.Criminally corrupt politicians are the reason the U.S. is ranked near the bottom of every catagory when ranked next to other modern, industrialized nations. Time for publically funded elections. lieberman $12.6M, mcconnell $7.8M, baucus $7.7M, cornyn $6.7M, kyl $5.6M, grassley $5.4M, ensign $5.2M, conrad $5.1M, cantor $4.9M, nelson $4.9M, burr $4.8M, boehner $4.4M, hatch $4.4M, lincoln $4.1M, vitter $3.9M, carper $3.6M were paid by the Medical Industrial Complex to kill Health Care Reform. (Source: OpenSecrets.org, Aug. 09)Follow the Money: LinkCall Congress and demand, Single-Payer Health Care for All!(Toll Free # House and Senate)1-866-338-1015 _____ 1-866-220-00441-800-473-6711 _____ 1-866-311-3405Sign Single-Payer Petitions: Link LinkDon’t let the Medical Industrial Complex steal your Health Care from you and your family by donating huge sums of money to Crooked Politicians in order to maintain the Status Quo. Keep up the good fight.SEMPER FI!