From the Left

Christopher di Spirito

Christopher di Spirito
Location
New York,
Birthday
March 12
Bio
Avid blogger, proud gay man, unapologetically liberal, happily married to Jim, my spouse of 16 years. I am a native Californian, temporarily living in New York.

MY RECENT POSTS

MY RECENT COMMENTS

Christopher di Spirito's Links

New list
No links in this category.
Editor’s Pick
OCTOBER 27, 2009 10:04AM

Where Do Those Without Health Insurance Live?

Rate: 14 Flag

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

1010-biz-webCHARTSrefer

The New York Times and the Census Bureau sought to find out where do those without health insurance live? 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.

Children in Texas, a red state represented by two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both of whom oppose the public option and the state with the most uninsured, are more than eight times as likely not to have it than children in Massachusetts, a state represented by two Democratic senators, John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy, with the least number of uninsured.

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.

In the healthcare debate currently underway, Democrats have generally supported plans aimed at assuring all Americans have some health insurance, while nearly all Republicans have opposed such efforts. If healthcare reform is successfully passed with the public option and includes the opt-out provision, I will enjoy the visage of Republican members of Congress struggle to explain to their uninsured constituents why they voted to deny them access to healthcare, all in the name of political ideology.

Author tags:

news, republicans, democrats, national healthcare

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:
Cancel

Comments

Type your comment below:
Cancel
another thing that has greatly swelled the ranks of the uninsured is mass immigration
immigrants are much more likely not to be insured
Kathy Knechtges
October 27, 2009 10:56 AM
I agree. Problem is, opt-out will lessen the pool, thus causing less of a healthcare savings. On the other hand, I would love to see the wrath of the voters if their Senators vote no.
R
john blumenthal
October 27, 2009 11:33 AM
It doesn't make sense to me at all and the opt-out concerns me. Although Joan gave me a little relief, stating that Medicare is opt-out as well. Since I live in Oklahoma now, I'm terrified of what the Republican governor would do, given the choice. Their choice, not mine.
Julie Tarp
October 27, 2009 04:13 PM
I live in Ky. and we only have two health care provlders and this locks you in at high costs.My job was done away with and now living on a early retirement I can't afford to pay over $6000 a year for care that won't cover past health problems and co-pays. Their are no jobs here just more people getting laid off. We need a way to control health cost and public option is the only way.
Dennis Bryant
October 29, 2009 11:06 AM
There should be NO opt-out, especially if they have that rider in there about how all people must be insured or pay a fine. Hello? People are uninsured because they want their children to eat that month and have a roof over their heads. Not because they just chose not to be. Damn.

So, there must be an affordable alternative for everyone or that little clause is a very bad thing, when a person has to choose between feeding his or her child and paying for healthcare.

I paid over 50% if my income last year to my healthcare costs and I have insurance. It's nearly destroyed me financially. I don't want to hear any bullshit over this is lazy people or thoughtless people. I have no patience for those lies.
odetteroulette
October 29, 2009 11:13 AM
Thanks for this. If the public option comes with an opt out for states, it will indeed become very interesting. Those who are uninsured in red states, including many who are uneducated and consistently vote against their own interests, will finally come face to face with the monster of their own making.
Karla in Annapolis
November 03, 2009 09:51 AM
I'd like to add that I am a person with no "medical insurance" by choice. I'd rather be healthy. I've found being healthy far more rewarding than paying for lousy insurance. I do back universal, single payer no opt-out good enough for elected officials Medicare for all. A nation of healthy people, who would that terrify? Follow the money.
Kristina Almquist
November 04, 2009 11:33 AM
Kathy, your immigrant theory is BS. I was bred and born in this country and I'm not insured and I'm not alone.
melonman
November 06, 2009 09:55 AM
Let's see - the states with the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, smoking, alcoholism/drug abuse, etc. want to opt-out of the pool - leaving the healthier people in. And this is a bad thing???
Ms.Sterling
November 06, 2009 09:58 AM
I don't understand the map. What do the red states represent, states with more uninsured people? What does "more" mean?

I live CA, not red, and I do not have health insurance.
And, I won't ever buy it.
amyalternate
November 07, 2009 11:43 PM
I wonder if you could add more stats at the end of your piece? I would bet that although not red on your map, Florida is VERY close to the cut off point. Do the results include or exclude those eligible for Medicaid and Medicare? Due to our aging population, more would be on Medicare, but for those under 65, the is a VERY high percentage of uninsured. I would like to know more about the stats that defined "red" on the map.
lalucas
November 08, 2009 10:49 AM
lalucas makes a very good point. I would bet that many of the inland Western states with older-than-average populations (and low average income) are saved from the red category primarily by the number of older and poorer people who qualify for government supported health care.
esmense
November 08, 2009 11:21 AM
Kristina, no amount of "healthy living" can protect all people from car accidents or completely ward off cancer or heart disease, though it can definitely improve their chances of remaining healthy.

Preventive health care saves lives because a medical professional can find problems early and treat them before people become terminally ill. It's very risky (and naive) to decide not to have any kind of monitoring, and even if you do pay for and take advantage of that monitoring, if something turns up (ovarian cancer?), how will you pay for treatment?

It seems to me that refusing to carry insurance is a BAD BET that can only leave you undiagnosed and vulnerable, and if you do get a life-threatening diagnosis, it's likely to be financially devastating and lead to poor prognoses.

Is the plan to refuse affordable care and leave potentially catastrophic medical costs to other taxpayers when you do (inevitably) become ill?

No one will begrudge you your efforts to stay healthy. You can (and should) still do all of that. But you risk your life and your financial stability by refusing care, and you'll be stealing from your neighbors to pay for your care, care that is much more expensive when silent killers (whatever it may be) progress untreated or in the case of great bodily injury.

You must be young and indestructible.
LeslieCA
November 08, 2009 02:08 PM
Interesting analysis but I would tend to answer the question "Where do those without health insurance live?" very simply:
Everywhere. They're your neighbor.
Rated
Walter Blevins
November 08, 2009 02:15 PM
It would also be interesting to know as to how many of the indicated states are "carried" by Blue Cross Blue Shield or some of its spin offs. I know of at least two. Blue cross is the "state insurance company" of Idaho. The Blue Cross of Idaho are so intimate with the state that they passed on information about my smoking to the then governor Kempthorne who in turn wrote a very patronizing letter to me about the dangers of smoking, because I was a (an ex-) state employee. Apart from that the state of Idaho has not done anything for me. One would think that with that letter he would have asked the BCI to waive the extra charge for smokers, but he did not.
The other state that I know is South Carolina, at least it was in the Blue Cross Blue Shield's care in the 90's when I was there. Boy they tried to charge me for Cobra as if they wanted to snatch back all that I had earned from "their state". Can you imagine, above 450 dollars a month for Cobra coverage in 1993?!
Muhammad Zafrullah
Muhammad Zafrullah
November 09, 2009 12:40 AM
Current world population is 4-5 times greater than the sustainable level, according to some. I propose we institute a health insurance lottery similar to a slot machine. When you arrive at the hospital, you must spin the wheel, insured or not, no opt-out allowed. 90-95% of the time (the usual odds for slots), you lose. This will control costs (by reducing "unnecessary" procedures) and ultimately be good for the planet by reducing the population load.
EmmetC
November 09, 2009 05:14 AM
There is a big difference between those without health insurance and those without healthcare. In Texas, at least all over North Texas, and my understanding is that it is the entire state, healthcare is available through the county hospitals based on one's ability to pay. You can see a personal care physician for $5, vaccinate your family, be treated for anything for as little as nothing. I pay a lot of property taxes to be able to provide this service to my neighbors. Additionally, we have a child insurance program so that children of those with limited income can actually have insurance. This is what we do within our state, and we don't expect it to be the federal government's job to do it.
letsbereasonable
November 10, 2009 11:33 AM
Yes, Texas covers the uninsured with public clinics. In Dallas County there's one adult clinic (children fare better with neighborhood clinics) and it's got a fixed number of slots for patients each day so if you don't make the cut you're out of luck. It's only open during business hours so working people don't go until they are really, really sick because they can't afford to forgo wages. And then there's the emergency room where people go as a last resort; that costs taxpayers far more than any public health insurance program with preventive care. In Minnesota each of Pawlenty's cuts to uninsured adult programs leaves more people with mental illness without coverage - the same people who are among the primary users of public clinics. Minnesota's Republican governor will soon change the state's color on the map from gray to burgundy
Mardi
November 10, 2009 07:44 PM
Living in Florida, I can't believe we are not on this map. There are so many uninsured here, and most of them would take the "opt-out". They vote against anything that would do them good--libraries, transportation, sanitation, you name it. They prefer to keep eating their deep fried food, and prefer to be obese and unhealthy. Hey, they vote Republican every time, even though we have the lowest wages, and highest unemployment than anywhere.
Kenny1948
November 11, 2009 09:29 AM
Even more evidence that this is not about health care but about money and power.
Nan231
November 11, 2009 11:53 PM
Christopher, thank you for this article. I don't purchase, or receive medical or health insurance and I haven't for decades. I live in California, and I know how to be healthy and it has nothing to do with insurance. However, many people can't afford medical intervention in curing or alleviating diseases that dominate our Society. That's why we need "Insurance", but the "Insurance" is lousy and abusive, and now our elected officials want to make it mandatory! I'm alarmed because this is the definition of fascism. WHY ARE SO MANY SO SICK? AND WHY ARE THEY NOT HEALING? The government is mandating we pay all this money and health is not mandated. Health is our only real wealth. I'm 60 years old, I do yoga and eat food, and a few supplements to lay the foundation of health that I enjoy. I have auto insurance to the max for the possibility of a car crash, because automobiles are lethal weapons, people can get hurt in them. Health is not a lethal weapon. The government takes a lot of money from every one of my paychecks, enough to support and provide my participation in Universal, singlepayer, MediCare for all good enough for the elected officials and the citizens of the United States of America. I'd support that, but not being forced to pay a disease insurance company for a medical technology that doesn't deliver on Health.
Kristina Almquist
November 17, 2009 01:25 PM
A person could do yoga 24 hours a day and live on nothing but golden California sunshine and still end up with crushing expenses from a health catastrophe. It's just foolish and extremely short sighted to claim otherwise. Healthy living is fine, as far as it goes, but try telling someone born with a congenitally deformed aortic valve that needs replacement in their mid 50s, or a cancer victim to just "get healthy". That's simply the smug assurance of someone who hasn't YET had to confront illnesses that have nothing to do with what sort of lifestyle and diet they profess to be a cure all.

Everybody goes when the wagon comes.
porsadgai
November 22, 2009 12:44 PM