MANDATORY health insurance

[martha]

[MrsSpringsteen]

Huffington Post

The states that have been most skeptical of President Barack Obama's agenda for health care reform also have some of the highest levels of uninsured people in the nation.

A new study by Gallup shows that large swaths of populations in the South and West -- anywhere from one-in-five to one-in-four individuals -- are currently lacking health insurance coverage.

These same regions also have the largest percentage of populations who believe widely perpetuated mistruths about the Obama agenda, including allegations that the president will set up "death panels" and wants a complete government takeover of the health care system.

According to Gallup, of the 25 states with the greatest percentage of the uninsured, all but three are based in the South or the Midwest.

LIST OF STATES WITH MOST UNINSURED

Texas - 27 percent of the population is uninsured New Mexico --- 25.6 percent Mississippi - 24 percent Louisiana - 22.4 percent Nevada - 22.2 percent Oklahoma - 22.2 percent (considered a Midwest state) California - 21 percent Wyoming - 20.7 percent Florida - 20.7 percent Georgia - 20.7 percent South Carolina - 20.4 percent Montana - 20.3 percent Alaska -- 20.2 percent Arkansas - 20.1 percent Colorado - 20 percent Oregon - 19.4 percent West Virginia - 19.3 percent (considered a Northeast state) North Carolina - 19.3 percent Idaho - 18.8 percent Utah - 18.1 percent Kentucky - 17.9 percent Tennessee - 17.8 percent Nebraska - 17.7 percent Alabama - 17.2 percent Missouri - 17.1 percent (considered a Midwest state)

STATES IN SOUTH AND WEST ARE AS FOLLOWS

South: FL, NC, SC, AL, MS, GA, VA, TN, KY, LA, AR, TX

West: NM, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO

Compare these findings to those pulled from a recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, which showed that more people in the South and Midwest are prone to believe myths about Obama's health care plan than in other regions of the country.

In the South, 26 percent of the public said they believed the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress requires elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss "end of life" options, including euthanasia. Twenty percent of Westerners said the same thing. In the Northeast and Midwest those numbers were 11 percent and 17 percent respectively.

Meanwhile, 45 percent of Southerners said they thought Obama's health care reform included a government takeover of the entire health care system. Twenty-three percent of Westerners agreed. In the Northeast and Midwest those numbers were 10 percent and 20 percent respectively.

That populations most in need of comprehensive insurance reform are most likely to buy into false criticisms of the president's plan is a fascinating window into the current state of the health care debate. Theoretically, the president should be receiving more support in his efforts to expand coverage from those who currently lack it. The opposite, however, seems to hold true.

Uninsured: Highest Percentage in Texas, Lowest in Mass.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

That populations most in need of comprehensive insurance reform are most likely to buy into false criticisms of the president's plan is a fascinating window into the current state of the health care debate. Theoretically, the president should be receiving more support in his efforts to expand coverage from those who currently lack it. The opposite, however, seems to hold true. [/url]

i can venture a guess as to why this is true, but the typical suspects will call me an anti-Christian racist.

[BVS]

I thought Obama should have reached out to religious groups a looooooonnng time ago. This IS a moral issue.

But most churches are spineless on these types of issues, they're great at the local level but are too afraid to piss off their gun toting "Obama's a Muslim nazi" members of their congregation to do anything at a national level.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

I thought Obama should have reached out to religious groups a looooooonnng time ago. This IS a moral issue.

it is how Bono got Republicans to care about (straight) africans dying of AIDS.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it is how Bono got Republicans to care about (straight) africans dying of AIDS.

Exactly...

It's pretty sad they weren't at the forefront of either one of these issues, at least they stepped up to one.

I think when the overall church in America(if they ever do) start to step up to real moral issues rather than pseudo-morals, they'll start to lose their reputation of hypocrisy.

[martha]

Originally Posted by BVS

I think when the overall church in America(if they ever do) start to step up to real moral issues rather than pseudo-morals, they'll start to lose their reputation of hypocrisy.

And maybe gain more members who really do want to help do God's work.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BVS

Do you ever get tired of defending this asshole? I mean isn't there a point when your moral conscious kicks in and says this guy isn't worth defending sometimes?

What about the Holocaust? Socialists caused that. Isn't it about time you owned up?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by financeguy

What about the Holocaust? Socialists caused that. Isn't it about time you owned up?

[Bluer White]

Excellent article here by a NH primary care doc:

Commentary: Why the doctor won't see you now - CNN.com

Although it is a moral imperative for every American to have access to health insurance, alleviating the shortage of primary care providers is of equal importance. The prospect of suddenly adding tens of millions of patients to an overburdened primary care system has the potential to make the already dire state of American health care even worse.

[BVS]

Well it's mainly the insurance companies fault that primary care physicians do not get reimbursed and compensated as much as specialty doctors. It's poor priorities that have lead to primary care doctors leaving for more lucrative gigs.

We need to start reimubursing and giving priority to preventative and primary care, period. Doctors have been arguing with insurance companies about this for decades.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

That populations most in need of comprehensive insurance reform are most likely to buy into false criticisms of the president's plan is a fascinating window into the current state of the health care debate. Theoretically, the president should be receiving more support in his efforts to expand coverage from those who currently lack it. The opposite, however, seems to hold true.

No habla ingles.

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

No habla ingles.

I thought they didn't speak Russian and German.

[yolland]

That couldn't possibly be a major factor in MS, LA, SC, WV, KY and MT. Even if for the sake of it you started from the ridiculous assumption that their entire Hispanic populations were uninsured, and subtracted that from their total uninsured, they would all still have uninsured rates above the national average (16.2%). And AR, TN and AL are close to being in that same category. In other words, half the South.

[daygloeyes2]

One of the medications I take has spiked in cost from $20 on my old insurance to $60 on my new insurance. I'm dreading seeing the cost of my insulin, test strips, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Tennessee - 17.8 percent

thank you tenncare.

also, it is worth pointing out massachusetts' uninsured level is so low because it's mandatory to have insurance there. yet, iirc, there is no promise that if you can't afford third party insurance/don't work for a company that provides it that the state will. i actually know someone essentially breaking the law because they cannot afford it. however, i know that's the exception, not the norm. just saying.

[coolian2]

i'm watching this debate on another forum at the same time. i simply cannot resist posting one person's view.

for context, i made this post, just as an aside to the ongoing debate:

can someone from america explain the following things to me:

- if the role of government isn't to look out for the best interests of the people, what the f*ck is it even there for?
- do you really believe a private insurance company has your best interests at heart moreso than the government?

i grant you, after the amount of time your government has spend lying to and deceiving you, trust is exceedingly hard to come by, so maybe answer these questions in a perfect world scenario.

he replied with:

The role of he government is to look out for the best interest, to a certain extent. The government should be here to set up and aid the country. Let the people be in control and thats the main reason why Amerca started. I find that there is no reason that I should pay high taxes to give healthcare to drug addicts and people that sit in their houses all day. You should make your money and pay for your own healthcare. Not to be given health care from your tax money. The government should do the least they can do to make this country run.

Why is the government here? Its simple, The government should be here to make it safe to live in America. They should provide safety with the laws that they implement. Then there is the connection between the people and the higher ups, such as the president and all them people.

Why socializing medicine wont work in the US? IF we do get it to work, whats going to happen is that taxes are going to be high, and no one will afford the taxes. So that means the people we are trying to help now wont get any healthcare at all, plus everyone else in America spending more money on high taxes, that still has the problem of not everyone having medical care. The reason why people dont have healtcare now is because they dont have any money, WHY dont they have money? because they made stupid decisions or their too lazy to make good decisions. So all we are doing when we socialize the medicine, is that the rich people are going to give away half their money to the government, to pretty much give lazy people money and health, and that pretty much means that we encourage them being lazy cause now they can live the life they want to live, sitting on their asses smoking pot with their friends in front of a TV. Also, the rich people are loosing money which "CAN" cause them to feel more insecure spending which, causes the economy to slow down.

We dont need change from the government. Where we need change, is from the big companies and the people that are poor. Im not saying the poor people are all lazy, im saying that the vast majority of them are. If you feel like you want to give money to taxes to give healthcare to the poor people then why dont the people that support socializing medicine give their money to the poor people? The answer to that question will support everything I just said. (BECAUSE THEY WILL SPEND IT ON POT!)

i genuinely have no witty comment to add.

[KhanadaRhodes]

lol wow, he sure has it in for potheads doesn't he? what's hilarious is any potheads i know are the ones actually out there working 9-5 jobs. stereotyping

there are just so many generalizations in that post, it makes me weep. especially in this economy, it's way too easy to just dismiss people with "no money" as people who are lazy. there are many, many people out there with no money/job not because they're lazy, but because they apply to 500 places and don't even get a call for an interview. the job market is tough these days. ridiculously tough. call me insensitive, but i don't really give a rat's ass that rich people are "loosing money". i'm sorry, but i've been unemployed for six months now. i wish all i had to worry about was cutting back on my investments or whatever.

[BVS]

The role of he government is to look out for the best interest, to a certain extent. The government should be here to set up and aid the country. Let the people be in control and thats the main reason why Amerca started. I find that there is no reason that I should pay high taxes to give healthcare to drug addicts and people that sit in their houses all day. You should make your money and pay for your own healthcare. Not to be given health care from your tax money. The government should do the least they can do to make this country run.

Why is the government here? Its simple, The government should be here to make it safe to live in America. They should provide safety with the laws that they implement. Then there is the connection between the people and the higher ups, such as the president and all them people.

Why socializing medicine wont work in the US? IF we do get it to work, whats going to happen is that taxes are going to be high, and no one will afford the taxes. So that means the people we are trying to help now wont get any healthcare at all, plus everyone else in America spending more money on high taxes, that still has the problem of not everyone having medical care. The reason why people dont have healtcare now is because they dont have any money, WHY dont they have money? because they made stupid decisions or their too lazy to make good decisions. So all we are doing when we socialize the medicine, is that the rich people are going to give away half their money to the government, to pretty much give lazy people money and health, and that pretty much means that we encourage them being lazy cause now they can live the life they want to live, sitting on their asses smoking pot with their friends in front of a TV. Also, the rich people are loosing money which "CAN" cause them to feel more insecure spending which, causes the economy to slow down.

We dont need change from the government. Where we need change, is from the big companies and the people that are poor. Im not saying the poor people are all lazy, im saying that the vast majority of them are. If you feel like you want to give money to taxes to give healthcare to the poor people then why dont the people that support socializing medicine give their money to the poor people? The answer to that question will support everything I just said. (BECAUSE THEY WILL SPEND IT ON POT!)

Not only is he an informed elequent wordsmith, but I really liked the fact that he avoided generalizations and stereotypes.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by BVS

Not only is he an informed elequent wordsmith, but I really liked the fact that he avoided generalizations and stereotypes.

i know! i look at it this way, in terms of whether or not i could afford to pay taxes. (how could i not anyway? i mean yes technically i could not file taxes if i owed at the end of the year but i'm too honest to ever do that, especially since i'm always due a refund.) adding the tax bracket i'm usually in plus how much i usually pay for insurance, it'd have to get to above 40% for me to pay more in taxes than i did when you combined the taxes plus employer-provided insurance. i honestly doubt anyone in my bracket would pay this much, but if i had to, i wouldn't complain.