home

NY Times: Who's Uninsured?

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 07:10:00 AM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times examines the various studies on the number of U.S. residents without health insurance and examines the reasons.

After noting that none of the proposed health care initiatives would cover undocumented residents (another false myth propogated by ignorant right wing opponents), it concludes:

If nothing is done to slow current trends, the number of people in this country without insurance or with inadequate coverage will continue to spiral upward. That would be a personal tragedy for many and a moral disgrace for the nation. It is also by no means cost-free. Any nation as rich as ours ought to guarantee health coverage for all of its residents.

< Miss Venezuela: No Longer Any Gender Barriers Amongst Us | Miltary Wants More Troops for Afhganistan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Times: Who's Uninsured? | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    California is cutting back Healthy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:34:00 AM EST
    Families program, which provides health care to low income (qualify for federal school lunch) families, including many, many children of immigrants.  Not good.

    California is a total mess (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:25:08 AM EST
    Unless Obama bails them out pretty quickly, this are going to get worse in CA.  Much worse.

    Parent
    Case in point. Local charter (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    school added about 50 students to incoming class of sixth graders.  Why?  State capitation funds.  But not enough books and class sizes will increase.  

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 06:51:09 AM EST
    Any nation as rich as ours ought to guarantee health coverage for all of its residents.

    The author must be living in a cave.

    We cannot even afford health insurance for all of our citizens much less the millions that have just shown up uninvited.

    Hence, the 'Uninvited' (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 07:55:32 AM EST
    are unincluded.

    Parent
    We can easily afford health CARE for all... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    But, you are right, we can not afford for-profit health insurance for all.

    Parent
    Then perhaps you can (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:58:03 AM EST
    tell me what the cost would be for all residents vs citizens only. And yes, I understand the illegals are flooding our ER's and we're paying anyway. But if we have single payer insurance, which is not Obama's planS, then ALL citizens are covered so the ER stress should be removed.

    BTW - My Doctor's clinic is now demanding a picture ID that is government approved.

    Parent

    Are they still flooding in? (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    A reverse flow has started with people going to Mexico for care (including non-Mexican). The guy that helps my parents with the yard goes back down to Mexico for medical. And they're in NoCa.

    I have to wonder since they have a universal system, how much truth to the "flooding our ERs" still exists?

    Parent

    I've read immigration from Mexico has (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:41 AM EST
    decreased as has money sent from people working in the US to relatives in Mexico.

    Parent
    Visit a big city ER after 5 PM and discover (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 11:57:31 AM EST
    for yourself.

    Parent
    You have your article (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    packed full of anecdotal information.

    I have my eyeballs and wore out body from trying to an actual ER type sick person taken care of in a room in which English was a second language.

    Parent

    My point was that big city ER's are (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    being flooded with illegal aliens. Although I will give you that ER facilities are also being used by US citizens who are uninsured as their primary health care facilities. The latter needs to be corrected by a single payer system. The former needs to be corrected by treating and then deporting.

    The hospital you write about has 120 beds. That is a small facility. While interesting it bears no relation to larger facilities.

    And while insured patients may be over using the ER facilities, at least they will pay, in contrast to the illegals not paying,  which is the point I made originally.

    That LA county has 12% of its non-elderly population illegal aliens speak for itself.

    Parent

    Should I ask for their papers also? (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:37:25 PM EST
    In many urban environs you will find a large cross section of people. Who's to know who is illegal? And whether they are speaking fluent English or not in the background noise isn't a clue. Ride the subway in NYC sometime . . . .

    And where the f*** else are you supposed to go after hours?

    Parent

    It's already a moral disgrace. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    Obama-Care may improve the number of insured.  Indeed, make purchasing private, for-profit insurance the law of the land and your number of insured will rise.  You only know what you measure.  It won't, however, lower the cost of health care, or even improve health care outcomes outside of the margins.  For that, we would need to squeeze the profit out of health care finance, but nobody is talking about that.

    Lots of people my age (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:08:55 AM EST
    If I weren't still a full time student, I would likely be stuck buying junk insurance. When I turn 25, that will be the outcome anyway.

    What--are you Peter Pan? Not 25 yet? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:48:17 AM EST


    Parent
    It's on the horizon. . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 01:01:10 AM EST
    About time for my friends to start marrying, which is depressing for a variety of reasons.

    Parent
    not quite yet (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:15:51 AM EST
    only the ones who jumped the gun. Still mostly older siblings of friends getting hitched for the most part.  24/25 is pretty young for that, mostly because of the money involved.

    Come to New England, you can get married here!  And get on your spouse's insurance.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:36:07 AM EST
    I'll be gainfully employed before long!

    Parent
    Good Lord (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    Marriage is not the end of the world. It doesn't mean your friends have died for cripes sake, it just means they are shifting priorities.(Speaking as a woman who had one of her husband's nutball friends drunk and rambling about how he missed his friend on the eve of our wedding).

    Seeing how much beer you can consume without passing out isn't meant to be a priority forever anyways ;)

    Parent

    Just a hunch (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    But I would imagine the depression factor has more to do with this than any boozing priorities.


    Parent
    Check this out: (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 01:07:24 AM EST
    link  We are talking super conservative here.  Plus those Lutherans.  Times are changing.

    Parent
    Artists at the forefront? Never! (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 01:11:35 AM EST


    Parent
    I think it's great that (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:22:34 AM EST
    you are not yet 25 and choose to spend time engaging in conversation with us.

    Parent
    Damn kids.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    grumble grumble.

    Parent
    If this doesn't expose Fox on health reform... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kevsters on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:23:51 AM EST
    If this video doesn't get people to see the true agenda of Fox News, I don't know if anything will.

    Neil Cavuto basically says Obama's moral obligation should be protecting America's wealth, not the health of all Americans.

    These people are unbelievable.

    http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2640

    If you have the wealth (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    you will have the health.

    See Africa, parts of CA and SA and Asia....

    Parent

    Here is one "myth" that is true (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    Abortions covered under Obamacare

    NY Times: Who's Uninsured? | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment