Mapping Health Care Reform
Ron Brownstein of the National Journal crunched some new Census numbers with fascinating results. He looked at the percentage of people who are uninsured in each Congressional district and found:
If health care reform passes, many of the districts that benefit most from the federal subsidies to expand access to coverage will be those represented by members who voted against the bill. "There's no question that is the case," said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy at the Harvard University School of Public Health.
Be sure to check out the interactive map HERE.
- George Stephanopoulos
Email
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
I dont want to be represented by politicians who consider themselves more important than myself. I want to be represented by normal people who are working for everyone together including themselves. Not exempting themselves from the programs and policies that they impose on the rest of us. Career politicians are screwing up this country and i will vote against anyone who is a part of a “stealth bill” written behind closed doors and not given enough time to be examined before voted on. If it wont go into effect for years after new taxes have been stacked to begin paying for it, then let it be open to the taxpayers to see. Nothing less than this president PROMISED during his campaign. This man lied to us. Nothing new for us, but I refuse to get used to it and accept it.
Posted by: gabby | October 22, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am
We don’t need a bill full of earmarks.
We don’t need a bill that effectively, does nothing to reduce health care costs.
We don’t need a bill that cuts health care for seniors.
We don’t need a bill that is simply “saving face”, for a President who made campaign promises, and can’t really deliver the goods.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | October 22, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
“many of the districts that benefit most from the federal subsidies to expand access to coverage will be those represented by members who voted against the bill.”
This is not a surprise. It is well documented that most of the ‘self reliant’ deep red states are dependent on hand outs from the Federal Government financed by the ‘socialist’ Democratically controlled states that tend to pay for infrastructure, education, libraries, and a local safety net that yield very profitable modern industries – and massive tax proceeds for the Feds to give to Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virgina, etc. (See the Tax Foundation – a lower-case c conservative group for the research.)
Posted by: jhw539 | October 22, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
In other words mostly Republican districts.
And by golly we Democrats are not going to rest until we make every citizen dependents of the Government.
Posted by: david | October 22, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
“And by golly we Democrats are not going to rest until we make every citizen dependents of the Government.”
david | Oct 22, 2009 10:54:18 AM
If you do not think you owe your luxurious life to ‘The Government’ already, then your education on basic human society is woefully lacking.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 22, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
As a registered nurse, I guarantee you most nurses do NOT belong to the ANA and most doctors do NOT belong to the AMA which means not all professional healthcare givers are for healthcare reform that eliminates freedom of choice from all parties involved and all citizens who pay in to the system.
Fox News Channel delivers great material and has my support. I will continue to support it and pray that the White House open one’s eyes to how reporting the truth about any issue is far more respected than having no freedom to hear it and having it’s contents manipulated and/or its reporters denied freedom to correspond in truth.
Posted by: Leona Garzelli | October 22, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
Insurance companies do not provide medical care, they profit from managing money pools built from premiums paid from the hard earned after tax dollars of people who hope to be protected from financial ruin. We have all heard the horror stories of how often this protection fails or gets denied. I personally think it is utterly foolish to pay a profit motivated third party in advance of a crisis, and even more foolish to be put in the position where that third party has even the slightest input in decision making about my medical care. I take personal responsibility for my medical bills and so far I have been able to afford them but I definitely cannot afford insurance that may or may not cover the bills when I need it to. High health care prices benefit the insurance companies because they generate fear and fear is what sells policies. The way to lower health care costs is to eliminate this middleman leech industry by replacing it with community and private charity and personal responsibility, but it appears that our politicians are so owned by the lobbyists for these companies that I will be forced to participate in this fraud or be penalized, and I appreciate that about as much as I like paying NC another penny sales tax to keep state employees working while I’m among the 10% unemployed in the private sector. I’m glad that at least I’m old enough to remember the real America, but I hate that it no longer exists for my grandchildren. Let’s get it back.
Posted by: Bruce Craddock | October 22, 2009, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm
I think that the focus is too much on the “uninsured”, and not on the basic precept of insurance. Many of us “covered” individuals are being forced into options that reduce coverage and increase out of pocket expenses to the point that those who are covered are basically unable to afford care under the revisions that major companies are making to their insurance plans, essentially joining the ranks of uninsured, even though they have coverage.
I grew up under the deductible/co-pay insurance coverages of Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Everyone seemed to survive, and coverage was provided on a seemingly expediant basis.
Then someone came up with the HMO/PPO concept, and coverage became an entitlement instead of catestrophic coverage. Health care costs elevated to the point that unemployed/under employed people could not afford private coverage.
Under my current HMO, I pay $60 a year for “preventative” care and $600 for 3 prescriptions for Cholesterol and High Blood Pressure as well as $11.00 a week for premiums.
As of January 1, 2010, my current coverage will revert to catestrophic, with no payroll contribution. Although this sounds good, my drug expenses will increase to $1,837 from $600, my preventative costs of $1,016 will be covered for $27 which means I will have to cover $3,600 next year as opposed to $1,232 or a 292% increase in my costs, and an effective 11.4% decrease in pay.
I hope that “Obama Care” proves to be substantially less so that I can take advantage of it and, if my employer wasn’t self funded ,it would be a bonus to know that they were paying a penalty because I was pushed to public care. Again, the wealthy reap the benefits.
Posted by: Jamtwo | October 22, 2009, 10:47 pm 10:47 pm
We are not trying to make people dependent on the government. We are merely trying to provide people affordable access to health care coverage. Doctors and hospitals would still be private. It would not be a free handout – people would still have to buy into the program. A public option would merely give people that – the option to buy into the system.
Posted by: Marly | October 23, 2009, 7:45 am 7:45 am
Why would you want to pay for the Government run health coverage that will be as good as Medicare or Medicaid? Why would any one be interested in coverage that is equivalent to VA care when Obama is already saying that the VA needs to have its members get private insurance.
Posted by: Visionary | November 2, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm