Massachusetts far ahead of nation in healthcare coverage, Texas last

[Beet]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153053/Texas-Widens-Gap-States-Percentage-Uninsured.aspx

[You kip if you want to...]

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Second, of course, being the state that's trying to implement a state-level public option.

[angus]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153053/Texas-Widens-Gap-States-Percentage-Uninsured.aspx

So, wherever you have 80% of the population being white, you have a large percentage of insured, and wherever you have (at least) 33% of the population being non-anglophonic, foreign-born you get lots of uninsured.  Is that your point?  Or are you secretly working for Mitt Romney?

Either way, it would be nice if you offered something other than a cut-and-paste job.  Then again, aren't you the one who offered a post asking us whether we thought original thought existed.  Perhaps you're just trying to prove that point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If anything, what angus pointed out should be a call to arms for advocacy for the rights of minorities, since it's an indication of how bound up health care is in social class (which I think is fundamentally wrong) and social class in race (which I should hope most of us think is fundamentally wrong).

[angus]

If anything, what angus pointed out should be a call to arms for advocacy for the rights of minorities, since it's an indication of how bound up health care is in social class (which I think is fundamentally wrong) and social class in race (which I should hope most of us think is fundamentally wrong).

I'll stipulate.  Regions with high hispanic, black, or indigenous populations have high uninsured rates compared to WASP/yankee states (and polynesians ones, apparently.)  I'm not making any grand pronouncements here, though.  I'm just trolling; trying to get a rise out of Beet.  I'm curious as to his original point.  He occasionally has a valid one, and I'd like to know what it is.

[memphis]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153053/Texas-Widens-Gap-States-Percentage-Uninsured.aspx

So, wherever you have 80% of the population being white, you have a large percentage of insured, and wherever you have (at least) 33% of the population being non-anglophonic, foreign-born you get lots of uninsured.  Is that your point?  Or are you secretly working for Mitt Romney?

Either way, it would be nice if you offered something other than a cut-and-paste job.  Then again, aren't you the one who offered a post asking us whether we thought original thought existed.  Perhaps you're just trying to prove that point.

Nothing says overwhelmingly white like New York, Hawaii, and Maryland

[Beet]

If anything, what angus pointed out should be a call to arms for advocacy for the rights of minorities, since it's an indication of how bound up health care is in social class (which I think is fundamentally wrong) and social class in race (which I should hope most of us think is fundamentally wrong).

I'll stipulate.  Regions with high hispanic, black, or indigenous populations have high uninsured rates compared to WASP/yankee states (and polynesians ones, apparently.)  I'm not making any grand pronouncements here, though.  I'm just trolling; trying to get a rise out of Beet.  I'm curious as to his original point.  He occasionally has a valid one, and I'd like to know what it is.

The point is that Romneycare was successful in greatly expanding coverage. It's not just to the level of what can be explained by the state's income and demographics. And it's not just #1 in the nation by a narrow margin. It's on an entirely different plane of existence, as far as the numbers are concerned. And yes, I give due credit to Romney, and I give him credit for advocating a national individual mandate in 2009.

The form of the post is identical to this one (it even has the exact same source. Gallup may even have deliberately highlighted these two aspects of the health care debate in some attempt to be 'fair and balanced'), which you participated in without complaint, so if anything your complaint about mine strikes me as hypocritical.

The propensity of conservatives to blame the browns for the failure of the places they govern is very tiresome, if not outright racist. Maryland and New York have very high minority populations and are in the top 10 for insured coverage; you don't see them at 27.6 percent uninsured.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Texas just isn't socialist enough. What a shame. Anyone notice how the doctors left MA and now their quality is terrible? Let's go for quality not quantity. This is America and freedom prevails over equality. Not everyone makes it.

[Reginald]

Anyone notice how the doctors left MA and now their quality is terrible?

Can't say I have. Care to elaborate?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyone notice how the doctors left MA and now their quality is terrible?

Can't say I have. Care to elaborate?

This, and I live in Massachusetts. One of the most left-wing parts of the state, no less.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anyone notice how the doctors left MA and now their quality is terrible? Let's go for quality not quantity.

I look forward to seeing all the numbers, data, and statistics you have to back this claim up.

[HST1948]

Texas just isn't socialist enough. What a shame. Anyone notice how the doctors left MA and now their quality is terrible? Let's go for quality not quantity. This is America and freedom prevails over equality. Not everyone makes it.

Yeah the state with Massachusetts General, Brandeis Medical Center, and Mclean Hospital (all of which are consistently ranked in the top ten medical centers in the country) has terrible quality of health care. And fyi Boston is one of the hardest cities to get a residency in and has no shortage of doctors (I know I've been working my ass off so I can do well enough on my boards to get a residency in Boston.)

[greenforest32]

Oh hell yeah. Let's follow the Republican idea and send Medicaid to the states so they can find "innovative" ways to drop more coverage. Texas will aim for 40%.

[Brittain33]

Nothing says overwhelmingly white like New York, Hawaii, and Maryland

New York has at least a few immigrants, too, I think. I could be wrong, maybe it's just Vermont with skyscrapers.

[Torie]

Nothing says overwhelmingly white like New York, Hawaii, and Maryland

New York has at least a few immigrants, too, I think. I could be wrong, maybe it's just Vermont with skyscrapers.

Are you telling me Ellis Island is not in Vermont? I thought it was on Lake Champlain. 

[Brittain33]

BTW, I think Hawaii requires jobs of at least 20 hours a week to offer health insurance.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Not surprising. The more progressive states have a higher quality of life for the biggest number of people, while the more reactionary states are home to completely outrageous and unjustified inequities when it comes to education, health care, income, housing...you name it.

*waits for the right-wingers to call me a liberal elitist socialist do-gooder yadda yadda*

[Tidewater_Wave]

So to that study the more socialist the better? I think I have a better idea. The more options the better. We need to open up competition across state lines, limit lawsuits to $250,000 with 30% attorney's share, allow for health and medical savings accounts that work like social security, have a don't ask, don't tell policy for pre-existing conditions, allow people to stay on their parents' insurance until 23 or 25 if they're a student, and expand medicaid for others who are less fortunate.

[Redalgo]

Nothing says overwhelmingly white like New York, Hawaii, and Maryland

Aye, just like nothing says overwhelming diversity like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming - their uninsured rates apparently coming in at 19.3%, 18.8%, and 18.7%, respectively.

[angus]

The point is that Romneycare was successful in greatly expanding coverage.

Of course, to make that argument you don't need us versus them.  You need now versus before.  Put up a data for Massachusetts ten years ago and one for Massachusetts now.  You're a smart fellow, and I'd think you already know about the finer points of persuasive speaking.

The form of the post is identical to this one (it even has the exact same source. Gallup may even have deliberately highlighted these two aspects of the health care debate in some attempt to be 'fair and balanced'), which you participated in without complaint, so if anything your complaint about mine strikes me as hypocritical.

Not at all.  I understood the point of that post, whereas I wondered about the point of yours.  I assume you allow other users to ask to restate your point.  Or state it, as may be the case.

The propensity of conservatives to blame the browns for the failure of the places they govern is very tiresome, if not outright racist.

If such a propensity exists, it may stem from racism, although I haven't yet seen a preponderance of blame cast by conservatives.  In fact, there are no posts in this thread that attempt to explain the cause except yours.  And yours is based on faulty logic.  As I said, if you want to assign blame, as in blaming Romneycare for expanding insurance coverage, you'd need a before and after Romneycare for Massachusetts. 

As for noise in the data, I assume you're smart enough to know that it exists.  To take a counterexample to disprove a theorem is fine, but to expect to use a counterexample to refute a trend is really something that doesn't work.  The fact is that you put up a graph that said that an 80% anglo white state has a 4% uninsured rate while a state with 33% Hispanics has a 27% uninsured rate really does beg the question, especially when all you did was put up a table.

[memphis]

This what you're looking for angus?
http://www.health-insurance.org/uninsured-in-mass

[angus]

This what you're looking for angus?
http://www.health-insurance.org/uninsured-in-mass

I'd say that makes beet's point well enough, now that I understand what his point is.  Much obliged.  Clearly Romneycare has increased coverage.  (Actually, everyone, including myself, already knew this, and it is hardly necessary to have a thread about it.  Moreover, I don't think anyone has suggested that Romneycare hasn't expanded coverage.  All of which made me wonder what beet's point was, which is why I tried to goad him into making it.  I'm still sort of wondering, to be honest, because to make a thread which only attempts to state a fact, and does so in a very weak way when there are more decisive ways to make it, seems odd.)

Of course, whether this is necessarily a good thing is a legitimate subject of debate.  Spiraling costs in Massachusetts make coverage unaffordable for both patients and businesses, followed by price controls that drive private providers from the market, are certainly vestiges of Romneycare's "expansion of coverage" but one wonders if it's a desirable expansion.  Moreover, it isn't just the fact that mandates cause price increases, but the fact that exchanges reward people for earning less that is controversial.  Many of us are concerned that this could repeat itself on the national level.

[Beet]

Of course, to make that argument you don't need us versus them.  You need now versus before.  Put up a data for Massachusetts ten years ago and one for Massachusetts now.  You're a smart fellow, and I'd think you already know about the finer points of persuasive speaking.

Don't be so patronizing. The closed mind cannot be convinced by even the best argument, and you are a closed-minded fellow, at least with regard to this.

Not at all.  I understood the point of that post, whereas I wondered about the point of yours.  I assume you allow other users to ask to restate your point.  Or state it, as may be the case.

Yours is the only post in this thread asking "what the point" of the thread is.

If such a propensity exists, it may stem from racism, although I haven't yet seen a preponderance of blame cast by conservatives.  In fact, there are no posts in this thread that attempt to explain the cause except yours.  And yours is based on faulty logic.  As I said, if you want to assign blame, as in blaming Romneycare for expanding insurance coverage, you'd need a before and after Romneycare for Massachusetts. 

As for noise in the data, I assume you're smart enough to know that it exists.  To take a counterexample to disprove a theorem is fine, but to expect to use a counterexample to refute a trend is really something that doesn't work. The fact is that you put up a graph that said that an 80% anglo white state has a 4% uninsured rate while a state with 33% Hispanics has a 27% uninsured rate really does beg the question, especially when all you did was put up a table.

There you go again, blaming the browns. You do realize that a state with a 27.6% uninsured rate is equally a failure whether or not it is 33% Hispanic, or 1% Hispanic, or 100% Hispanic? No matter what the color of the people is, more than a quarter of them are still uninsured. Would you say that the evacuation of the Titanic would have been a success, if only all the first-class passengers had made it onto the life boats?

Of course I can provide better data. Of course I can supplement my logic with additional sources that raise the questions you addressed, and still validate my original point.

But really, I don't think I can provide you with you really, really want. Because what you really, really want is to deny the point, and that I cannot convincingly do.

[angus]

Don't be so patronizing. The closed mind cannot be convinced by even the best argument, and you are a closed-minded fellow, at least with regard to this.

seriously?  How is that?  You and I agree that Romneycare has expanded coverage.  So if I'm closed-minded then you must be as well.

Yours is the only post in this thread asking "what the point" of the thread is.

so one would think that it wouldn't be so much trouble to come out and answer it.

There you go again, blaming the browns.

How am I blaming browns?  How am I blaming anyone?  You are the only one attempting to blame something.  I am merely making an observation.  I am not analyzing.  I am not attempting to find an underlying cause for a phenomenon.  I am correlating.  Correlation does not imply causation.

Okay, I think we're just being patronizing with each other at this point.  You're smarter than you're acting.  So it's probably not worth continuing along these lines.  Let's move on:

Clearly Romneycare has expanded coverage.  I certainly don't dispute that.  But is that a good thing?  Or, more precisely, do the obvious shortcomings and disadvantages of Romneycare outweigh the advantages?  I say yes.