Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday October 31 2014, @07:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the take-your-medicine dept.

We know that about 10 million more people have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act but until now it has been difficult to say much about who was getting that Obamacare coverage — where they live, their age, their income and other such details. Now Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz report in the NYT that a new data set is providing a clearer picture of which people gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The data is the output of a statistical model based on a large survey of adults and shows that the law has done something rather unusual in the American economy this century: It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income — in the form of health insurance or insurance subsidies — to many of the groups that have fared poorly over the last few decades. The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas. The areas with the largest increases in the health insurance rate, for example, include rural Arkansas and Nevada; southern Texas; large swaths of New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia; and much of inland California and Oregon.

Despite many Republican voters’ disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @08:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @08:13AM (#111805)

    While the story is another example of people voting against their own interests, I just wanted to be cynical and point out that in the USA wallstreet always gets their piece of the pie. [marketwatch.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @09:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @09:19AM (#111813)

    Don't worry, I'm sure the Free Market (tm) will solve all the world's problems. Any day now....

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @09:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @09:35AM (#111816)

      ...In the same way the Independent Press(tm) like the NYT can be counted upon to provide unbiased discussions of the administration's activities.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday October 31 2014, @02:35PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday October 31 2014, @02:35PM (#111916) Journal

    Exactly. Those who benefited the most are the for-profit private insurance industry to whom Obama sold out long before he stopped touting the public option.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html [huffingtonpost.com]

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @05:37PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 31 2014, @05:37PM (#111959) Journal

    While the story is another example of people voting against their own interests

    I bet they're a better judge of their interests than you are.