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.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 31 2014, @12:49PM
The fear among people who have private health care is that under a public system, the quality of care would go down for them. I do not necessarily believe that but I can see how others would. It also makes it very easy for moneyed interests to create resistance to change by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
It's not that the public are generally against giving people access to health care. A few years ago there was a strong push to expand Medicare benefits (the health care program for the elderly). It's that the public is against massive change to a system they're highly dependent on, yet is working well enough for a plurality (say 40%) of the population.
There is also fear that the overall cost to society would go up, and that the cost to individuals who are benefiting from the current system would go up disproportionately. Again, I am not sure I believe that, but it is mighty hard to prove what would or wouldn't happen.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.