SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 1) by art guerrilla on Friday October 31 2014, @07:24PM
well *that* would be fine, but what we HAVE, is a health insurance entrenchment and profitability law...
in effect, PUTTING THE FOXES IN CHARGE OF THE HENHOUSE...
(let's not ponder the IDIOTIC 'legal basis' on which this MANDATORY FINE/TAX is levied upon us, NOR how it opens up the door to fucking kongresskritters requiring virtually ANY EXPENDITURE they damn well please to saddle us with...)
i am 100% for single-payer, universal healthcare type plan, THIS IS NOT IT...
i am NOT buying this shit for the simple reason it is shit: the SHITTIEST 'bronze' plan will cost me 1/4 my take home pay, WITH A $6250 deductible... short of lopping off an appendage or getting the "Big C", i will NEVER receive any benefits from paying ONE QUARTER OF MY TAKE HOME PAY... NEVER...
FUCK.
THAT.
SHIT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @04:46AM
In Oz, we pay around 2% of our income as the "medicare levy" (which is really a tax).
10% of this funds the administration of the system, the rest pays for medical services.
Someone I know quite well who has no other insurance was recently injured (minor but painful).
First visit to emergency : free
Follow up visit to GP next day : $30 (Medicare paid the rest)
Daily visits to have the bandages changed and wound inspected : free
Total cost of bandages and medication : approx $50
Total medical expenses for an injury that put him off work for a week were less than four hours at minimum wage.