Solution to "providing healthcare to the poor triggering a hellish medical holocaust"
Offline http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/senators-discussing-public-option-opt-out-as-potential-compromise.php
There is talk of a compromise going around, that allows some states to have an option of an option. Before you start to make fun of that though,, consider this.
The unhealthiest states are the ones that would likely opt out, if anyone.
That would reduce costs in the states that would be for it in the first places, and give a better program...
Probably leaving us looking something like this:
http://www.qualityhealth.com/health-lifestyle-articles/10-unhealthiest-states-america
The top 10 unhealthiest states are:
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Arkansas
4. Oklahoma
5. Tennessee
6. Alabama
7. West Virginia
8. Kentucky
9. South Carolina
10. Florida
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Maybe a little artist renditioning would help illustrate the benefits of this ...
I hope you like that. I put my heart and christian soul into it.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
It looks increasingly like a public option with an opt-out is going to go through. Some more information on the lack of insured by state:
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Just wondering is Florida or Mississippi the least healthy state?
Mississippi. The average lifespan there is abysmal.
There is a huge gap between states in life expectancy within this country.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
The graphs did not make sense.
Does it mean OVER 65 instead of under 65?
Otherwise, it is giving percentages of percentages for the other two categories.
Percentages suck in this case. The population densities of the states mentioned are in disproportion. Why can't we just see the hard numbers? Oh right, because that is where the disparity shifts pattern. Percentage-wise, New York and New Jersey look healthy, but give me the population number in New York and New Jersey without medical coverage and BAM! we're talking about one of those red states worth of people.
And breaking it down into red, blue, and purple is just obnoxious. It's politicizing the topic. That's Fox news' tactics, not rational debate.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Don't take the fun out of this.
It is under 65.
Just because blue states have more people than red states, doesn't mean anything. The red states have more of a % people uninsured. The blue states might have MORE uninsured people, but it is less of the population.
If you take a population of 1 billion and 1% is going to die tomorrow, that is more people dieing than a population of 100 where 10% is going to die. That is common sense.
Breaking it down into politics is not politicizing the topic when it is going to be something that states can opt out of, when many of the states that are likely to opt out are the ones with the highest % of unhealthy, and uninsured people in their population.
It is not Fox News styled. If it is was Fox News, I would be saying "How does Obama want to destroy your health care? Why does he want to prevent you from having a public option? Why does Harry Reid hate the poor?"
Fox News presents everything in a loaded fashion. This isn't loaded, it is simply which states have what percent lacking insurance, and which states are red, and which states are blue. Considering the GOP is 100% against the public option, if anyone opts out it will be the red state. Percentages of of the population in the states uninsured are INCREDIBLY relevant here.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
We don't pay insurance premiums or medical visits on percentages.
We pay them on people. Cold hard numbers equal dollars per person. Not dollars per percentage point.
Just comparing the numbers between places like New York City vs. entire state of Alabama puts the disparity in context.
Watching the 'red states' opt out of the public option also means they don't have to pay the premiums for 'blue state' people.
You do see this right?
Opting out of the public option in the 'red states' makes fiscal sense.
They're not being as retarded about this as usual. Either that or they're getting lucky. lol.
Also, don't forget the disparity of incomes. $300 a month goes a helluva lot further in those 'red states' than it does in New York, Los Angeles, Philly, or even Buffalo.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
How does it make fiscal sense? They would have the most to gain from having a public option, with higher percentages of both unhealthy and uninsured people. Disparity of income has nothing to do with this either.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-01-most-obese-state_N.htm
darth_josh,
This whole system will be on a state-by-state basis. So whether a state opts out or not will have no financial effect on the other states. It is not a matter of people opting out in the south and denying people on the coasts their money. With no true national system the actions of any individual state shouldn't matter to the other states. At least that is the theory behind the recent proposals. But this is all undecided and up in the air, so we'll have to wait to find out what is finally decided upon.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India