« Betreff: Bush-Krieger fürchten Rache der Wähler | Main | How Would the Foley Case be Handled in Germany? »

Comments

@RayD, Germerican
OK, I have read "perceived" as opposed to having a factual basis. I do aggree, that the list covers a lot of pet issues and that coverage should be more neutral.

@Cousin Dave
Thank you for supplying some background, I appreciate it. :-) I still come to a different conclusion about the numbers. Please do not take it as bashing, I do not think this is about caring/uncaring, just a difference in system.
I reexamined my link and found some more background reading, a report by the Congressional Budget Office titled "How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long?" at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4210/05-12-Uninsured.pdf (Caveat: This report does use percentage of non-elderly population for the most part, in contrast to my original link).
There is much more dynamics in the uninsured population than I expected (about three quarters of uninsured spells are less than a year), but about 20 million are uninsured for the whole of the year. It is my impression that the choice to save money on the health insurance could well be a forced one: "Education and income level are closely tied to the likelihood of being uninsured." (05-12-Uninsured.pdf, page 18) and "The high cost of insurance and lack of access to employment-based coverage are the two most commonly reported reasons for being uninsured." (page 24)
I do not think, that the abuse of the medical system by illegals and criminals does show up in these reports due to the nature of data covered, while slackers will be covered.

@PacRimJim
Commendable attitude: Marginalize and insult (only those not "thoughtful" stay behind).

@blue

when you write

"Americans w/o health insurance in 2002: 15.2%"

Do you assume that Americans without commercial health insurance do not have Health coverage?

I think if you factor those whose health care is provided by State Cards your uninsured tally might be different.

You gotta love this! The headline on the lead article on SPON at the moment is, "Zweifel an Misshandlungs- Vorwürfen des "Bremer Taliban." ("Doubt about Mistreatment Claims of the 'Bremen Taliban.'") Suddenly, there are "doubts" if Germans are being accused. Tell me, is any one keeping track of how often SPON reports "doubts" about any accusation against the US whatsoever? Just wait, pretty soon the "Bremen Taliban" will be "mehr und mehr unter Druck," ("more and more under pressure"), another classic Spiegelism.

Blue: in reference to: "It is my impression that the choice to save money on the health insurance could well be a forced one: "Education and income level are closely tied to the likelihood of being uninsured." "

... there IS an alternative point of view to examine here, too. That is that the lack of education is in the realm of not understanding that anyone can get hit by a truck or by cancer or by MS. Too many young people, no matter where in the world they live, believe that they are going to be young and healthy forever. People with an education tend to go straight from their uni's to the job market and acquire health insurance from their employers, whether they want it or not. Those who don't go to uni think they don't need it, and don't go out of their way to get it.

Yes, there is a difference in the systems. In the US, people are required to grow up.

Blue: An addendum to my previous comment.

In addition to the fact that the education angle could just be a matter of people finding permanent careers straight out of uni, there is also the fact that POOR people are covered by state Medicaid laws. That was what Cousin Dave was referring to with his "state sponsored program" comment.

In other words, poverty is not an excuse, since the programs are available. And the hospitals are required to treat them in any case. The "uninsured" in the US are almost always people who have chosen not to get coverage for their own reasons.

Dan Kaufmann wrote

"Americans w/o health insurance in 2002: 15.2%"

Do you assume that Americans without commercial health insurance do not have Health coverage?

Yes, that is how I read "An estimated 15.2 percent of the population or 43.6 million people were without health insurance coverage during the entire year in 2002, up from 14.6 percent in 2001, an increase of 2.4 million people." (p60-223.pdf). The survey does explicitly include Medicaid (by whatever name) and Medicare coverage. Please read my links and tell me how to interpret that otherwise. I do not know, how you can fail to be eligible for Medicaid, but the numbers say, you can. The Medicaid coverage may be underreported, however this issue is adressed in part in the report 05-12-Uninsured.pdf
One study that matched Medicaid administrative records in Minnesota with a population survey conducted in that state found that the vast majority of Medicaid enrollees who did not report being covered by Medicaid reported another source of insurance.16 As a result, the measured uninsurance rate was overstated by only about 0.3 percentage points. It is not known how those findings may be generalized to other states or other surveys.
If this holds up for other states remains to be seen.

If you read the reports, you will see that the investigators of the second report stress, that there are different types of people without coverage: short-term and long-term, about 50% each. Short-term spells without coverage are not regarded as a problem and usually related to a change of job, where one is possibly covered by the insurance of the partner or just takes the risk. It is the long-term uninsured who may (or not) need attention and it is my understanding that the legislative branch is looking into that.

LC Mamapajamas wrote

Yes, there is a difference in the systems. In the US, people are required to grow up.
Thank you, you have put it much better than I have when I wrote: "I do not think this is about caring/uncaring, just a difference in system." In Germany the state more or less forces help onto you and I think we have overdone it by now. You can find arguments in favor of both attitudes, the German/European and the American, I think. I am aware, that any interpretation of the reported correlations (like my poverty interpretation and your education interpretation) is shakey/guesswork, as long as you do not explicitly investigate the reasons for the lack of coverage.

the rise in german antiamericanism is a product of the wealth of germany exceeding its intellect. They are rich liberals that dont HAVE to think. they remind me of the newmags I used to read in high school back in the 70's. with all their neato cover art and riveting insight, until I turned thirteen..
One of the first things one should consider before going into battle is wether or not the enemy is actaully changeable. You have picked the worst possible prson to try and educate ("lead out off") as protected rich europeans have absolutley no reason to change. they are rich enough to only care about marginalization and all other subjects are pointless with them. youre essentially arguing with a rich child, not an honest open minded adult.

in baseless societies this would be something people would fight over, but Americans take this as a cue to go and fix something within themselves as depending on europeans to see the truth and then actually act on it is pointless and dependent.

also, in America all of this movement in one direction would then reveal/create an organic need that could be serviced. Hence: national review, Ruch Limbaugh and now Fox and the blogs.
Germans and most Euros don't need to bother with these forces of innovation and change as either the Americans will invent it for them, or they won't bother going through all the trouble of caring as it will just bite the hand that feeds them and uset the gravy train.

Face it, europe is one gian Flint and its press are all Michael Moore fat boys driving around in limos going to fil festivals in Traverse City. They'll never get it becuase they don't need/have to, instead they will spend all of their time creating a parallel universe that justifies all of their leftist righteousness.

Big fucking deal!!!

Do we need them? NO...

Do we want them? NO.. Can you imagine working at a company where you would have to constantly stop everything to wait for the rich fat kid to catch up?

When enough euros get their faces stuffed into problems we have kept away from them for decades, they will come around. And it won't be because of anything zinger anyone wrote or any TV show they caught on their widescreen hd lcd, it will be because of that buring smell coming from their flaming asses.

The trick is to keep ourselves alive in the meantime and getting drawn-off by the "problems" of lame ass euro rich kids is counter productive. thanks for keeping an eye on things, but you can't convert some people and in the end your responsibility to the fight for freedom may be being subverted into trying to save people that don't really need or deserve it.

if it isnt going to hit you, dont block it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28