Discussion for article #240850
There are more whites than blacks and hispanics.
This article is just silly, without per-capita statistics.
3 Likes
Huh? Whites are roughly three-quarters of the U.S. population, so of course more of them have been able to get insurance. What matters is what proportion of each racial/ethnic group has gotten coverage, not absolute numbers.
You say that “Proportionally speaking, the drop in the uninsured rate was even greater among minorities.” So this sounds to me like a good-news story.
One thing I think the article points out is that a lot of whites already had other insurance but have switch to coverage through obamacare, whereas a lot of minorities didn’t have any before. My work switched from BCBS to Unitedhealthcare because BCBS pushed their rates so high when Ocare first came out. A lot of folks were pissed and blamed Ocare but the cost of the new UHC was actually lower than the old BCBS so I kind of thought they were just showing their hate for anything Obama more than their dislike of one insurance co. vs another.
1 Like
It’s actually better than the stats suggest, because millions of people who were formerly insured had so-called “junk” policies that covered very little. Most of those are now illegal, so those people have gone from theoretically insured to actually insured.
2 Likes
Wait, I thought the Tea Partiers, et al., were mad at Obamacare because it benefitted only “those” people…
1 Like
More Whites Gain Obamacare Coverage Than Blacks And Latinos Combined
…
Proportionally speaking, the drop in the uninsured rate was even greater among minorities.
I’m confused where to place my outrage. How about - Thanks Obama!
Seriously, thank you Mr. President.
1 Like
But but but…this can’t be! Obamacare was just for the ni(CLANG!) who voted for the president. The Teabaggers said so!
Shut the government down!..and…and…BENGHAZI!
Under our African/Kenyan/marxist/socialist overlord, whites now ARE “those people.”
Exactly, conservatives who hate minorities can use this study for THEIR side. Same when people say “there are more whites on welfare”. By percentage, there are far more blacks on welfare. Now if you want to argue the economics of why that is, fine. But your argument should not be “see, there are more whites on welfare”. That’s just silly and makes one either look stupid, or takes the person reading it as stupid. Neither of those wins debates on issues.
That’s not totally true. My old policy was not “junk”, it worked fine for me. I had excellent coverage and a low deductible. Now, I pay more for insurance and have a much higher deductible.
However, I make good money, and I know lots of people who do not make as much money as me even though they work just as hard, paying less for insurance. I say that’s a good thing, and have no problem with such justification.
But my policy before this was not “junk”, it was quite good for me. What happened was that policies just became more comprehensive, so people now pay for coverage they may never use (like a single guy paying for maternity, etc.). I have no problem with that either since insurance should be more standardized and uniform, but again the policy I had was not “junk”.