Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 7th, 2008, 09:51 AM   #1
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default interesting Healthcare statistics

We hear on the news everynight about the impending healthcare epidemic and how there are a multitude of uninsured Americans. The recent number that the nightly news has been using for Americans without health insurance is 47 Million. Sounds like a daunting number!

But what does that number really mean? Lets take a deeper look. 45% of those Americans have been without healthcare for less than 4 months (transitional jobs, graduating students, etc). And another 20% of that 47 Million make more than $80,000 a year and have healthcare available but are choosing not to take it.

So in reality, while there are still those without healthcare for whatever reason, the number is not nearly as convincing as some of the candidates in the current election would have you believe.

Numbers can always be manipulated!
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 09:57 AM   #2
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

These are LIMRA numbers by the way.
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 10:21 AM   #3
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,683
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

I am too lazy to do the math, what is the hard number without
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 10:29 AM   #4
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

About 16.4 Million (or 5% of Americans)

Last edited by 87'YJ; May 7th, 2008 at 10:48 AM.
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 11:15 AM   #5
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
About 16.4 Million (or 5% of Americans)
I wonder if that count includes the 12 million illegal aliens.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 02:08 PM   #6
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Here's another interesting statistic (from Wikipedia): "Los Angeles is the largest city in the state of California and the second-largest in the United States.[1] Often abbreviated as L.A., it is rated an alpha world city, having an estimated population of 3.8 million[2] and spanning over 469.1 square miles (1,214.9 square kilometers) in Southern California. "....

So what you are saying then is that it's really not so bad because it really only affects a population equivalent to 4.32 Los Angeles'?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 02:19 PM   #7
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,560
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
Here's another interesting statistic (from Wikipedia): "Los Angeles is the largest city in the state of California and the second-largest in the United States.[1] Often abbreviated as L.A., it is rated an alpha world city, having an estimated population of 3.8 million[2] and spanning over 469.1 square miles (1,214.9 square kilometers) in Southern California. "....

So what you are saying then is that it's really not so bad because it really only affects a population equivalent to 4.32 Los Angeles'?
Thanks for running some calculations based on irrelevant logic...

More logical would be applying that percentage to the population of LA...

3.8mil * 5% = .19 million people in LA unemployed...
__________________
[FlatFender]: ill put it like this, if she wasnt MY aunt, id hit on her
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 02:37 PM   #8
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schweeb View Post
Thanks for running some calculations based on irrelevant logic...

More logical would be applying that percentage to the population of LA...

3.8mil * 5% = .19 million people in LA unemployed...
I was asking a question, not making a statement, and I was trying to give a frame of reference to what that number might "look like" if it were described in scale and proportion to something that we might recognize. After all, 16 Million people is hard to "picture". 4.32 Los Angeleses is a little easier (well, for me anyway, I've been there many times), but I will try something that you can put in perspective then (from Wiki): The United States Office of Management and Budget defines the Detroit–Warren–Livonia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as the six counties of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. As of the 2000 census, the MSA had a population of 4,441,551. The Census Bureau's 2007 estimate placed the population at 4,467,592 million, which ranks it as the eleventh-largest MSA. The MSA covers an area of 3,913 square miles (10,130 km²)..

So hey, that's not so bad is it? Only 4 total Metro areas... the six counties of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne... Times 4.

Nice.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 02:49 PM   #9
schweeb
spelling nazi
 
schweeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 2,560
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
I was asking a rhetorical question
fixed.
__________________
[FlatFender]: ill put it like this, if she wasnt MY aunt, id hit on her
schweeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 02:51 PM   #10
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schweeb View Post
fixed.
My apologies. My bad.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 04:39 PM   #11
Mr Toes - R.I.P.
November 7, 1958 - July 22, 2011
 
Mr Toes - R.I.P.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: Belleville Mi
Posts: 4,727
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
We hear on the news everynight about the impending healthcare epidemic and how there are a multitude of uninsured Americans. The recent number that the nightly news has been using for Americans without health insurance is 47 Million. Sounds like a daunting number!

But what does that number really mean? Lets take a deeper look. 45% of those Americans have been without healthcare for less than 4 months (transitional jobs, graduating students, etc). And another 20% of that 47 Million make more than $80,000 a year and have healthcare available but are choosing not to take it.

So in reality, while there are still those without healthcare for whatever reason, the number is not nearly as convincing as some of the candidates in the current election would have you believe.

Numbers can always be manipulated!


INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTHCARE, IT'S A RIP OFF
Mr Toes - R.I.P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2008, 10:26 PM   #12
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,378
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
I was asking a question, not making a statement, and I was trying to give a frame of reference to what that number might "look like" if it were described in scale and proportion to something that we might recognize. After all, 16 Million people is hard to "picture". 4.32 Los Angeleses is a little easier (well, for me anyway, I've been there many times), but I will try something that you can put in perspective then (from Wiki): The United States Office of Management and Budget defines the Detroit–Warren–Livonia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as the six counties of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. As of the 2000 census, the MSA had a population of 4,441,551. The Census Bureau's 2007 estimate placed the population at 4,467,592 million, which ranks it as the eleventh-largest MSA. The MSA covers an area of 3,913 square miles (10,130 km˛)..

So hey, that's not so bad is it? Only 4 total Metro areas... the six counties of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne... Times 4.

Nice.
Repaint the numbers however you want, it doesn't change the fact that our system seems to be working for a majority of the people.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 01:52 AM   #13
87'YJ
Jeeps, Journey and Jesus
 
87'YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,651
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
I was asking a question, not making a statement, and I was trying to give a frame of reference to what that number might "look like" if it were described in scale and proportion to something that we might recognize. After all, 16 Million people is hard to "picture". 4.32 Los Angeleses is a little easier (well, for me anyway, I've been there many times), but I will try something that you can put in perspective then (from Wiki): The United States Office of Management and Budget defines the Detroit–Warren–Livonia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as the six counties of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. As of the 2000 census, the MSA had a population of 4,441,551. The Census Bureau's 2007 estimate placed the population at 4,467,592 million, which ranks it as the eleventh-largest MSA. The MSA covers an area of 3,913 square miles (10,130 km²)..

So hey, that's not so bad is it? Only 4 total Metro areas... the six counties of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne... Times 4.

Nice.
Thats really not bad at all. I think its your scope thats messed up. That is a small percentage of all of America. American is huge (300 Million people). And to realize that most of those people have healthcare is amazing!

To give you the scope of how big America is, approximately 3.5 Million Americans are homeless right now (taken from The National Coalition for the Homeless website). OMG! Thats almost the size of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. OR almost the size of Los Angeles. But in reality, its about 1% of our total pop. You see my point? Whenever your dealing with a number like 300 Million people and a country the size of America, the numbers will seem large.

Last edited by 87'YJ; May 8th, 2008 at 02:02 AM.
87'YJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 10:18 AM   #14
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

So, with all these numbers and statistics flying around, we have an estimated 5% of the population falling through the cracks when it comes to access to quality, affordable, preventative health care. What would be the real cost (in the greater scheme of things) of providing some kind of government backed, basic health coverage for these people.

If you find a job that provides or offers insurance, you are no longer in the program.

If you make over X dollars you can afford to buy your own and you are out of the program.

Provide for that 5% that is not covered. Why should the minority suffer? And if it is just 5% that need this help, it should not be a huge financial burden to this country.

Just my thoughts.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 11:06 AM   #15
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
So, with all these numbers and statistics flying around, we have an estimated 5% of the population falling through the cracks when it comes to access to quality, affordable, preventative health care. What would be the real cost (in the greater scheme of things) of providing some kind of government backed, basic health coverage for these people.

If you find a job that provides or offers insurance, you are no longer in the program.

If you make over X dollars you can afford to buy your own and you are out of the program.

Provide for that 5% that is not covered. Why should the minority suffer? And if it is just 5% that need this help, it should not be a huge financial burden to this country.

Just my thoughts.
Ideally that sounds good, but here's the rub. As soon as you crack the door, then politicians use it to gain power and get elected.. i.e. Elect me and I'll include 10% of the poorest uninsured, elect me and I'll include 12%. If you don't elect me my oponent will reduce the 5% to 4%, you do care about those 1% of poor people right? Then you better vote for me. If you elect me I'll raise the maximum income cut off from 40k to 50k....Blah Blah Blah. What ever serves them best to get elected.

The best option is freedom of the individual to choose his/her own coverage and pay for it themselves. If they are too poor to pay then a charity can step in and help. Charity is funded by people who VOLUNTEER to help pay for others. All the bleeding hearts can give the money they save from not paying higher taxes and give it to charity. Those who don't want to help aren't forced to do so.

Forcing you to pay another's bill through taxes is Tyranny.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 02:49 PM   #16
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,556
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

You are right that politics can really screw up a contry, hell look where we live. But leaving it to private charities is just not going to work either.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am willing to sacrifice if the money goes where it needs to go. As I have said before, my son has no insurance, can not afford to buy his own and works his ass off to get what he has.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 02:58 PM   #17
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
You are right that politics can really screw up a contry, hell look where we live. But leaving it to private charities is just not going to work either.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am willing to sacrifice if the money goes where it needs to go. As I have said before, my son has no insurance, can not afford to buy his own and works his ass off to get what he has.
Heck, we could start paying for some of with the allocations that W gave to his Office of Faith Based Initiatives... I didn't want that, yet I have to pay for it. Or how about lifelong benefits to those that servie in government office....? Why should they get lifelong protection when some of the people they represent don't get any protection at all?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 03:01 PM   #18
YJ_Runner88
Clarkston, Michigan
 
YJ_Runner88's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-27-08
Location: Clarkston/ East Lansing, Michigan
Posts: 162
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to YJ_Runner88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
We hear on the news everynight about the impending healthcare epidemic and how there are a multitude of uninsured Americans. The recent number that the nightly news has been using for Americans without health insurance is 47 Million. Sounds like a daunting number!

But what does that number really mean? Lets take a deeper look. 45% of those Americans have been without healthcare for less than 4 months (transitional jobs, graduating students, etc). And another 20% of that 47 Million make more than $80,000 a year and have healthcare available but are choosing not to take it.

So in reality, while there are still those without healthcare for whatever reason, the number is not nearly as convincing as some of the candidates in the current election would have you believe.


Numbers can always be manipulated!

Not to mention the 12-20 million un-welcomed illegal immigrants that i am pretty sure don't have health insurance.
YJ_Runner88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 03:02 PM   #19
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
Thats really not bad at all. I think its your scope thats messed up. That is a small percentage of all of America. American is huge (300 Million people). And to realize that most of those people have healthcare is amazing!

To give you the scope of how big America is, approximately 3.5 Million Americans are homeless right now (taken from The National Coalition for the Homeless website). OMG! Thats almost the size of Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. OR almost the size of Los Angeles. But in reality, its about 1% of our total pop. You see my point? Whenever your dealing with a number like 300 Million people and a country the size of America, the numbers will seem large.
You are leaving out the next logical and real step in the process. If you imagine driving around all the counties listed here and see how many people you come across and realize that because they don't have basic health care, they then only get treatment when it becomes an emergency, causing the cost to go through the roof, to the point where many of these people can't afford to pay it, so they lose their home (if they own one) or the bill gets paid by you and me. Either way, we are paying for it.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2008, 03:24 PM   #20
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Ideally that sounds good, but here's the rub. As soon as you crack the door....
You are speculating. Sure, it sounds very possible, but you are still speculating as to why it can't be done, when it hasn't even happened yet. Following that methodology it would be equally fair to say that if we cut taxes then bridges will collapse, and use the recent collapse as proof because some time before the collapse the governor of the state veto'd a budget to improve the bridge, or something like that.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright ©2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.29108 seconds with 50 queries