Poverty Rate Falls, but More Lack Health Insurance
By bluegal Monday Aug 27, 2007 1:04pm
(click image for larger) From AP via The Houston Chronicle:
The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.
Evelyn Brodkin, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, said she expects the rising number of people without insurance to get more attention in the campaign. The share of Americans without health insurance hit 15.8 percent last year, up from 15.3 percent the previous year.
Johnson said the increase in the percentage of uninsured was mostly fueled by a decline in employer-provided health coverage. "It affects people in the middle, and it affects corporations," Brodkin said. "Especially those who compete globally, they are really hurting because they have to compete with companies that don't have huge health insurance bills for their labor force."
And they don't have huge health insurance bills because their countries are civilized enough to provide healthcare for their citizens? Has anyone out there gotten a job with full health insurance benefits lately?
The tipping point in the healthcare debate, I'm afraid, will come not when the needs of individual human beings are considered, but when the "needs" of General Motors to "compete" internationally outweighs the "need" of Blue Cross/Blue Shield to make a profit. Only when the MSM realizes that a single payer plan is "good for US business," will the debate take a positive turn.
Login or Register to post comments.
Better hope to Gawd you don't get sick here...
Because if you do anything of value will be toast....
Wasn't the poverty line redrawn a few years ago, in order to reduce poverty?
Politically designed numbers don't mean much at all.
"She expects the rising number of people without insurance to get more attention in the campaign."
She must be new to US politics.
Ok, wait for the republican/libertarian response ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 - 'But THAT'S SOCIALISM!'
A Question: What percentage of Americans were without health insurance in 2000?
I don't know the answer, but I am very curious. I think that this would be a good reference date because this is when a change in governmental philosophy changed.
When the housing bubble really pops then your going to see what the level of poverty really is in America. The slight of hand that has held up the economy is about to fail, and we will all find it hard to cover our health care needs.
The issue is not the number in dollars that now reflects the median or mean income. The issue is what are we now defining as the American Dream and how much does that cost to have it. Middle America was the American Dream. The Dream use to include health insurance. (Along with a few other things.)
But if we give everyone health insurance, how will health insurance CEOs and shareholders make their hundreds of millions of dollars?
Why doesn't anyone ever worry about the needs of the rich?
You people should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to take the silver spoons out of the mouths of the decedent. How would you like if you could only afford one new yacht a year?
If anything I think these unfortunate people need a tax break, for all their hard work breaking our backs. And then denying our coverage for said back injury.
I really like the "public school" arguement--that we see the benefit in educating everybody, and we should make sure that whether you live or die isn't based on having rich parents. My concern is how we, in the application of single-payer healthcare, keep the situation from devolving into what has become of our education system. Rich people pay for private schools, while people in poor areas go to school in dumps. Has anybody come up with a way that would really be effective at preventing a parallel system?
Typical University of Chicago bullsh*t, huh?
They give the half of the story that argues for ditching employer-sponsored health insurance. Leave out the rest.
(BTW: U of Chicago has very good employee benefits, in case you're wondering.)
koko @ 8:
Funnee....
These people are sucking the life out of the unwashed masses....
Avery Davis @ 4:
Weaseldog @ 2:
DING DING DING! The man wins a cewpie.
I take your point, bluegal, but I'm not sure if I'd characterize that as a "positive turn." This debate really should be won on the merits of the heart and collective responsibility. "Winning" on corporate terms will have its own set of unfortunate consequences...
I consider myself extremely lucky that my employer pays 100% of my healthcare premium! Unfortunately it's over $500/month to cover my wife.
The problem with the school analogy is that the funding comes from the local tax pool.
This is, poor areas receive lower overall amount in taxes... because things like property taxes -which is one of the main sources of funding for local highschool- recover much less funds in poor areas (lower housing prices, thus lower dollar amount taxes) than in wealthy neighborhoods.
If the money for high schools would come from a single federal or state pool. You can have every city receive money according to their needs not their means -which is how socialism works- So you can really fund education in areas which can't really afford due to their lower incomes.
That is obviously something that the rich don't want, as education is one of the great equalizers. Same system would be implemented in a socialized health care approach like it is in most of the western world.
I just love how all these rich GOP types hate socialism but love calling themselves Christians. The cognitive dissonance is deafening with these types.
The problem with poverty falling, but more people are without healthcare, is the inability to afford health care can generate unpayable bills when emergencies happen, and they become impoverished.
It's all part of our economic news having so many reports, durable goods, employment rate (with non-farm positions so supposedly there's one with), new unemployment claims, the various corporate profit reports, new home sales, inventory, foreclosures, bankruptcies, the actions of the Federal Reserve Chairman, import/export balance and imbalances, trade negotiations with foreign countries and with unions, the deficit, the budget et al, there's no one to pull it all together as a unified view of what's happening.
That's why everyone wants to win the scratch and sniff lottery.
I hope some expert takes a look at those figures to see if the poverty rate rose before it fell during the bush years.
Petro @ 13:
Why isn't GM getting behind single payer now? It would relieve them from huge liabilities going forward.
Liberal AND Proud @ 12:
Indeed, never mind that in a lot of these articles they mention the mean income rose but they forget to adjust it for inflation. And also never mind that how inflation in the US is a total bullshit metric since it ignores things like food and gas, so as long as you are a typical American family which does not eat nor drive, the US inflation index truly reflects the impact on the money supply on your daily life.. not!
Everything is smoke and mirrors in the USA. It gets really tiring....
Anyhow, this comes from U of Chicago, the same cesspool which gave Strauss a platform for his neo-conservative bullshit.
U.S. poverty rate rose in 2004, even as economy grew
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/31/business/poverty.php
Joe Klein's conscience @ 18:
I am not an economist, but my spidey-sense tells me that some corporate sectors are more ascendant in power than others, and sadly the pharmaceutical/insurance seem to hold more sway...
It's not a conspiracy, it's a feeding frenzy.
Bingo! I work for AT&T and am luckily a Union worker. However, we have already been advised by the reps that come contract time the company has already warned of SHARP cuts in our health care bennies. Workers are advised to save up to two or more months of rent/expenses to offset what looks like a certain strike. Of course most of us live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to put aside even the cost of vehicle upkeep much less a month or more worth of expenses.
What kills me is Telecom companies are, what top 3 or 5 in campaign contribution money? You'd think with that kind of influence they'd be angling for universal health care to lower their costs instead of trying to screw the little guy out of equal internet access. *bangs head against desk*
The Median Household Income...in 2004 that was two and one half people per household just to make $44,000 a year. How many does it take now?
There isn't one single thing to be thankful for from this gang. The salary amount may be up but so is everything else. So really the mean is around $30,000, if that.
If you want a somewhat accurate indicator of how well we're all doing, covert your annual pay into barrels of oil and then track how you've done the past 10 years.
the socialism bit always kills me. we have public schools(tho the far right has TRIED to villify and then privatize it for years)
we need health care for everyone and we should be ashamed as a county that we don't.
I'm sure many of you out there are like me - with a small business or even freelancers who have to find a way to afford these things while also financing your own "American Dream". It feels good to know that our struggles have no place in the conversation but when government subsidized corporations have trouble being competitive while still fundding their shareholder's lavish lifestyles it's real cause for alarm. Bail out Citibank, Countrywide and the auto industry - but when my business has a bad month my power is cut, phones are cut and the IRS want's to know why I'm short on my taxes... and fines me with interest. Yes, our government makes a profit off our struggles. It's not just that our health in this country is of concern only in relation to our wealth - our entire importance as an American is only in proportion to our wealth.
It's a proud time to be an American.
U.S. Poverty Rate Jumps
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/national/main527453.shtml
"We have the best health care system in the world." (TM)
If one doesn't have health care, one is an experiment to these hospitals. The first thing out a doctor's mouth is, do you have health insurance, not what's problem.
Another thing most hospitals will over charge for little things just like haliburton.
Joe Klein's conscience @ 18:
Because GM sees that problem as the means to ship all US jobs overseas.
Don't be fooled by these numbers. In my daily walk through life I meet a large number of people who aren't counted. They have only temporary addresses and employment. Little of their work is done on the books and nothing in their life is insured.
They have no bank accounts, e-mail addresses or debit cards. They are legal citizens of the United States but live under the radar of society. Some use social service but sporadically, if at all. Churches and private services make up what they can't hussle on the streets.
More adult children are living with their parents, dragging down their ability to save for the collapse of the Social security system. Adults living with parents but still working themselves, and unable to afford the health insurance their parents can no longer provide via their own employment.
Number like these are reassuring to those who want to maintain tax breaks for the wealthy. But they are inadequate to actually measure what poverty is or who struggles with it.
DemoChristian @ 32:
Great point. More should be written and researched in regards to this. Thanks.
If it takes socialism to get 47 million people health insurance then give me socialism. When you are sick you don't give the sh*t if your country is communism, socialism, or f**king taoism. Sick is sick.
none of this means anything
wait till this winter, when the housing market totally collapses, foreclosures jump to all time highs and the economy goes into a deep recession.
i hate to be the "doom and gloom" lib, but i predicted all of this 4 years ago, when people were jumping into the subprime market without thinking
not sure who was covering for el druggo this morning, but the idiot basically said that the gov shouldnt step in to bail out anyone, so that they would all learn their lessons
and that is the mindset of the compassionate conservative....eff everyone else, cuz im gonna be fine
where do they find these geniuses?
with mass forclosures, there will be a dominoe effect on the economy, that will hit everyone but the super rich....but i guess that was the plan all along
Single-payer health insurance in Canada started in one province. When it was shown to be successful, cost-effective, and popular (and after doctors failed to defeat it by means of a strike), the federal government and the other provinces adopted it.
The same method should be tried in the US. If one state with a tradition of populism (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon?) can start the ball rolling, this will create a model and incentive for other states.
Yell as they might about the false issues of bureaucracy and government control (both are bullshit - single-payer is far less bureaucratic than private insurance, and Canadians generally have more choice of doctors than they would under HMOs), conservatives can't argue with states going their own way. That's what states' rights is all about isn't it?
BTW, I pay $54 per month for health insurance (no, Canadian health care isn't "free", at least not in my province). Couples pay about $90, families of three or more, $108 (if you are poor or low-income, you can apply for lower premiums or none at all). This covers all doctor and hospital visits, except things like Botox and cosmetic nose-jobs. No co-pays or extra charges are allowed. Dentistry is not covered. Drugs are generally not covered, but poor people and seniors can get free drugs, and most working people have some form of drug coverage.
Canada insures everybody and spends about 8% of GDP on health care. In the US, 47 million people have no coverage at all,
tens of millions more are underinsured, and medical care takes up about 14% of GDP. The difference? The overhead and bureaucracy of the private insurance industry. Insane.
ACCOUNTING FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
35
uncle joe mccarthy Says
I agree 100%. Plus lets not forget that subprimes were sucker mortgages that help keep our economy "booming(?)" by letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry to buy a home. Now that the suckers have to refinance, our wonderful FED leadership(Bernicke and his predecessor Greenspan, who encourage ARMs have tightened credit so that these same schmucks that were credit worthy during the go-go years of 2004-2006 can't even qualify for new refinancing!!
Take the teaser, SUCKER, and we will let the government screw you when you try to refinance when the high real interest rate start kicking in.
Hey, I'm wearing that image on my shirt right now! The guy who made it must be a genius.
/Guy who made it.
There were 39 million uninsured Americans in 2000, compared to 47 million today. A 20% increase. Booming econonomy results in 20% increase in uninsured Americans.
I know I am impressed with these numbers. Hows about you, King George??
Cantor de Mambo @ 29:
You obviously do NOT WORK within the system. See the movie "Sicko" to see the real world of health care and also hit retirement age. That is the real world - not the political story.
Why not a bit more skepticism of a government that engineered the Senior Prescription Drug Program? Was that really about "health" care, or was it about a giant subsidy for Big Pharma? I guess I'm in the minoirty here but the government is not my knight in shining armor when it comes to my health.
Some years back, obesity was a rare problem that perhaps aflicted a few well-off people. Now it is a full-blown epidemic that disproportionately affects the poor. You're asking the same government that allows food giants to sell cancerous junk to the public and big pharma to sell harmful drugs on an unpredented scale to oversee my health. No Thank you.
I believe all should have the peace of mind that when something truly awful happens (like sawing off some fingers) that insurance will pay for it. If that is a public agency of some kind then so be it. But let's not kid ourselves. Most health care cost is based on preventable disease. The government is not interested in prevention. There are too many interested parties making 100's of billions off sick maintenance (Big Pharma).
It a shame you can’t believe the numbers Washington conjures up. Since the Chimp and his henchmen have had control, all the numbers they report are unreliable. Everything from the cost of his illegal invasion; both in dollars and lives, inflation rate, Fed bank-bailout numbers, crime rates, the size of the deficit, numbers killed in New Orleans, poverty rates, unemployment rates………..etc……etc…. All Bullshit. Crooks and Liars, all of them {Where have I heard that before?}
1st I don't beleive anything that this govt publishes....2nd...I'm glad I have VA med benefits...without them I'd be screwed......we need a national heathcare policy...far too many aren't covered in anyway.
Annoyed Canuck @ 36:
Though I wouldn't support a full-blown single payer system, I would support universal coverage for everyone up to 18 years old. I believe if you end teenage years as a healthy adult, you're half-way home to being healthy and productive the rest of your life. Several individual states have made an attempt at this. Vermont is one of those states and their efforts are apparently being sabotaged by the Bush Administration - http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070822/N...
This just in ...a great white shark has attacked a freind of mine at my local beach..he has been medivaced to Stanford...my freinds tell me it looks doubtfull if he'll survive....he has no ins......I'm going down to the beach to find out more....later folks....this happened at Marina Beach in Monterey County Calif.....
So government tax receipts are at an all-time high (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QUB3E00&show_article=1&catnum=0), unemployment is low (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), poverty is down and household income is up (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/...) and the deficit is falling (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/white-house-lowers-deficit-forecas...) and you guys don't like it. That is very sad.
Aside from the 47 million, there are a good number who have
insurance in name, but who can lose it very quickly both with
co-pay and not being able to work.
Annoyed Canuck @ 36:
Also we don't hesitate to go to the doctor when we're ill. We get the treatement we need when we need it, thus preventing serious illness from developing. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure... you work it out, America.
47 Josh Friday
One of the things that lower unemployment is when people run out of unemployment compensation. That doesn't mean they've found work, or that it might be only temporary, or part-time or seasonal, or self-employed (who have to cover themselves). Additionally, illegals getting jobs can skew the numbers.
Most of your other numbers are only comparisons between 2006 and earlier years of the boosh debacle. It may be an improvement within his own records but not any of his predecessors.
Additionally the deficit reduction you cited don't take in war costs.
the most astonishing thing to me is that Corporations have not been at the forefront of demanding universal health care. If businesses were no longer made to be the chief funders of healthcare, they would automatically enjoy greater competitiveness on the world markets - this would especially be true when competing against nations that provide universal healthcare. You know, like most of Europe.
Instead they are fighting against it. It is unlikely that any employer payroll taxes would ever approach what they are currently paying in employee benefits. Doesn't make sense. Seems like they are just engaged in a self-defeating show of solidarity with those corporations that profit from the current system. Doesn't show a whole lot of vision by the corporate and business leaders. Oh, what the hell....just so long as those leaders get 500-or-so times the pay and benefits as the people who are the companies, what does it matter?
Only Dennis Kucinich is proposing a true Single-Payer Not-for-Profit Healthcare Plan. ALL the other Democratic candidates keep the Insurance Companies in the equation. (When I'm sick how does an insurance company get me healthy? They don't. So get them the hell out.)
If we're going to go through the bother of constructing a new health care plan for the country lets do it right the first time so we don't have to correct it again later.
If we keep the insurance companies in the equation eventually their profit motive will creep back in and we'll be facing the same situation all over again.
So I ask you C&L'ers who support Hillary, Barack or John. Please ask them to remove insurance companies from their Healthcare plans.
unfrozencaveman @ 45:
If the rationale is to ensure that young people are healthy, you have to do more than insure kids. You have to provide pre-natal care to pregnant mothers. Lots of poor expectant mothers in the US don't get basic nutritional counselling, screening for diseases, etc. The result in many American cities is infant mortality rates that compare with poor countries in Africa. It's a colossal waste - and totally preventable, at minimal cost.
Anyway, this rationale is flawed. People get sicker - and create more medical costs - as they get older. That's when most people need medical insurance.
Millions of the unfortunate borrowers who are getting nailed in the sub-prime mortgage mess (stay tuned - it's going to get a lot worse over the next year, as teaser rates expire and higher rates kick in) are older, uninsurable Americans who mortgaged their houses to pay medical bills. The medical insurance crisis isn't just a medical problem, it's an economic issue that affects housing, manufacturing, pensions - every part of the economy. It's no coincidence that outsourcing, the crash in real estate prices, record consumer and government debt, underfunded pensions (the next US financial crisis), are all happening at the same time in the one country that doesn't have public health insurance.
They should stay away from citing percentage rises, especially when the percentage rise is less than one percent. You use the number that hits the gut.
Based on a population of 300,000,000 people, a half a percentage rise is equal to 1,500,000. 1.5M more people are uninsured this year than last.
Another year and a half of BushCo and that is 2.25M more uninsured Americans (on a straight line basis). But here is the scary part, if another ReThuglican is elected president and that will increase to another 6M uninsured people on top of that. When you go to vote in 2008, do you want to take that risk that you won't be one of them? That is a 1/50 chance. Compare that with you chances of being hit by lightning or your chances of being the victim of a terrorist attack.
Progressives haven't been overly hot about this topic, if the truth be told. This blog has made repeated requests for progressives' support, and it got a whole lot of nothing in response. It made a good point: why aren't progressive health blogs on many progressive blog rolls? Or quoted or linked much? Can't say I know the answer, but maybe there's a reason.
If you haven't seen Moore's SICKO, get the DVD when it comes out. I'm going to buy it and share
with others. Hillary is shown in the movie to be the Corporate Democrat shill she is. She's got a
special seat at the table for her health ins./drug co. lobbyists. She's bought and paid for by corporate
America, just like ALL the Republicans.
Mark Cartwright @ 56:
But, but I'm confused! Hillary recently said that lobbyists and their money don't have any influence on her!
Maybe the problem is Insurance companies need to be middlemen for everything "Universal" and "Public" in our society. Since all the Democratic Presidential Candidates (except Dennis Kucinich) keep Insurance Companies in their Healthcare plans perhaps they should also consider injecting Insurance companies into other areas of our public life?
Perhaps I should have to purchase an Insurance policy to drive on public roads, send my kids to public schools or have access to the public police & fire departments. Why not? If the Democrats think they're essential to the healthcare equation I'm sure they could rationalize some reason to open all public venues to Insurance companies.
A ridiculous consideration for sure. I'm just trying to point out how wasteful and absurd it is to include Insurance companies in Healthcare plans.
The truth is Insurance Companies interfere with our ability to get quality affordable healthcare, not assist it. Its no different than Tony Soprano providing "Protection" to a local business owner. Tony Soprano is the "threat" they need protection from. If he didn't exist no protection would be necessary.
everyone is forgetting the fact that those that do offer health care only do it to full timers here in oklahoma and they hire just
enough people to make damn sure that noone gets full time status
mudshark @ 46:
Holy shit mudshark, you weren't kidding!
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-ex-shark29aug29,0,5522277.story?col...
I don't know if anyone has answered the question: Has anyone out there gotten a job with full health insurance benefits lately?
Well, I haven't received full benefits in a long time. But I worked in the Senate for two awful years and I can tell you that Senators, Congressman / women, and all their staff and all those who do the work of Congress, receive full health care benefits. Benefits that are denied to Americans as a whole. What's good enough for Congress is good enough for the country. Yes? This is really an outrageous situation. I don't know why isn't brought up continuously and hammered into the mind of Americans. Full health care benefits are good enough for the Hill, but not for the rest of us.
I have had health care in the United States and now I live in New Zealand. New Zealand is a democracy. In fact, woman's vote was law before the states. I can honestly say in the 60's and early 70's health care in the states was good. Now with the HMO's I have seen so much degradation in the quality. I went in for a physical before I moved to New Zealand and I was appalled. No urinalysis, no blood test, no xrays , the way they use to do it. This was an HMO I had been paying 100.00 a month. On the wall in the office it read it read "if there is something wrong with you, we will call you, do not call us." Incredible. Recently I got a kidney stone. I went to my doctor who immediately called the hospital to get me in. I waited for about 30 minutes in a lot of pain. The hospital doctor looked me over, urinalysis, blood work, and cat scan(I think it was a cat scan, not sure) and they administered pain pills. I had to rest overnight in the hospital to get the xray in the morning. Nurses checked up on me. I was most impressed with the doctors... they nailed the diagnosis right away. They are good here. When I left the hospital the next day, I paid a total of $0.00 dollars. I live in a democracy(not a socialistic or communistic country) and I paid 0 for health care here. You can't believe what that does to your psyche. Changes your outlook on everything. I use to live in California and I am paying about the same in taxes here as in the states. When you add up all the taxes, state, federal, social security, sales, etc. So, it really isn't the issue of taxes with the exception of a huge defense bill. A national health care system could easily be done without raising the taxes by eliminating the Cheney and his side kick, Bush, war machine.
And for the people with health insurance (like me... but only very recently) get the bare-bones, 'why the hell are we paying to not have almost anything covered' shit that we can afford.
It's horrible.
So since the poverty rate fell a little bit. Does that mean then that it is back to a better figure than pre-Bush figures? Just a little curious. Thats all.
Gort @ 60:
no... sadly... I am not kidding...but ...so far it looks like he might make it.We're trying to organize a local fundraiser for him..........lets hope for the best..
....
PS...it looks like they took him to a med clinic in San Jose.....reports are he is in stable condition.thanks for all your thoughts.
Todd is the 4th one that I know of personally to get hit by one of the MFrs....what are the odds?
but he's not out of the woods yet.
Will America ever wake up or will it continue it's decline into a failed state?
Health care Insurance (the way it is enacted in most Western nations) is a F#$%g SCAM !!!!
The bottom line is, and always will be, money.
If a private hospital can save money it will.
If an insurance company can save money it will.
The end user (the patient) will ALWAYS be a lower priority than how much money the business can make.
...and this is the tragedy of a capitalistic system. For whatever reason there will always be people who do not make a Hundred grand a year, and these people need help.
Regardless what the Politicians or Wingnuts say.
The thing that surprises me to this day, is how so many people are STILL scared of the term "Socialism" !
Jesus H Christ, the masses have been so brainwashed by corporate America and it's willing compatriots in the media that they still fear a term that means little more than the government funding of ANYTHING.
I bet that each and every single person that denounces the term "Socialist or Socialism" use government services!
Whether it be Schools,
Hospitals,
Parks,
Roads and Highway's (including, maintenance, building, control of),
Public Playing Fields,
Library's,
Social and Health Centres, Museums,
Waterway's, Beaches,
Social Security payments in any form,
Government Buildings that are used by the Public,
Ambulances,
Beach Life Savers,
Park Rangers,
Street Cleaners,
Police (Federal or State)
Emergency Services (now that we got rid of all that "socialism" nonsense you're doing a heck of a job Brownie!)
Learning centres for the Aged, very young, disabled etc,
Community Colleges,
or any of the many many areas that the Government should fund. Because THAT IS WHY WE PAY TAXES dammit!
It is necessary and is not a bad thing.
After all what the hell do you pay TAXES for??? Certainly not so that a large chunk of that money will go to the military Industry which can then be syphoned off into Haliburton.
Get over it. Socialism is a good thing and it is absolutely necessary.
IT IS YOUR MONEY NOT THEIRS !!
The so-called increase in median household incomes is a bad joke. It's called inflation. The dollar has all but collapsed and whatever the increase in income, the actual buying power is far less than it was a year ago.
To bring about the needed universal health care we need a careful thought out, workable, efficient plan. For such a plan see
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
I am not sure if someone included this b/c I didn't flip through all the comments, but the increase in the median income is not an indicator that poverty is being alleviated, in fact, the gap between the rich and poor is growing, and rapidly. This is bad news.
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7055911
Or just do a search for gap rich poor America and you will see a wealth of web based material supporting this.
I don't understand why everyone takes that "Median Income" as anything other than nonsense. How about taking out the top 1 percent which would include those CEOs who get the $53million dollar bonuses and take out the bottom 1 percent that would include those who make $0 dollars and only average the rest. Then you'd get an honest assessment of "Median Income"
As far as health care goes, if you don't have insurance, you are expected to die and get out of the way for those high up elite crooked politicians and CEOs who are "deserving" of special treatment. You know, the millionaires and billionaires who get free health insurance from bleeding the rest of us with high prices and low pay.
Oh! Did I hear a "Go F--- Yourself" from the VPs office? What a surprise!!!!!
Christopher @ 75:
The gap between rich and poor is not growing. Sorry to disappoint you. Our own Census Bureau can tell you that:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/...
"- Using money income only, income inequality -- the gap between rich
and poor -- showed no change when measured by the Gini index or
household quintile shares."
"- However, using the four alternative income definitions, income
inequality declined over the 2001-2002 period. The Gini index
declined and the share of aggregate household income increased for
households in the middle 60 percent of the income spectrum and
declined for the highest 20 percent."
Also:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT200... virtually no statistical change in income inequality, based on a statistical test by the Census Bureau
Login or Register to post comments.