Tweet
If we start at the beginning of the alphabet with Alabama, and we toss out states with very high populations**, how many states would it take to reach a total of 50,000,000?
What would it look like if we ‘mapped it’?
How many states would it take?
The answer?
Sixteen: the populations of 16 states, or almost 1/3 of these United States, are about equal to the number of uninsured Americans.
Here are the numbers that I used, from recent data on the US population.
Alabama = 4,447,100
Alaska =626,932
Arizona = 5,130,632
Arkansas =2,673,400
Colorado =4,301,261
Connecticut =3,405,565
Delaware = 783,600
Georgia =8,186,453
Hawaii =1,211,537
Idaho = 1,293,953
Indiana = 6,080,485
Iowa = 2,926,324
Kansas = 2,688,418
Kentucky = 4,041,769
Maine = 1,274,923
Montana =902,195
If the Blue Dogs were asked, "Do you really think that it’s okay for the combined population of 1 out of every 3 states in these United States of America to remain uninsured?" would they try harder to understand the critical importance of the public option?
Is it really acceptable that the number of uninsured Americans is equal to the combined population of one-third of all states?
This little exercise underscored for me:
- 1. The issue of health care is not a trivial matter; but it is an issue on which smaller states have a hugely disproportionate impact because of the way that the US Senate operates.
- 2. The issue of health care affects a vast number of Americans, and a huge portion of the nation. I’d expected the population of uninsured Americans to fit inside seven or eight of the smaller states; I was stunned to realize that the number of uninsured equal the population of 16 of the 50 United States.
- 3. What does this mean politically? It’s obvious: smaller states have a wildly disproportionate influence on national issues that affect all Americans.
Does this mapping of the number of ‘states worth’ of Americans who have trouble obtaining affordable health care cause you to think about the politics of health care in a new way? What does it mean that 32,000,000+ Californians have the same number of Senate votes as 626,932 Alaskans?
If I divide 32,000,000 California voters by 626,932 Alaska voters, I come up with the number: 46.18.
Let’s round it to 46.
It appears that under US Senate rules, every single Alaskan has 46 times as much ‘voting power’ in the U.S. Senate as every single Californian.
If I divide 32,000,000 Californians by 1,274,923 Maine residents, it appears that each Maine voter has 25 times as much ‘Senate voting power’ as each Californian.
To summarize:
The combined populations of one-third of the 50 United States are unable to obtain affordable health care coverage.
Each Alaskan has 46 times the ‘Senate vote power’ of each Californian.
Each Maine resident has 25 times the ‘Senate vote power’ of each Californian.
Here’s another way to think of it: each resident of Alaska has 46 times the ‘Senate vote power’ of Steve Jobs, or of Brad Pitt, or of a cancer researcher at Stanford.
And each Maine resident has 25 times much ‘Senate vote power’ as Clint Eastwood, a neurologist working at UCLA, or the CEO of Google.
So tell me again, how ‘bipartisan’ discussions on health care are ‘fair’?
When we’re looking at ratios of 1:24, and 1:46, I’m really not very patient with bloviating about how bipartisanship is going to solve all our problems.
What it’s going to do is underscore extreme inequalities that do not reflect the majority views and needs of Americans all over this nation. How is this ‘equitable’?
————————-
** (California’s population is approximately 33,8716,48 and Illinois’s population around 12,419,293. The combined total of these two large populations is around 45,000,000.)
16 Comments
I don’t understand it either. Conservatives all too often in America drive the debate. Why is that? The Government is Center Right, the people are Center Left, no wonder there’s a dis-connect.
I’ve pondered this problem before, readerOfTeaLeaves, and found no answer. It’s a radical idea, I realize, but maybe the House should be able to pass legislation; the Senate only giving “advice and consent”. The Senate has, IMO, become just an appendage of the Executive Branch in which capacity it can kill the voice of the majority of the people.
While I’m sounding off, I think the Electorial College should be abolished and the election of officials be strictly by popular vote.
Nice job, rOTL.
Jason R — any chance you can tweak the image coding for rOTL if you are peeking in on comments? Thanks!
Merci beaucoup, Rayne and Jason R!
I saw your answer to me @127 over at EW, readerOfTeaLeaves. I gave you a big cupful to read this time, huh? When you publish your stunner, cross post it everywhere and lets steamroll the ‘internets’ with it. It is so timely though it was 22 years ago. ROTL, now you know why it has to be you.
I’ll watch for your Internet Pulitzer.
Thank you so much, ROTL.
If anyone wonders what I’m blathering about, here’s the link.
Goodness heavens, I have no idea why you seem to have such faith in me as I generally tend to come online and spout off (!). But yes, there were **tons** of dots in that video and I’d originally planned to run it while doing some other tasks, but ended up just watching it and taking copious notes because it’s so coherent and it connects so many dots so well.
And to think that it was done in 1987, just before GHWB ‘won’ election for President, is really demoralizing. It would surely be poetic justice if it received a wider viewership now — IMHO, back in 1987 the economy was still strong enough, and the world’s resources were still abundant enough, that people really didn’t want to hear what Moyers was saying.
Now, post TARP, post USAG firings, post Abu Gharib, post Blackwater no-bid contracts run out of the Exec Branch… well, Moyers has been vindicated enormously, sad to say.
I agree this really needs to resurface, because it’s explanatory power is huge.
Reader, I retired from a job in which I interviewed sometimes 500 people a week; people from all imaginable walks and stations of life. After some years at that there were few who fooled me; my ability to discern the genuine from the flim-flam became pretty darn good.
As I sat watching, tears streaming down my face, and mentally reviewing the names of commentators here at the Lake, when your name came up the bells went off. I pondered that question no longer.
BTW, this link was pointed out to me by a fellow Oxdownian who prefers to remain unnoticed and unnamed. I will be forever grateful to her.
I think I’ll go to PBS archives and download this in a better quality, then write to Bill Moyers and suggest that it be replayed on a current special.
I’m trying to keep from acknowledging the word, Requiem.
#8 continued: I swam around at PBS archives and the store; Zero results. Several people had sent in e-mails for instructions as to how to obtain a copy of Moyers’ 1987 special program but there were no answers.
I notice in lower right corner of clip is the Google logo, so will see what that produces.
@9 continued: I found the video on Google video. It can be embedded and diaries do allow Google videos.
Thank you — I’ll get on it later in the weekend and putter some on it next week.
Part of what really grabbed me about it was the repeated linkage with black money, tax havens, and Swiss bank accounts. And I hope that you saw last week’s news item regarding the US finally getting more cooperation from Swiss banks regarding hidden accounts… Sen Levin didn’t seem too optimistic, but it’s progress.
Better storytelling and more dots might help move that ball, but it’s clear to me that no government can control black ops or black money. The parasites take over.
ROTL, I realize I have asked a lot of you. Here are some additional instructions left on a prior thread by Ms. X who posted the link originally.
Thanks acquarius74; duly noted!
akak, ‘peace of mind‘ would certainly be more sane and mentally healthy than the current system.
Very kind of you, although I won’t hold my breath ;-)))
Given these stats, our message should just be “peace of mind”
Not living in constant fear of falling ill. Not quaking in your shoes as you open a letter from your health insurer. Not worrying about having children, or losing your job, because you know you can treatment you need when you need it without bankrupting yourself.
Peace of mind. It’s only three words!
Conservatives don’t want the Government to run Healthcare, but they want the Government to run everything else. Wars, Nation Building, intelligence agencies with no intelligence, a bloated MIlitary that could no more defend us than turn lead to gold. They want want low taxes, but that means they don’t want to pay for anything. When they ran the Government they didn’t pay for a thing, yet now they are supposed to be the fiscal watch dogs. They used our money to subsidize every posible big business interest, and did little to nothing for the people. Even Medicare part D was just a give away to the healthcare business, while looking like it was for the people.
So true, iremember54. Between the years 1980 and 85 I was a service rep and part of my job was explaining Medicare and the billing to claimants to whom much of it was like Greek. The stories I learned of abuse of the system and the patients would fill volumes. Excessive Greed has infected much of the health care profession.
I came to this town in 1977, population then about 35,000. There were 2 hospitals with good reputations which had been founded back in the horse and buggy days. Then, one was bought out by a big conglomerate from The East. Within 10 years that one had bought up every clinic within a 5 county area. Just recently it purchased the other hospital, so now it has It All.
One of the worst examples that I recall was a small farmer who approached my desk. He was about 70 years old, neat as a pin in his faded bib overalls; a most courteous gentleman. He handed me a bill from the Hawg Hospital showing that his part (that which Medicare would not pay) totaling $66,000 for his deceased wife’s final care. She had been hospitalized for about a month prior to her death and the bills showed that every test known to man had been administered to her. Medicare refused payment on many of the tests as “not medically necessary”.
In writing up his claim to have Medicare reconsider his claim, I asked him what had been the diagnosis. I was shocked when he replied, “they don’t know”. He showed me the death certificate: Cause of Death: Undetermined.
Rules forbade me from saying, “Sue the bastards!!”, but I was sorely tempted. I wrote up his request for reconsideration using every tool of my imagination, which was all I could do for him.
I don’t have answers as to how to curb the Greed, but somehow the potential for excessive profits must be eliminated from the health care profession.