Thursday, April 16, 2009

Graph: Living without Healthcare Coverage

I thought this was an interesting graph for two reasons. First, it shows the relatively longer time-frame of this recession over the last two major recessions (shaded areas). Second, it shows both the trend of the uninsured and how that trend is exaggerated by the current economic conditions.


Labels: , , ,


At 8:18 PM, Blogger The Wanderer said...

Well, that sucks.

At 12:01 AM, Anonymous w0lph said...

I think it would be interesting to see a corresponding graph of the kinds of labor that has been jettisoned, and the degree of risk (i.e. the need for health insurance) in those jobs.

At 3:54 AM, Blogger [e]nter/th3/m4tRix said...

I think an argument against Health Insurance can be made:

1. there are certain conditions in which the person's productive output does not afford his coverage of health insurance.

2. When the productive output of an individual cannot cover health insurance, they are not able to acquire it.

...therefore, when they cannot afford it, they do not acquire it.

At 11:47 AM, Blogger Brint Montgomery said...

I take it the real conclusion is "they should not be allowed to acquire it." Even so, I think I'd disagree, since, it seems that you've made the moral calculus based on the individual instead of society. Often individuals make very little money and contribute very little to society while they gear-up for greater things. A perfect example of this: college students. They have no money, typically; work krap jobs that pay very little, and yet they eventually become very productive citizens. Therefore, since we want to encourage this, it looks like we should think of our health insurance for them as an investment rather than a drain on financial resources. Society needs such people. Actually, in any case where it looks like the long-term trajectory of pay-off is in societies interest, we should be willing to invest earlier for the people advantage later.

At 3:01 PM, Blogger [e]nter/th3/m4tRix said...

I will grant you that if you do formulate a moral calculus out of the need for Health coverage and further that based on the interest of the whole, and not the one, then one should pay into a Health Coverage Pool, and that pool's beneficiaries would indeed be students and the like (as a note, I think this works fairly well for the student, but what about the independent contractor?).

However, I was not attempting to formulate a moral calculus, but rather a pragmatic one. Those that cannot afford health insurance cannot/do not receive it. that does not imply that a wealthy individual say, could not put-up some money for his student friend to be covered (it could be said that the payoff for the Wealthy Individual would be the student's excellent scores, and thus contracted to work for W.I's company)

However, if we were in fact to discuss this as an ethical schema, I would posit that your argument is:
i. Health Insurance delays the onset of death via monetary means
ii. Those that prolong society's growth delay society's death
...society should employ Health Insurance to delay (ii)'s death.

While I do not dispute your claims, I believe I can provide a counter argument:

Argument from Statisticcs:

a quick jaunt onto Google reveled that a greater proportion of people covered by Health Insurance comes from Private coverage plans, not public. Furthermore, Adults are by far the most covered category, and not children. Additionally, those coverage plans do not factor in the type of work (read: payoff) that adults perform. (link:

sorry about the link.

given those few facts, one may draw the conclusion that as far as actual Health Care coverage mechanisms are concerned: Society does not care about benefit, and it does not care about children and their potential.

Argument from within itself:

if we stipulate that society DID in fact care, and we as a whole donated our earnings towards a health care coverage for potentials, then we would still be unable to adequately cover them due to contradiction: Society as a whole needs individuals to lead and qualify society's existence. One may have 538 representatives, all debating the future of this health coverage, but it still would be 538 individuals: not everyone's voice will be included in the decision-making process. therefore, society cannot and should not govern health coverage.

If we stipulate that

At 3:03 PM, Blogger [e]nter/th3/m4tRix said...

I dont know what that very last fragment was doing down there.


Post a Comment

<< Home