“States’ rights” is as popular a rallying cry as ever as we enter the early stages of the 2012 election campaign.
To advocates of states’ rights, they are code words for state innovation and initiative, unhampered by the demands of a federal government. In their minds, we are a United States of America.
To skeptics, we are a United States of America, and states’
rights are the code words of political leaders who want to run their states as fiefdoms
and answer to no higher authority.
The new 2010 uninsured numbers released by the U.S. Census Bureau last week make a compelling case against the states’ rights position.
In the South, where the drum roll for states’ rights beats most loudly, 19% of all people were uninsured 2010 for the entire year. This was more than in the West, where 18% were uninsured, the Midwest, where 13% were uninsured, and the Northeast, where only 12% were uninsured.
Place clearly matters where health insurance is concerned, and innovation and initiative in providing coverage for health care take a back seat in the Mecca of states’ rights.
Geography is an important factor in determining insurance status, but it isn’t the only one. Others include:
·
Race and ethnicity – 31% of Hispanics were
uninsured for the entire year, as were 21% of blacks;
·
Immigrant status – 34% of all foreign-born U.S. residents
were uninsured, including 45% of those who are not citizens and 20% of those
who are;
·
Income – 27% of people in households with less
than $25,000 per year were uninsured.
But as bad as these numbers look, what’s behind them in the more detailed tables that accompanied the Census Bureau release is worth examining.
It isn’t race, immigrant status, or income driving the health insurance numbers. It’s geography.
Consider this fact. The news headlines reported that 16.3% of the population of the United States as a whole was uninsured. But when you remove people over the age of 65 – who are almost universally insured through the federal Medicare program – the percentage rises to 18.4%.
But in the two biggest southern states of Florida and Texas – where the new leaders of the states’ rights movement sit in Governor’s chairs – the numbers are far worse.
In Florida, 24.6% of all people under the age of 65 were uninsured in 2010 for the entire year.
In Texas, 26.9% of all people under the age of 65 were uninsured in 2010 for the entire year.
Florida has earned its states’ rights badge through Governor Rick Scott’s attack on the Affordable Care Act. His administration has refused to implement its consumer protections. He has famously refused to accept public funding for many needed services because the funds were associated with the Act. And he has turned down dollars to set up a health insurance exchange that would make more privately-funded insurance available in the state, too.
Texas has earned its badge through Governor Rick Perry’s attack on Medicaid. He has advocated repealing the Medicaid program in its entirety, making Medicaid a block grant so that Texas can do whatever it wants with it. He once suggested seceding from the union if he didn’t get his way.
The one thing that neither Rick Perry nor Rick Scott can do is blame the federal government for the failures of their states to insure their populations properly. Nor can they blame racial, ethnic, immigration, and income factors.
Mississippi, South Carolina, Maryland, and Georgia all have higher percentages of African Americans than Texas and Florida, but lower percentages of uninsured people. New Mexico has a higher percentage of Hispanics than Texas, but a lower uninsured percentage. And California has more undocumented immigrants than Texas and Florida combined, but a lower uninsured percentage, too.
Florida and Texas are also by no means the poorest states in the union.
Florida and Texas have reached the bottom of the uninsured barrel through their own policy actions and despite their considerable assets.
When their governors talk about states’ rights in the area of healthcare, they seem to be arguing that every state should aspire to their level of failure.
Meanwhile, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that more people in Texas and Florida will become insured when the Affordable Care Act is implemented by the federal government in a little over two years.
This has been characterized in recent Presidential debates as a federal takeover of health insurance. But does anyone seriously believe that we would ever have needed an Affordable Care Act – or that it would have passed – if every state, including Texas and Florida, had taken care of its own problem like Massachusetts did?
In Massachusetts, only 6% of the population was uninsured in 2010.
If you have questions about this column, or would like to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.
If you have questions about this column, or would like to receive an email notifying you when new Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.
Comments
Post a Comment