This Associated Press interactive graphic (via) displays the number of uninsured by state and provides state-specific details on the rise of health insurance costs (for employers and employees) for each state. The number of uninsured (darker = larger #s; note that this data is highly tied to the number of residents in each state):
Some data for Illinois:
To interpret: In Illinois, the amount of money an employer pays each year, on average, for a family has increased 65.3% over the last ten years, and the amount the employee pays has increased 88.4%. Employees with families now spend, on average, $2,743 a year for their health insurance. That translates into 7% of the family income (assuming a single breadwinner), up from 4% in 1996. Over a million workers in Illinois are not so lucky; they have no health insurance at all.
This data reminds us that, in addition to many uninsured, many of us are already paying for health insurance, so the use of taxes to pay for government provided health care would not necessarily cost those who are already insured and may actually save them money.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 14
zippa — September 22, 2009
Gotta say I think the graph is a little bit mis-representative, because it doesn't adjust for population density. Of course California, Illinois, NY, and Florida have higher numbers of uninsured people than Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas--the population in those states is much, much higher. Percentages or ratios would have been much more telling here. In this form it reads, with a few exceptions, like a population chart.
jfruh — September 22, 2009
Agreed -- this map is essentially useless, as the colors just mirror the total population of the various states. If there is interesting variations in the percentage of uninsured across the states, there needs to be a per capita map made.
AR — September 22, 2009
It is not necessarily a problem that percentage spent on health care is increasing, because there is just so much more health care to buy. Many of the people being bankrupted by medical bills today would simply have died even a decade ago.
That sort of thing happens all the time in history, as when the percentage of the economy consisting of manufacturing increased compared to agriculture even as agricultural output increased, or the percentage consisting of services increases even as industrial output continues to rise.
As a civilization becomes wealthier, one would expect health care to occupy an increasingly large percentage of consumption, since there is no rational upper limit to the amount and quality that could be consumed until everyone is completely ageless, for which we have a ways to go.
Feministe » Health Insurance, Unemployment and Bankruptcy — September 23, 2009
[...] when the illustrious Lauren of Feministe sent me this link, I wasn’t surprised at the findings. As costs have gone up, the number of uninsured people [...]
Health Insurance, Unemployment and Bankruptcy « La Lubu — September 23, 2009
[...] when the illustrious Lauren of Feministe sent me this link, I wasn’t surprised at the findings. As costs have gone up, the number of uninsured people [...]
opminded — September 27, 2009
"the use of taxes to pay for government provided health care would not necessarily cost those who are already insured and may actually save them money."
HA HA HA... LOL..... yeah, paying for 40 million uninsured won't cost us a thing!!
The battle for “America’s soul” – healthcare reform | soulpundit.com — March 25, 2010
[...] Add to this the growing number of those who lose their job and can’t afford health insurance and the outlook on quality of life is bleaker for many Americans. Check out state by state unemployment statistics here. [...]