poverty and unisured numbers up
 

The U.S. Census Bureau announced Thursday that the number of citizens living in poverty and without health insurance rose in 2003.

The government agency says the poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent of the population, or 34.5 million, in 2002, to 12.5 percent, or 35.8 million last year. The poverty rate for children under the age of 18 also increased from 16.7 percent, or 12.1 million in 2002, to 17.6 percent in 2003, or 12.9 million.

The number of citizens without health insurance coverage rose by 1.4 million last year for a total of 45 million people. The percentage of uncovered citizens rose from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003.

Do you have the numbers on the population increase? Or are we to assume that the population has remained the same and people's economic situation has made a turn for the worst? I'm sure Kerry will assume the latter and blame the increase in numbers on the Bush administration.

I suspect that the percentages are the answer to your question, Paul. Percentages of the entire population, I assume.

But I'm not sure I should assume that. The figures for uninsured are unexpectedly low. I wonder if this is the number and percent of folks who are WORKING and not covered by health insurance. My belief is that the proportion of Americans, whether employed or not, who lack health insurance is fairly high. Higher than 15.6%. But that's just my wild guess, perhaps wrong.

Still, by any measure, things are not moving in the happy direction.

Maybe the lazy ba$tards should:
(1) get off their fat assess and get a job
(2) Put their legs together and quit bringing children into the world that they can't possibly support.

Well, one thing that needs to be noted towards putting their legs together (which I 100% agree with) is that there are a lot of Catholics who are immegrating to this land. Catholics are not permitted to use a reliable form of birth control other than abstinance.

Thats about the most uneducated thing I've seen posted here. You must be very proud.:rolleyes:

Go get a job. Like they grow on trees.

I heard that Long Beach was looking for another 3000 workers to handle all the foreign shipments into the US.. and they got FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND APPLICATIONS!.. oi

Right. Some of our posters here probably believe that sex education should not be taught in schools. The theory is (I guess), that if you don't tell them about sex, then they won't learn about it and won't engage in that activity.

Poverty can occur when you have a job.

Look at the definition - a family of four on $18,660 per annum.

--> a family of two kids is not "too much" (actually, arguably it isn't enough - 2.1 children required to replace the adult population)
--> $18,660 is (I believe) approximately 1 full time adult minimum wage

What that basically says is that the US has become a country where you cannot have a single income family of four (the traditional unit), working on the minimum wage, without poverty.

I would have thought that fixing this would be the number one priority for conservatives :rolleyes:

It's almost like I paid you to say that, Cam. glad you did. Federal minimum wage is $5.12 per hour. Assuming a 2000-hour work year, that comes to a whopping $10,240 per year, which is more than $850 per month before taxes (yes, remember those "payroll" taxes? They're WAY steeper than income tax).

So, I'm wondering. How do some of the conservatives on this Board suggest that a family budget this money so as to create a comfortable, or even just a secure (or even dry when it rains) environment for their families?

Or perhaps we imagine they would have two minimum wage jobs to support a family. But if they do that, then they'd be tired all the time and their kids would wonder where they're at. Who is going to teach them the "family values" taht conservatives speak so highly of. Who is teaching values to the children of the working poor? I know the answer to that one. Two sources:

Each other
Television

So, in my humble view, if conservatives really wanted kids and citizens to grow up productive and respectful and filled with christian values, then they would support a change in this law so that minimum wage can be set at a "living wage" level. That's about $15 per hour.

"minimum wage" should definitely be re-labelled as "poverty wage" because that's what it is.

And, both Wal-Mart and Target have been taken to task in the past year for, through their "contractors" paying no overtime to janitors and also paying $4.00 an hour, for 7 day work weeks.

Doctor MArk: Sometimes your remarks are very insightful. Unfortunately, the one about folks getting "off their lazy asses" etc. was not one of those. Insensitivity toward one's fellow human is never becoming, particularly from a supposedly educated individual.

minimum wage is $5.12 per hour. Assuming a 2000-hour work year, that comes to a whopping $10,240 per year,

Ooops, I should have researched. Now I remember - it is closer top $10/hour in NZ (maybe $9? - which is about US$5-6).

I don't actually approve of high minimum wages - I think it can screw up competition and I'd rather see economic success sort it out in the long run. However, I feel sad when I see low socio-economic people consistently being painted as "lazy", "dole bludging" etc.

For a start, I'm much lazier (just better educated) than a hell of a lot of minimum wage folks.

For the fourth time I'll post this link - anyone wonder how far $18k p.a. gets a family of four (I suspect noone actually watched the slideshow, based on responses that come afterwards on previous threads):

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm

The message - you can pretend that there aren't poor people in your country, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

The thing I don't understand is how a Vietnamese or Mexican family can immigrate to the US with nothing, and make a comfortable life. Today, I helped a Vietnamese couple paint the interior of their new home. The father and mother came to the US in the 70s and since then have managed to put 6 children through college and 2 through MED school. Don't tell me slanted eyes makes one automatically successful.

The only thing I can draw from this is poverty is not all about money. It's related to a state of mind. It's related to personal sacrifice. Yes, poverty indeed manifests in lack of money, but I doubt it has a lot to do with the rate of minimum wage. In other words, raising minimum wage to $15/hr won't solve the root problems that lead to poverty.
Just my humble opinion, Jürgen

Opportunities live on every corner. Hard work and perseverance trumps poverty every time. It's all about choice and I believe that people allow themselves into a life of poverty instead of being thrust into it. I know my beliefs sound harsh, but this one is a fundamental tenet of conservative beliefs. As far as compassion for my fellow man, well, I'll be happy to give them a fishing pole and teach him how to fish.

It is all about choice. If you don't have enough money to support yourself...why would anyone be stupid enough to have children? Then whine because they do not make enough to raise two or four children. the problem is that they are not held responsible for their actions. the government can always bail them out.....with the money of someone else who had a little discipline and made better choices.

Not being able to afford to have children (in a relationship) at some stage in your life (largely defined by woman's age - 18-35), is what I would consider another manifestation of, or even definition of, poverty.

Mark/Fint - it is not about choice. By definition, there will always be a relatively large percentage of the population who work in unskilled jobs at or close to minimum wage. They cannot ALL get ahead - no matter how hard they apply themselves.

The irony is that you pay for them one way or the other (ie - if you won't pay a higher wage, they'll be supported by the state).

Jurgen - what did that Vietnamese family do to earn the cash to put their children through school, etc.

If a man and woman cannot earn and save enough to have a child by the time they are 35 years old, they certainly should not be allowed to have children because there is certainly reason to terminte those defective gene pools with the current generation.
Allowing such idiots to have children would certainly be tantamount to child abuse...Of course it is more likely that these "poor" are having their children at a much younger age. That allows them much more fertile time to produce a brood sufficient in size to guarantee that they will never live in anything but poverty.
Sure it is about choice. Don't worry Cam, I don't think we have to be concerned about all of them working hard enough to get ahead that there is any sort of shortage of losers to do menial work...the danger is really that we compensate them so much to do nothing that they will refuse to work.

What income level do you think it is appropriate for a couple to be "able" to have children at?

ok, i gotta admit, deep down inside, i feel like mark. go and improve your living situation by bustingASS. and if you cannot afford to have kids, dont have any.

growing up, i found that alot of people on welfare, seem to think the opposite way, the more kids they have the better their own future. kids support the parents later on in life. kind of like a pension plan. but till then, life is hard.

not an easy fix for this one.
so if you get hurt without insurance, you go to a free clinic? i would hate to see the line at that office.