At a time when state budgets are being cut and state employees are having to take unpaid furlough days, the federal government wants to put more strain on state budgets.
Apparently states with the greatest population of uninsured are going to take the biggest hit to their budgets. States such as Texas and California will have to kick in with a larger amount for their medicaid programs.
California's secretary of Health and Human Services Agency, Kim Belshé had this to say: “The federal government has to account for states’ inability to sustain our current programs, much less expand."
The graphic below I believe illustrates well the greatest affected states/regions of the country. The illustration is easy to decipher and clear in what it is displaying. Though the text underneath the two US representations is exactly clear as to what it means.
What exactly are they talking about here? Are we talking people with jobs that don't make enough to afford their own health insurance? I think what their trying to say is that its a portion of the employed or having income population that doesn't have H.I. and will in fact qualify for medicaid in 2014. It's not stated very clearly.
Overall if you looking at these maps to see where the hardest hit states are, it a good map. Secondly it also shows regions in which a majority of people will benefit and where the majority won't.
Another issue surrounding the topic of health care is, the government is putting in a stipulation that it is going to be mandatory to have. Many disagree with this like this guy.
I think this graphic was a nice choice and flows very well with the article you selected. The quote you chose to include was relevant and was a good segue for the link. You also did a nice job of including the graphic directly in your blog, writing nice concise paragraphs and writing in a conversational way. Well done!
ReplyDeleteI agree that, overall, this graphic was pretty straightforward and easy to read. But, I agree too, that the number v. portion, is slightly confusing. It seems that they're stating similar things in a different way? I'm not sure if, for the portion, they mean the portion of people who would qualify out of all the uninsured people in that state? So, that should have been clarified (by those who made the graph).
Another thing that would have made this graph better would be to provide the number for more than three of the states. For people that don't live in those three states, the graph isn't as effective as it could be. This is because the readers have to estimate this number themselves based on the size of the dot or circle on their state, which many won't take the time to do.
I agree, this map needs a lot more explaining in order to be 100% effective.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that the 'number' portion is exactly as it sounds. There are 'x' amount of people in this state that would qualify for Medicaid.
The 'portion' map is the confusing one, something brought up in your blog. I want to say that it's a representation of the percentage that 'number' is of the state's total population. But according to the map, 3.4 million is roughly 45-50% of the portion of California...I don't think so. California has 36 odd million people.
The numbers don't add up, or the graph isn't explained clearly enough.