President Obama, it's very simple.

[DiscoBiscuit]

Thanks for the link IAO.

The honest truth, however, is that we surely have better health care now than we have ever in the past.

The World health organization rates us as #37. One in every six Americans aren't able to purchase health insurance. This number grows by 17,000 people every single day.

BCBS of America has 50 executives in 50 states making hundreds of millions in annual salary. The executive in my state made 17 mil last year. The only way he can make that kind of money is to slash his roles and reject others he deems a risk.

This ain't investment banking and it ain't Vegas. If those execs are too thirsty to drink from the same well as us, don't let it be health care. FW is right about the market being able to produce folks that run a health care operation at a respectable profit but the fat cats call all the shots.

I'm sorry, the so called best w/o access isn't good enough for too many people in our country. For those of you who still believe I want coverage at your expense, I believe we can do better than that. The siv that's bleeding the current system dry will continue to drop folks daily by the thousands. It is less sustainable than the most liberal ideas in congress.

The American health care industry is not about health care. It's about profit first and the care you get is residual.

 

[danut]

Right now, marijuana is the poor man's medicine.

If you don't have insurance, marijuana is the least expensive medicine available for lots of conditions.

I favor it being a legal reform all by itself. But so far that method hasn't made it through.

I think it's time to get very very loud.

 

[ItsAllOver]

Look I didn't say the UNITED STATES had the best health care in the world. You are constantly looking for ways to disagree. I said the state of health care is better than it has ever been, no relation to other countries, no real statement that I was talking only about the US. I could have surely made myself clearer, though.

Have a listen to the podcast. I honestly think you'll be intrigued and enlightened.
Adios man

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IAO, technology has improved, no doubt. Many wonderful aspects of our health care system are rare as compared to nationalized health care in other countries. However, we as a country are sick when compared to other industrialized nations. As a whole, our life expectancy is lower. Our birth mortality rate is higher. We are less healthy throughout our entire lives when compared to other nations.

I'm not here to find something to disagree with. In fact, I wish there was more support for my side of the issue but dems da breaks.


I like what I'm hearing from danut and I won't be surprised if he's leery, lol. Mj is the poor man's medicine. I happen to know a cancer survivor who dropped all medical coverage and self medicates with Mj. Not sure he's doing the right thing but it's his call.

I'd like to see the feds embrace mmj at least as much as the medical community has. In fact, I'd actually like to see more folks accept mj as an alternative to the 5 o'clock double martini. If more of our elected representatives were hip (not necessarily cool) we'd kick the mj as a precursor to hard drugs myth in the cods.

 

[Pythagllio]

You know I've read that if you toss out life ending violence (gunshots etc) you'd find the US's life expectancy to be #1. It really doesn't speak to the quality of the healthcare available if someone has his head blown off and dies. Yeah it'd be nice if we could end the inane violence but they're not fighting over whether we need single payor or public option heathcare benefits so changing the healthcare system isn't likely to change this aspect of our lives an iota.

Infant mortality is better in other countries because many babies born in the US are given birth certificates and neo-natal ICU procedures that save some of their lives but most die. Other countries just list them as still births and dispose of the remains and don't count them as live births. That makes our stats look worse even though the way we count there are a bunch of now living people that would have been called stillborn and tossed in the garbage in other countries.

 

[otherwhitemeat]

Right now, marijuana is the poor man's medicine.

If you don't have insurance, marijuana is the least expensive medicine available for lots of conditions.

I favor it being a legal reform all by itself. But so far that method hasn't made it through.

I think it's time to get very very loud.

danut, thanks for putting it in perspective...I hope that this is change we can all agree in.

 

[Owl Mirror]

No data, just a hunch.

Welfare queens and the Reagan revolution

Myth: There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs
Fact: Reagan made up this story.
Reagan's story of a Welfare Queen driving a Welfare Cadillac was apocryphal. Even so, there is no evidence that welfare cheating is a significant problem; besides, individual welfare payments are too small for recipients to live well.
He cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the "Welfare Queen" driving her "Welfare Cadillac" has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.

Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn't really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn't even exist.

~@~

It would appear you are merely perpetuating this MYTH with your own slant on the facts.

 

[otherwhitemeat]

It would appear you are merely perpetuating this MYTH with your own slant on the facts.

I am not talking about welfare mothers. They would be covered by Medicaid, and have already been removed from the statistical analysis above. Please don't change the nature of this debate because you feel it slipping away. My assertion is that quite a few people that don't have insurance have other priorities.

Citing Reagan era statistics isn't going to win this argument. What's your take on the numbers I've mentioned? Don't go and grab a link, tell me your interpretation.

IMHO, of the uninsured about roughly half can afford insurance AND can take advantage of the legislated tax deduction. You called me out to defend my opinion and I've done so, I provided stats--what's your take? I am interested to hear it. Don't trot out anti-Reagonomics arguments, those won't work here, this far removed from the era.

The aforementioned tax deduction in many cases would reduce the post tax impact of the premium to around 50%. That means that Uncle Sam will already pick up around half of the monthly premium. Why is that not sufficient?

Roughly 60-65% of the US population are cable TV subscribers. Statistically, some portion of the group that can afford insurance are also cable tv subscribers as well. Just figured I'd throw that out there.

 

[Owl Mirror]

I am not talking about welfare mothers. They would be covered by Medicaid, and have already been removed from the statistical analysis above. Please don't change the nature of this debate because you feel it slipping away. My assertion is that quite a few people that don't have insurance have other priorities.

Citing Reagan era statistics isn't going to win this argument. What's your take on the numbers I've mentioned? Don't go and grab a link, tell me your interpretation.

IMHO, of the uninsured about roughly half can afford insurance AND can take advantage of the legislated tax deduction. You called me out to defend my opinion and I've done so, I provided stats--what's your take? I am interested to hear it. Don't trot out anti-Reagonomics arguments, those won't work here, this far removed from the era.

The aforementioned tax deduction in many cases would reduce the post tax impact of the premium to around 50%. That means that Uncle Sam will already pick up around half of the monthly premium. Why is that not sufficient?

Roughly 60-65% of the US population are cable TV subscribers. Statistically, some portion of the group that can afford insurance are also cable tv subscribers as well. Just figured I'd throw that out there.

They would be covered by Medicaid, and have already been removed from the statistical analysis

I survive below the poverty line, I do not qualify for Medicaid.
Well to be precise, I can apply and be admitted yet, out of the $1,074 per month I receive from SSDI, I must spend down $980 each month out of pocket before Medicaid will pay any bill.
Should I pay $980 each month out of pocket and live on $94 the rest of each month ?

The aforementioned tax deduction in many cases would reduce the post tax impact of the premium to around 50%. That means that Uncle Sam will already pick up around half of the monthly premium. Why is that not sufficient?

This too, I do not qualify for since I do not file income tax. I am unable to get this purported tax credit.
I believe this is a situation where you do not understand the plight of those you demonize because you have never walked in our shoes. Perhaps if you were forced to live under the poverty line, do without food the last week of each month simply so you can afford the medicines and medical bills you might have a different perspective on this situation.

 

[danut]

Welfare queens and the Reagan revolution

Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn't really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn't even exist.

The way that you control an elected official is to control the information they are exposed to.

They become progressively more isolated from their usual sources of information and reliant upon their new found friends. Those that have been deemed "safe."

You, and many others, would believe that Regan wanted to punish poor people.

I believe this is an example of a president being fed bad information. Twisted information intended to shape the actions of a standing president.

These same people exist in Washington DC today. Still pulling strings by way of misinformation.

Obama wants to send more troops into Iraq? Imagine that.

The thought war people started working on him well before he got into office.

 

[otherwhitemeat]

I survive below the poverty line, I do not qualify for Medicaid.
Perhaps if you were forced to live under the poverty line, do without food the last week of each month simply so you can afford the medicines and medical bills you might have a different perspective on this situation.

Ok, your anecdotal experience may differ than mine, granted. But anecdotes on how this affects you aren't the nature of our discussion. I don't know you. You might have genuine issues--medical or otherwise maybe made a few bad decisions. But since you started on this path, may I ask why you can't work? I am not trying to attack here, really just wanted to understand. Since I don't expect you to open up without me doing the same let me share my story:

My family lived under the poverty line for a decade during the Reagan years, and none of us blame Reagan for our situation. Suddenly my family was broken, my Dad out of the picture and my Mom was alone, poor and without food, skills, or a job. In those days, women weren't expected to work. After things fell apart, my Mom worked two jobs to provide for us and paid some money for us to have HMO coverage (for which she took out a third job to afford). The care was pretty bad, but when we were sick we had antibiotics and we broke bones we had casts. She went to school at night and became a beautician. While she learned a trade, we were on welfare for several years. Government cheese, scratchy wool blankets, handout clothes that got my ass kicked every day in school. These all built my character. We were so poor that we couldn't afford rent, when the landlady threw us out on November 1, the township police dept kicked in a few hundred bucks to put us up in a motel. My brother was a football player in high school and when money ran out for tuition, the priests paid his way for two semesters so they could keep their star player. My only childhood memory of Chirstmas was getting presents from a cop dressed in a Santa Claus suit.

Through sheer will, determination---whatever. My Mom was able to put us all through public schools, and two went to private High Schools-she oversaw our high school careers and forced all of us to college. We had three choices upon turning 18: get a job, go to college, join the army--if we stay home, we're paying rent. We all chose college. At 13 all of us had to take jobs to pitch in. My jobs were laundry and cooking; I worked in a pizza place for 5 years with burns all up and down my arms because I was too short to reach into the ovens. But at 13, I was earning an honest living, paying my taxes and helping the family. Four kids on a single mother's salary, all through college--two of us middle class, two others--millionaires many times over. I would like to hear anyone tell me that welfare is bullshit, or anyone tell me that hard work doesn't pay off. Hogwash. If you want it bad enough in this country, you'll make it happen. NO ONE benefits by keeping poor people down, no one.

So don't tell me I can't walk the walk and talk the talk; were it not for welfare I wouldn't have the things I have today.


But, you are still skirting the issue I asked you point blank: What is your interpretation of the numbers I presented?

 

[Owl Mirror]

But, you are still skirting the issue I asked you point blank: What is your interpretation of the numbers I presented?

Originally Posted by otherwhitemeat
No data, just a hunch.

The numbers you presented are pure fiction, what else can I say ?

 

[ItsAllOver]

BTW Americans are sicker, DB, than other countries, because of our lifestyles, not necessarily because of health care. We are fat lazy fucks, but oh well..

Also did you listen to the podcast? How'd you like the discussion of and conclusions about the "definitely need" and "definitely don't need" line? It really brings light to the gray area.

 

[Owl Mirror]

Originally Posted by otherwhitemeat
You might have genuine issues--medical or otherwise maybe made a few bad decisions. But since you started on this path, may I ask why you can't work?

Always with the notion people made bad choices.
I once was a very successful research engineer who made a firm six figure income.
Many of the products you encounter in daily life, I designed.
I fell ill at work one day and haven't been able to return to work since.
After ten years of doctors telling me they had no idea what was wrong, some even intimating I was not ill at all, I studied medicine on the Internet, diagnosed my disability, had to fight the doctors and insurance companies to cover the testing needed. Then once I won all those battles, I had to frickin read the MRI results for the doctor and tech as they were telling me nothing was wrong.
I had three vertebrae which had the disks disintegrated and slipped to either side, crushing my central nerve core emanating from my brain by 85%. This the doctors and tech couldn't see although it was obvious.
I had a surgery which replaced the three vertebrae and disks in my neck, held together with a wire mesh cage. That surgery failed and I have had to have it repeated.
Now I have a wire cage holding my neck on, both front and back.
My insurance cancelled me after the first surgery for no reason.
I have spent all my savings over the past 14 years, gotten divorced because my wife believed the doctors who said there was nothing wrong with me.
If it were not for Government supplied Medicare, I would be dead.
So, the only bad decision I made was putting my faith in a system that claims doctors look out for the best interest of the patient and the insurance companies will stand behind you when you actually need them.

 

[otherwhitemeat]

The numbers you presented are pure fiction, what else can I say ?

If you ignore facts then you are ignorant of the facts. Are you disputing the numbers below or just now sticking your head in the sand to ignore these numbers because you feel your argument slipping away?

You are now disputing facts? How about presenting you own version of 'facts' or telling me which facts you disagree with?

US News: 50M uninsured
http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...8/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html

10% unemployment, further strengthening my case:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

2.3% of workers min wage:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2007.htm

12% of Americans below poverty level:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/26/news/economy/poverty_survey/

 

[Megas]

This is the wussiest majority congress ever. After being told their views aren't American or whatever other bs the conservatives came up with over the last 8 years it pisses me off every time I see them pussy footing around. If they don't pass their shit with vigor everything is just going to get reversed later.

 

[otherwhitemeat]

Always with the notion people made bad choices.
I once was a very successful research engineer who made a firm six figure income.
Many of the products you encounter in daily life, I designed.
I fell ill at work one day and haven't been able to return to work since.
After ten years of doctors telling me they had no idea what was wrong, some even intimating I was not ill at all, I studied medicine on the Internet, diagnosed my disability, had to fight the doctors and insurance companies to cover the testing needed. Then once I won all those battles, I had to frickin read the MRI results for the doctor and tech as they were telling me nothing was wrong.
I had three vertebrae which had the disks disintegrated and slipped to either side, crushing my central nerve core emanating from my brain by 85%. This the doctors and tech couldn't see although it was obvious.
I had a surgery which replaced the three vertebrae and disks in my neck, held together with a wire mesh cage. That surgery failed and I have had to have it repeated.
Now I have a wire cage holding my neck on, both front and back.
My insurance cancelled me after the first surgery for no reason.
I have spent all my savings over the past 14 years, gotten divorced because my wife believed the doctors who said there was nothing wrong with me.
If it were not for Government supplied Medicare, I would be dead.
So, the only bad decision I made was putting my faith in a system that claims doctors look out for the best interest of the patient and the insurance companies will stand behind you when you actually need them.

Thank you for sharing, I appreciate the insight. It's good to hear the horror stories from those affected and helps us to put this whole debate into context.

But do you really think that the Public Option, or any option that forces insurance companies to insure you via laws, will protect you from the insurance company dropping you? Or that it will force Doctors to care more for you? Care will get worse not better, we'll just be sharing the misery. You do deserve care, you do--and if you say your sick, in my book, your sick. But what if Medicare were made stronger? What if we regulated SDI better? Wouldn't improving what we have today be better than messing with things that the nonpartisan CBO is saying probably won't work?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You know I've read that if you toss out life ending violence (gunshots etc) you'd find the US's life expectancy to be #1. It really doesn't speak to the quality of the healthcare available if someone has his head blown off and dies. Yeah it'd be nice if we could end the inane violence but they're not fighting over whether we need single payor or public option heathcare benefits so changing the healthcare system isn't likely to change this aspect of our lives an iota.

Another "I think, therefore it must be" assumption.

Infant mortality is better in other countries because many babies born in the US are given birth certificates and neo-natal ICU procedures that save some of their lives but most die. Other countries just list them as still births and dispose of the remains and don't count them as live births. That makes our stats look worse even though the way we count there are a bunch of now living people that would have been called stillborn and tossed in the garbage in other countries.

The World Health Organization reports the negative aspects of health care. They don't use different methods in different countries to make us look bad so we'll have to make terrible excuses like the one above.

I am not talking about welfare mothers. They would be covered by Medicaid, and have already been removed from the statistical analysis above. Please don't change the nature of this debate because you feel it slipping away. My assertion is that quite a few people that don't have insurance have other priorities.

You've mentioned it from the get go. You're the one that's been trying to turn "I want to but health insurance" into "I want free." Don't split hairs over the word you use. Would be very easy to go back and quote if you'd prefer.

Citing Reagan era statistics isn't going to win this argument. What's your take on the numbers I've mentioned? Don't go and grab a link, tell me your interpretation.

OWM can't dispute facts. He wants us to substitute for an opinion he can poke a hole in.

IMHO, of the uninsured about roughly half can afford insurance AND can take advantage of the legislated tax deduction. You called me out to defend my opinion and I've done so, I provided stats--what's your take? I am interested to hear it. Don't trot out anti-Reagonomics arguments, those won't work here, this far removed from the era.

So far, no stats. OWM can't distinguish facts from forecasts. He reads something that sounds good to him and says, there's a fact. The rest of the stuff that sounds good must be fact also. OWM doesn't realize all the propaganda he reads isn't fact either.

The aforementioned tax deduction in many cases would reduce the post tax impact of the premium to around 50%. That means that Uncle Sam will already pick up around half of the monthly premium. Why is that not sufficient?

Here's a quote, not a fact. It's a guess from someone. Who? Well, the poster didn't say. Sometimes just paying attention to who's saying it will tell more than what's being said. If you want to use CBO numbers or other widely accepted, non-partisan data as fact, that's one thing. I could fill this thread with many pro health care assumptions but it's still not fact.

Roughly 60-65% of the US population are cable TV subscribers. Statistically, some portion of the group that can afford insurance are also cable tv subscribers as well. Just figured I'd throw that out there.

Just figured I'd let it fly like the rest until you explain what it's got to do with anything other than your other assumptions.

The way that you control an elected official is to control the information they are exposed to.

They become progressively more isolated from their usual sources of information and reliant upon their new found friends. Those that have been deemed "safe."

You, and many others, would believe that Regan wanted to punish poor people.

I believe this is an example of a president being fed bad information. Twisted information intended to shape the actions of a standing president.

These same people exist in Washington DC today. Still pulling strings by way of misinformation.

There are more true horror stories about Reagan and the poor. He was indeed a cowboy but one that didn't like to be bothered with the tribulations of the unfortunate.

Obama wants to send more troops into Iraq? Imagine that.

More fly by "stuff".

...anecdotes on how this affects you aren't the nature of our discussion.

This is the number 1 hypocritical statement of the entire thread. OWM must really believe what he says, that's no stretch. Why he thinks others would even listen, let alone accept is astonishing.

In those days, women weren't expected to work.

What's wrong with your mom? My mom was working in the 1950s. Is your too good to draw a paycheck, pay her own way, provide for her family? You see, I didn't read a single word past your assumption. I just pretended to know what I'm talking about. Just like you do. It doesn't feel very good when folks that know not one iota start poking holes, does it?

But, you are still skirting the issue I asked you point blank: What is your interpretation of the numbers I presented?

My interpretation is it's just more stuff to back up your claims. If you want to hand pick figures, try some non partisan sources. If I came in here with Michael Moore or Think Progress numbers, you'd have an argument my data is one sided.

BTW Americans are sicker, DB, than other countries, because of our lifestyles, not necessarily because of health care. We are fat lazy fucks, but oh well..

More stuff. Stuff you don't know twisted into stuff to back up your argument. So what's yer point?

Also did you listen to the podcast? How'd you like the discussion of and conclusions about the "definitely need" and "definitely don't need" line? It really brings light to the gray area.

Maybe so. But you have to accept it as fact. How does one take a guess or an assumption and purport it as fact? Never mind, forget I brought that up.

This is the wussiest majority congress ever. After being told their views aren't American or whatever other bs the conservatives came up with over the last 8 years it pisses me off every time I see them pussy footing around. If they don't pass their shit with vigor everything is just going to get reversed later.

Now here's an opinion I can agree with. Thanks for the contribution, Megas.

 

[lysol]

Originally Posted by ItsAllOver
BTW Americans are sicker, DB, than other countries, because of our lifestyles, not necessarily because of health care. We are fat lazy fucks, but oh well..

Hmm I can play that game too, how about Americans are sicker because they are too ignorant to care about their health, hence the laziness and hence the shitty healthcare system they are so proud of... see what happens when you write logical fallacies? They backfire on ya

For a while they thought power lines CAUSED cancer, then they found out it was a correlation with poorer families were more likely to live by the power lines. the moral is correlation does not equal causation. '

The first part of your statement is so "all encompassing" and declarative, but you quickly digress into wording like "not necessarily", so you could say that americans are not necessarily lazy. more of your fallacious logic backfiring

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Here's some good info. Non-partisan, no bs statistics that show George W. Bush is THE worst economic president ever.

While all you folks raise hell about Obama, remember how much noise you made when Bush was prez because I don't. I made a lot of noise and was called anti-American. That's just a sample of the names fit for print.

The report is so full of facts, you may have to read it more than once. It doesn't bode well for those of you wishing we still had a conservative cowboy as president. It also speaks loudly to the folks that want everything to stay the same, that somehow our problems won't ever affect them.

Conservative cowboy - that's a joke. Bush wasn't conservative, he spent more money than every single president added together, including Reagan. Bush isn't a cowboy, he's afraid of all four legged creatures with the exception of his little dog.

And now, on with the show.

Sep 11 2009, 10:41 am by Ronald Brownstein
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy

Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush.

It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy's performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.
If that's the test, today's report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says.
Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.

The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.)

When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down.

Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms.

The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000.

Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly.

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.

Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.
The past rarely settles debates about the future.

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions. But at the least, the wretched two-term record compiled by the younger Bush on income, poverty and access to health care should compel Republicans to answer a straightforward question: if tax cuts are truly the best means to stimulate broadly shared prosperity, why did the Bush years yield such disastrous results for American families on these core measures of economic well being?

--National Journal researcher Cameron Joseph contributed.

Permalink :: Comments (33) :: TrackBacks (0) :: Share This
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/14797

Core measures of economic well being. I like the wording. Clinton's economy was good enough to get the welfare rolls down. This reduced the cost of living for everyone else because we didn't carry the same welfare load. When poverty increased under W, it raised the cost of living for those above the poverty line, especially in health care costs.