Comments

Healthcare bill will most benefit those who did not vote for it

After much deliberation, fighting, infighting and some rather intense partisan antics, the House passed the health care reform bill Sunday. It is hard to think of a subject more controversial in American society today and the voting behind the bill proves it. If you have any interest in the subject, you can download the workbook and use the data to see the story from your own point of view.


Perhaps the most interesting story in the passing of the bill is illustrated in these two maps. The map on the left shows the percentage of people who do not have health insurance in each state; clearly the South and West are trailing the East and North. However, the map at the right shows that almost no representatives from the South and Midwest voted for the bill. In other words, representatives from the South were so strongly opposed to the bill that they voted against it, although their constituents would benefit the most. Similarly, Northeastern representatives voted for the bill though the vast majority of their constituents will gain little from the expanded coverage. It would seem that this vote (for both parties) was as much a statement of ideology as a vote for or against expanded health care.

What we like about this viz

Color: Two color scales can be confusing but these ones were chosen not to clash... and it works!

Tooltips (pop-ups): Detailed descriptions of fields help viewers understand without adding clutter.

Thanks to the Washington Post for the data.

Comments

This sort of the story in red v blue America. Often the folks that might benefit most from social safety net type programs such as Health Insurance. The united states would not have stimulated the economy even better. Who spent a year in front of Congress from scratch.. Laptop Repair thanks

interesting.

However, the map at the right shows that almost no representatives from the South and Midwest voted for the bill. In other words, representatives from the South were so strongly opposed to the bill that they voted against it, although their constituents would benefit the most.

Thanks for sharing the information. That's a wonderful article reported. I found the post useful and interesting. Back to reading more.

American consumers, who spent a year in front of Congress from scratch and claw on legislation sweeping health care, you can now try to find out what the reforms mean for them.
Thanks,
Alex

The data suggests healthcare bill will most benefit those who did not vote for it. Interesting outcome.

Personally, I find the bill to be a boondoggle. I do not believe it will finish up saving money for either the government or the people, and reduce overall healthcare quality. This bills does nothing but make the insurance companies even more money, and will keep the lawyers rich for the next 10 years over all the lawsuits, etc. as the government bailouts went to the corporations (as if giving $10,000 dollars to each and every household in The united states would not have stimulated the economy even better). When will people learn that the road to hell is paved with nice intentions?

Thanks for the post, this is the first article that I've read that deals with the populations that will actually benefit from this bill. Isn't this sort of the story in red v blue america. Often the folks that might benefit most from social safety net type programs such as Health Insurance, are the ones that are most reliably republican. The vote against their best interests.

Perhaps the most interesting story in the passing of the bill is illustrated in these two maps. The map on the left shows the percentage of people who do not have health insurance in each state; clearly the South and West are trailing the East and North. However, the map at the right shows that almost no representatives from the South and Midwest voted for the bill. In other words, representatives from the South were so strongly opposed to the bill that they voted against it, although their constituents would benefit the most.

Or MAYBE it is about the cost. If both parties voted against the bill, and only one party voted for it, then it seems as the vote "for" it was ideology based vote. The bi partisian vote against the bill seems to say there is a better way.