2008 October 09 Thursday
Texas Leads In Declining Medical Insurance

Immigration has put Texas in the lead on the downward slope for medical insurance coverage.

Oct. 9, 2008 - About one in six people living in the U.S. under the age of 65 had no health insurance in 2005, but closer to 1 in 3 Hispanics were uninsured, newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau confirms.

Roughly one in four people living in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico lacked health insurance, while only one in 10 of those living in Minnesota and Hawaii were without coverage.

The demographics of Texas represent the future of America. Those demographics tell a bad story about health insurance coverage.

In Texas, 40.5% of Hispanics under age 65 had no health insurance, compared with 24.3% of blacks and 15.8% of whites.

Bring in tens of millions of a group that performs poorly on average in school and in the workplace and the outcome is lower medical insurance coverage for that group in any state they find themselves.

Almost 40% of Hispanics living in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Carolina also had no health insurance.

Many libertarians favor open borders and free migration across national borders. But such a policy expands the welfare state and weighs heavily upon the higher skilled and higher productivity workers.

For more on immigration and its effects on medical costs see Illegal Immigration Drives Up Number Of Medically Uninsured and Immigration And Heavy Burden Of Medically Uninsured.

For more on America's grim demographic future see Grim Demographics Of Texas And California, Texas Has Lowest High School Graduation Rates, and Ron Guhname On Starr County Texas Demographics.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 October 09 11:19 PM  Immigration Societal Decay

Anonymous said at October 10, 2008 12:08 AM:
Many libertarians favor open borders and free migration across national borders. But such a policy expands the welfare state and weighs heavily upon the higher skilled and higher productivity workers.
It's important to note that libertarians favor little or no welfare state at the same time they advocate open borders.
coldequation said at October 10, 2008 4:14 AM:

Libertarians may advocate a limited welfare state + open borders, but how do they expect to not have a welfare state in a democracy where the underclass is the majority?

Ned said at October 10, 2008 5:39 AM:

The catch-phrases "47 million uninsured" and "one in six Americans lacks health insurance" get thrown around a lot, usually by those who advocate some sort of one-size-fits-all government-run health insurance idea. But the demographics of the uninsured are very interesting. Between one third and one half are illegal immigrants. Others are those with incomes over $50,000 who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to. Another fraction includes those who are already eligible for government programs such as Medicaid but who haven't signed up. When you subtract out these numbers, you are left with about eight million people, still a problem, but clearly much more manageable. So do you want to pay higher taxes so illegal immigrant lawbreakers can have unlimited free health care? Or do you wish to pay to provides free care to those people who can well afford their own insurance? All of these welfare programs just serve as a magnet for poor folks from other countries to move here illegally and sponge off the American taxpayer. This will get much worse as Mexico loses its oil exports and descends into narco-terrorist anarchy. Milton Friedman said that the welfare state and open borders are imcompatible. He was right.

Randall Parker said at October 10, 2008 7:45 AM:


It is important to note that libertarians ignore that the children of illegal immigrants, and in many cases the illegals themselves, will become voters who will vote for the welfare state that libertarians pretend to themselves that they oppose.

Sgt. Joe Friday said at October 10, 2008 10:00 AM:

The libertarian argument, i.e. it's not the immigrants, it's the welfare state is fine if one lives in a hypothetical world. But we don't, so the argument, while intellectually consistent, is not realistic. I think the only type of environment where libertarianism could succeed is in a high trust, homogenous society with a population that has an above average IQ and an above average work ethic. In other words, post-colonial America 225 years ago. America as it exists today has delcining trend lines for all four of these factors.

Over time, I think we'll move toward a command-and-control economy, fewer civil liberties such as freedom of expression (i.e. more and more punitive thought crime statutes), and eventually some sort of quasi-dictatorship. Of course it won't be called a dictatorship, but whether by ethnically gerrymandered districts, "voting rights" statutes, mandatory voting laws, or outright bribery/thuggery, the elites will try to find a way to ensure that elections turn out the way they're "supposed to."

tommy said at October 10, 2008 3:32 PM:

As Randall put it, libertarians rarely take the political consequences of immigration into account. Hispanics will vote overwhelmingly for big government policies and those who support them. Open borders libertarians seem incapable of pragmatic thinking on immigration.

Bob Badour said at October 11, 2008 7:33 AM:


You went two words too far. You could have stopped just before "on immigration".

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright