27% of working adults in Texas have NO health insurance

[CShine]

I knew the problem was bad, but when I saw 27% for a state as big as Texas I was shocked (see link below). It's inconceivable to me that the second largest state in the nation has more than one out four of people who actually HAVE jobs but have NO coverage of any kind.

Frankly, it pisses me off that this whole Iraq hoopla is drowning out a major crisis that needs addressing NOW!

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2568293

[saigon68]

1. they are lazy-- they should work harder

By G. bush ex-gov of TX </sarcasm>

[Bozita]

2. Bush* promised to remake America in the image of Texas

Just what we need.

[Blue-Jay]

3. Advice to Texans: Don't get sick.

See there? I just saved you LOADS of money on healthcare.

/sarcasm

[lastknowngood]

4. aren't 27% of the people working in Texas Illegal immigrants?

n/t

[JayS]

9. Shhhhh! You are not supposed to notice that. :) n/t

n/t

[Bozita]

15. Hmmm ... The employers are also violating the law

So which law(s) should be enforced?

[Bleacher Creature]

5. Hate to sound cold-hearted

but look at who they are voting for. I know that there are a lot of good people in Texas who don't deserve this, but when you give power to people like Bush, Perry, Delay, etc., this is what happens.

But hey, they got a $200 tax cut from the IRS. So go Shrub!!

[skjpm]

6. Iraqis have health insurance

They had it under Saddam. Even a malevolent dictator knows his citizens need insurance.

[JayS]

8. Actually it has been this way for a long, long time. The...

...Republicans gaining power is a recent event. It has been a Democratic show from Reconstruction to recent times.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Oye conservative southern democrats...

You know the, Republicans who aren't religious fenatics. I've become all too familiar with them here in Louisiana. But then again, even if there was a dem governor before Bush, you don't know if it was the legislature blocking laws supported by the governor.

[No2W2004]

7. Texas is a "right to work" state

meaning that union membership is neither required nor encouraged.

coincidence?

[tcfrogs]

11. An honest question...

...because I really don't know.

Is union membership or are unions in general good? We're having the debate here in Chicago about whether to put a Wal-Mart in a rather poor neighborhood. I personally don't see why it's a problem, considering it will bring jobs to the area. The local activists are upset because WM is not unionized.

From my perspective, a job is a job. If they're hiring people, that's good news.

TCfrogs

[No2W2004]

12. I know the situation

And Mayor Daley is right in one respect...if anyone in the city wants to go to Wal-Mart, all they just have to drive past the city limits, so it's not like there are NO Wal-Marts in the area, just none within city limits. The city loses out on those tax dollars. But, there are some areas that have thriving local businesses (like around Harlem and Laurence) that probably pay decent wages and putting a Wal-Mart right in the middle of them would probably kill them off because of Wal-Mart's bad wages and cheap goods. Wal-Mart pays crappy wages because they forbid unions. (OK maybe not forbid...they strongly discourage unions)

In Texas, small businesses (like machine shops or manufactures)usually don't have unions to deal with, so they generally don't provide any health insurance.

[tcfrogs]

14. thanks for the reply

I know the situation very well - I live on the NW side (jeez, should I be afraid to give the actual location?!?!?)

I don't think WM pays crappy wages, 75% is entry level - they do provide health insurance coverage for full-time workers. Subsidized, by the employee, but how many big companies give you free health care these days? Different subject...almost...but I work for a hospital corporation and we have obscene monthly health care premiums.

I know that there are other businesses in the are that might be negatively impacted by WM moving in - I just believe that 300+ jobs outweighs that.

I'm not an apologist for WM...my name is not Walton....

[No2W2004]

17. I think you are looking at it rationally

and that is fine.

Everything I've read about Wal-Mart's business practices, as well as personal conversations with some friends that have worked there says that, on one hand, there will be those 300+ jobs, but on the other hand, Wal-Mart has a huge turn-over rate, which makes it hard to reach the "time served" needed to get the insurance. As I said, in Chicago's case, the city is losing tax revenue due to the fact that Wal-Marts ring the city limits. In most areas it wouldn't be a big deal, like where Targets have opened up within the city.

The only thing with me is Wal-Mart's predatory business practices It's great to drive around the city and have so many different places to go.

[tcfrogs]

18. agreed

there is nothing like patronizing cool local businesses...that's how I grew up...in Iowa of all places...my family still runs a great small business there.

And that's a great part of Chicago. But, I still buy things from Big K, Target, etc. I'm all for the local startups...but I think it's a positive to see the big retailers move in. JOBS!!! Maybe not health insurance...but at least it's a first step.

[JanMichael]

10. Well like people have said on the Maytag thread: We gots to take a cut!

Because if we don't them factories will be on their way to the Maquiladora fields of the Rio Grande....Or China...But wait, China has lost, yes LOST manufacturing jobs over the last five years...get an MIS degree! That's the ticket, wait we've lost a half million of those jobs in the last year or two...

We're in a race to the bottom. The giant swindling machine has won, suck it up, buy rice....And ammo.

Or accept that alternative Political/Economic relationships may have merit.

[scarface2004]

13. that's pretty darned good!

bush smirked!