Poverty Drops But Ranks Of Uninsured Grow

First Significant Dip In U.S. Poverty Since 2000; But Number Of Uninsured Increases To 47 Million

(CBS/AP)  The nation's poverty rate dropped last year, the first significant decline since President Bush took office.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent - were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005.

Experts credit a low unemployment rate for much of the decline, which has made it easier for people to find jobs and work themselves out of poverty, reports CBS News.

The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year.

But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.

According to the Census, of the 47 million uninsured, 8.7 million are children - a 7.6 percent jump in one year, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. The numbers are rising mostly because employers are dialing back. In 2000, more than 64 percent of Americans got insurance through their employer. Last year that percentage fell below 60 percent.

This decline in employer-based coverage is happening because of costs, adds Andrews. More and more employers, struggling to stay afloat or profitable, cannot afford the rising expense of health insurance.

The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration. In 2005, the poverty rate dipped from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.

The poverty numbers are good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. However, the numbers released Tuesday represent economic conditions from a year ago.

The poverty level is the official measure used to decide eligibility for federal health, housing, nutrition and child care benefits. It differs by family size and makeup. For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level is $20,444. The poverty rate - the percentage of people living below poverty - helps shape the debate on the health of the nation's economy.

The figures were released at a news conference by David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

The poverty report comes five years into an uneven economic recovery, and well into a presidential campaign that still has 14 months to go.

Poverty has not been a big issue in the campaign, and political scientists said they doubted the new numbers would change that.

"The poor are politically mute," said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "What rational politician would listen to the poor? They don't vote, they don't write checks, why care?"

Democrat John Edwards has made fighting poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. But, Jacobs noted, "He's struggling to raise money and he's lagging in the polls."

Evelyn Brodkin, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, said she expects the rising number of people without insurance to get more attention in the campaign.

The share of Americans without health insurance hit 15.8 percent last year, up from 15.3 percent the previous year. Johnson said the increase in the percentage of uninsured was mostly fueled by a decline in employer-provided health coverage.

"It affects people in the middle, and it affects corporations," Brodkin said. "Especially those who compete globally, they are really hurting because they have to compete with companies that don't have huge health insurance bills for their labor force."

Median household income - the point at which half make more and half make less - was above the U.S. median in 18 states and the District of Columbia, while 29 states were below it. As for individual earnings, in each of the 50 states, women had lower median earnings than men in 2006.

Lyndon Johnson was the last president to launch a major initiative aimed at eradicating poverty, said Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.

Danziger said low unemployment in 2006 helped lower the poverty rate. But, he noted, the rate was slow to drop despite five years of economic growth.

"For three decades we have had an economy where workers with a high school diploma or less have hardly kept up with inflation," Danziger said.

Low-wage workers have been hurt by the nation's declining manufacturing sector, which has lost more than 3 million jobs since Mr. Bush took office.

[rhs648]

Yet fascists like rhs648, S_Temper, and others try to blame the "poor", who are not the ones determining insurance rates, ever since the government sold the nation''''s assets to privateers, corruption and collusion has caused prices to be so high, because there are no alternatives.

Posted by brianbwb

Talk about opinionated and narrow minded. This guy takes the cake!

[tburzio]

The number of uninsured tracks 1:1 with the number of illegal immigrants. No money taken as taxes EVER gets used for a specific program, as the treasury does not work that way. EVERYTHING goes directly into the general fund.

[michellem99-2009]

I vote.
I am poor.
I poorly schooled.sp ed.
I lived in un caring, abused foster homes.
I was/am legally blind and multi hannicapped.
I am sad of the state of this nation
I am 52..and a nobody..thank you..
I was born in this nation..

[motherjones-2009]

The media are reporting that the U.S. poverty rate has dropped. Sounds good, right?

Then we look at the numbers and see that the percentage of Americans living in poverty has gone down from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 in 2006. A whopping .3 percent.

The reason for this miniscule, pathetic drop is soley due to the fact that more people in individual households have been forced into the labor force, or have taken second or even third jobs!

The ruling class needs an abundance of people people to maintain thier sylvan life-style. Our leaders belong to and serve the ruling class--it''s as simple as that. There won''t be any real change until that changes.

[brianbwb-2009]

"hold on, we already have that program in the US. It''''s called Medicaid!" Posted by S_Temper

Which we paid for with money deducted from our paychecks, but the supposedly "untouchable" fund has been borrowed from by presidents from Johnson onwards.

Now that it has been almost completely embezzled, the current corruptors want to privatize what is left of it, to give the few pennies left to private companies to mark up, deny payments, and otherwise lie and steal.

The solution is to recover the stolen monies, and use them to fix what you call the "SH*TTY HEALTH CARE!" and provide stiff fines and long jail terms for all those caught corrupting the system.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by S_Temper,

"I blame the federal government for over-regulating every single thing we do in the USA."

Simple solution, un-regulate that which has been regulated beyond common sense, and regulate that which has been deregulated beyond common sense and the public good.

"Because of anti-capitalist, global-warming obsessed, American socialists like you, we all pay more for everything."

Wrong again, you pay more for everything because super capitalist business cartels fix prices, raising them whenever they see fit. If you were to eliminate all regulations, do you really think that cost savings will be passed on to you? If so, I have a bridge...

"I don''''t know if you are a US citizen or not,"

Yes, I am.

"but do you realize that you will get more jail time in the US for illegally growing tobacco than growing pot? Explain that BS."

Two factors determine the possible outcome, if you''re rich enough, you can buy your way out of it, and you can also pay off the local police for protection, just two more aspects of capitalist corruption that need to be addressed.

But at least discuss the problems, and quit wasting breath on what party caused them, or what party would solve them, they both did, and they both won''t...

[katg21]

Firstly Go See "SICKO"
Posted by drinuk at 01:11 AM : Aug 29, 2007

You lost all of your credibility with this statement.

[usayesterday]

S_Temper:

Clearly I do not see our government allowing the legalization of marijuana or hemp for any reason, any time soon, all for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

But, until the vast majority of Americans educate themselves in the operations of our government, we will NEVER have total and permanent progress in this country!

For example.... knowing that the basis for virtually all of the decisions made by the career politicians is based on money to support their campaigns to support their continued career in politics! This money, of course, comes from the large corporate donors who have essentially driven the policies of our government for many, many decades.

A "career" politician can be defined as a person who has served in any one political position for more than two terms (of any length).

Political "Experience" = CORRUPTION!!!

[usayesterday]

but do you realize that you will get more jail time in the US for illegally growing tobacco than growing pot? Explain that BS.
Posted by S_Temper at 06:02 AM : Aug 29, 2007
.........

Very, very easy.

Reason why pot is not legal:

It takes profits away from legal and well established drugs and the companies that make them, (ie. alcohol, tobacco, pharmaseuticals)

Reason why a person gets more jail time for growing tobacco than pot:

Though I have not seen or heard any reports that support that, it may be different for each state, but again... it''s all about lessening the profits from the big tobacco and alcohol companies. It''s a vicious cycle. Many Americans support the companies that support the continued ban on marijuana. How? Through our hard earned money that many people give to these alcohol and tobacco companies every minute of every day.

With those profits, these alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies bribe our elected politicians to keep the kibosh on any major studies and/or reasearch into the benefits of marijuana. Oh, not just marijuana, but also it''s far less potent cousin: hemp. Hemp is used in other industrialised nations for manufacturing purposes that replaces the need for trees for many products that we use daily, (paper, for example).

[usayesterday]

Instead of crying and whining, it is time to end the fake partisan positioning, and discuss solutions to the problem. for those who think there is no problem, quit polluting the discussion with fake "neocon" nonsense.
Posted by brianbwb at 04:25 AM : Aug 29, 2007
..................


Yet again brianbwb, nobody could have said this better than you. I applaud your compassion and foresight once again.

Tunnel vision is what keeps many Americans from accepting the fact that a national health care plan is long overdue for the poor to low income families who cannot afford basic health care on their own. The "tunnel vision" I speak of, is the tendency to have the feeling of... "my situation is okay because I did (X) and (Y), why can''t everyone else do the same?!" This "tunnel vision", (a combination of selfishness and narcicism), prevents people from placing themselves into the ''shoes'' of others who may have come from different backgrounds where all the opportunities may have been lacking or non-existant.

Only those who suffer from tunnel vision feel that EVERY American has the exact same opportunities in this country, from the time of birth. There''s just not enough characters allowed to explain the reasons why that is simply not the case.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Especially those who compete globally, they are really hurting because they have to compete with companies that don''t have huge health insurance bills..."

Yet fascists like rhs648, S_Temper, and others try to blame the "poor", who are not the ones determining insurance rates, ever since the government sold the nation''s assets to privateers, corruption and collusion has caused prices to be so high, because there are no alternatives.

A national comprehensive health program will provide the necessary pressure for the insurers to lower their rates, and provide better service in order to compete, and the national median income should be the qualifying line for eligibility.

There are many potential funding sources, like legalization and taxing of marijuana, taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, and gambling. Fines for criminal activities for all perpetrators whether corporate, private, or individual should be standardized according to damage caused, no judges'' discretion, and the money can also be used in these programs.

The Government could also subsidize med school for those who choose it, repaid with a four year term of paid service in the public sector, just like the military.

Instead of crying and whining, it is time to end the fake partisan positioning, and discuss solutions to the problem. for those who think there is no problem, quit polluting the discussion with fake "neocon" nonsense.

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by S_Temper at 02:15 AM : Aug 29, 2007

Shut up yourself. Canadians have every right to refute your lying statistics. You don''t own this site.

[brianbwb-2009]

"The poor contribute little to America yet consume a great deal of our resources. Posted by rhs648"

Wrong, Mussolini breath, the "poor" are the laborers in the factories, the workers at Mc Donald''s, and the ones harvesting your food, the musicians and artists that lubricate society, and anyone making less than $2,000 per month in wages, from which is deducted taxes for the rich to steal.

[missingamerica]

That''s pretty funny. Somebody beats up somebody from Canada because they offered an opinion, advice, whatever you want to call it.

I guess our opinion is more valid because when we want to offer our opinion to another country we do it with bombers, tanks, and rifles.

[rhs648]

"The poor are politically mute. What rational politician would listen to the poor? They don''''t vote, they don''''t write checks, why care?"
Larry Jacobs,
political scientist

This is stupid. There are many poor people who are informed about the issues and who vote in every election. They have a voice if they choose to use it. And who the h*e*l*l does Larry Jacobs think he is questioning why politicians should bother to listen to the poor. I don''''t think I ever saw this attitude until the Bush administration created the vote-with-your-check-mentality.

Posted by barbaraf4

The poor contribute little to America yet consume a great deal of our resources. Why would politicians pay attention to people who don''t contribute to their campaigns or make the effort to vote? Most social change happens because people in high positions in our society fight for the downtrodden and disadvantaged.

[drinuk]

Those opposed to state run universal healthcare use pathetic excuses of socialism to frighten off those who do not understand the benefits of a national health scheme. The socialism c r a p is simply that....C R A P, national health does NOT benefit Big Pharma, greedy doctors or health professionals, It Does benefit ordinary people, focus the minds of politicians and create a more level playing field in society. It may be slightly less convenient for many but if the lessons learned from around the world regarding this system were put into practice in America, we could have the very best. Those already operating National Healthcare find it hard politically to make the adjustments required, like banning health tourism and illegal immigrant freeloaders, here we have the opportunity to make it far more equitable to indigenous Americans.

When I read comments on here criticising communist health care, there are two glaring examples of which show these statements up to being pure right wing and ignorant. Firstly Go See "SICKO" regarding the quality and honesty of healthcare in Cuba. Second, the quality healthcare given to all the people of North Vietnam, combatants and non- combatants during that war, was given by young doctors and nurses from East Germany, most of them under thirty years of age and highly qualified. We all know how beneficial that was to the enemy.

[rhs648]

We will probably never rid ourselves of poverty. America has too many people who are undereducated, lack good habits, lack motivation, lack job skills, etc. Unfortunately, many people are unwilling or unable to do what it takes to enjoy success in America. Just look at our jails.

[rhs648]

We will probably never rid ourselves of poverty. America has too many people who are undereducated, lack good habits, lack motivation, lack job skills, etc. Unfortunately, many people are unwilling or unable to do what it takes to enjoy success in America. Just look at our jails.

[rhs648]

The Great Emperor Bush II is dismayed upon hearing the news that poverty levels have dropped and that the number of uninsured has gone up. One of the great Emperor''''s goals is to force everyone to buy insurance at high premiums to make the insurance companies even more profitable than they already are. Also, because the poverty levels have dropped, the Great Emperor feels that there may be a revival of the middle class meaning less family wealth for the wealthy "elite" of which he and his court are members of.

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!
Posted by walt1944

Hefty annual increases in health insurance premiums started in the 1970''s long before George Bush became active in politics. No president or congress in over thirty years has done anything to help the middle class with lower premiums. This is one you can not blame George Bush for.

[tcoleman12]

Just give the Liberal Congress time...they will turn this whole poverty decrease around. With their plan of letting the tax cuts expire, providing national health care and socialized medicine, a new wave of poverty will sweep the nation like none seen before.

Not to mention the lack of effort to make any changes to the failing Social Security program and providing the above benefits to illegal immigrants.

Yep, no where but up for poverty levels from here.