scholarly journals Health Insurance and Income Inequality

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kaestner ◽  
Darren Lubotsky

Health insurance and other in-kind forms of compensation and government benefits are typically not included in measures of income and analyses of inequality. This omission is important. Given the large and growing cost of health care in the United States and the presence of large government health insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, it is crucial to understand how health insurance and related public policies contribute to measured economic well-being and inequality. Our paper assesses the effect on inequality of the primary government programs that affect health insurance.

2021 ◽  
pp. 073112142199840
Author(s):  
Tara D. Warner ◽  
Tara Leigh Tober ◽  
Tristan Bridges ◽  
David F. Warner

Protection is now the modal motivation for gun ownership, and men continue to outnumber women among gun owners. While research has linked economic precarity (e.g., insecurity and anxiety) to gun ownership and attitudes, separating economic well-being from constructions of masculinity is challenging. In response to blocked economic opportunities, some gun owners prioritize armed protection, symbolically replacing the masculine role of “provider” with one associated with “protection.” Thus, understanding both persistently high rates of gun ownership in the United States (in spite of generally declining crime) alongside the gender gap in gun ownership requires deeper investigations into the meaning of guns in the United States and the role of guns in conceptualizations of American masculinity. We use recently collected crowdsourced survey data to test this provider-to-protector shift, exploring how economic precarity may operate as a cultural-level masculinity threat for some, and may intersect with marital/family status to shape gun attitudes and behaviors for both gun owners and nonowners. Results show that investments in stereotypical masculine ideals, rather than economic precarity, are linked to support for discourses associated with protective gun ownership and empowerment.


2020 ◽  
pp. 105-124
Author(s):  
Naomi G. Goldberg ◽  
Alyssa Schneebaum ◽  
Laura E. Durso ◽  
M. V. Lee Badgett

2005 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy A. Judge ◽  
Timothy D. Chandler

Employee shirking, where workers give less than full effort on the job, has typically been investigated as a construct subject to organization-level influences. Neglected are individual differences that could explain why employees in the same organization or work-group might shirk. Using a sample of workers from the health care profession in the United States, the present study sought to address these limitations by investigating subjective well-being (a dispositional construct), job satisfaction, as well as other indiuidual-level determinants of shirking. Results indicate that whites shirk significantly more than nonwhites, and that subjective well-being, job satisfaction, and age have significant, negative effects on shirking. The implications of these results are discussed.


Author(s):  
Peter Baldwin

The U.S. Economy does Differ from Europe’s: a less regulated labor market, but also an economy that is more hemmed in than might be expected. By European standards, America has hardish-working people, a state that collects fewer tax dollars, and workers who are paid well even if their holidays are short. In social policy, the contrasts are more moderate. Europeans commonly believe that the United States simply has no social policy—no social security, no unemployment benefits, no state pensions, and no assistance for the poor. As Jean-François Revel, the political philosopher and académicien, summed up French criticism, the United States shows “not the slightest bit of social solidarity.” Will Hutton similarly assures us that “The structures that support ordinary peoples’ lives—free health care, quality education, guarantees of reasonable living standards in old age, sickness or unemployment, housing for the disadvantaged— that Europeans take for granted are conspicuous by their absence.” And, in fact, the United States is the only developed nation, unless one counts South Africa, without some form of national health insurance, which is to say a system of requiring all its citizens to be insured in one way or another. This lack of universal health insurance is the one fact that every would-be comparativist working across the Atlantic knows, and the first one to be hoisted as the battle is engaged. One of the first attempts to quantify and rank health care performance, by the World Health Organization in 2000, gave the American system its due. Overall, it came in below any of our comparison countries, three notches under Denmark. In various specific aspects of health policy, it did better. For disability adjusted life expectancy, it came in above Ireland, Denmark, and Portugal; on the responsiveness of the health system, it ranked first; on a composite measure of various indicators summed up as “overall health system attainment,” it ranked above seven Western European countries. Even on the measure of “fairness of financial contribution to health systems,” where we might have expected an abysmal rating, the United States squeaked in above Portugal. That is, of course, damning with faint praise, especially given that in this particular aspect of the ranking—a well-meaning but other-worldly attempt by international bureaucrats to rake the entire globe over the teeth of one comb—Colombia came in first, outpacing its close rivals, Luxembourg and Belgium, while Libya beat out Sweden.


Getting By ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 329-428
Author(s):  
Helen Hershkoff ◽  
Stephen Loffredo

This chapter addresses the issue of health care for low-income people. The United States, virtually alone among developed nations, does not offer universal access to health care, leaving many millions of individuals without health insurance or other means of obtaining necessary medical services. In 2010, Congress enacted the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)—popularly known as “Obamacare”—marking an important but incomplete response to the nation’s health care crisis. This chapter examines the ACA in detail, including its impact on Medicaid and Medicare, the major government health programs in the United States, its creation of Health Insurance Exchanges and tax credits to help low-income households obtain private health coverage, and the reform of private health insurance markets through a patient’s bill of rights, which, among other measures, prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage for preexisting medical conditions. Perhaps the most critical aspect of the ACA was its expansion of Medicaid to cover virtually all low-income citizens (and certain immigrants) who do not qualify for other health coverage. Although several states opted out of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, the Medicaid program nevertheless remains the largest single provider of health coverage in the United States. This chapter also provides a detailed description of Medicaid, its eligibility criteria and scope of coverage; the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a government-funded health insurance program for children in households with too much income to qualify for Medicaid; and Medicare, the federal health insurance program for aged, blind, and disabled individuals.


1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Schrecker

Toronto physician Brian Goldman had thought about “joining the camp that favours private health care for Canada.” Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, he tells us that he changed his mind after one of his cats experienced a series of illnesses and misadventures that resulted in a Can$3,101 medical bill. “I’m just glad,” he says, “that the cost of health care never entered my deliberations.”’Canadian citizens and permanent residents are similarly free from most worries about the direct costs of their own medical care, and have been for more than a generation. This reflects a fundamental difference between the Canadian and United States contexts for health policy. Since the failure of President Clinton's first-term efforts to provide something approximating universal health insurance, reforms to the existing regime of providing and financing health care in the United States have been incremental, and primarily responsive to the changing nature of the health care marketplace. In Canada, universal publicly funded first-dollar coverage for most physicians’ and hospitals’ services has been a reality since the early 1970s.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document