This week's email brings us an example of what happens when you let poorly trained PR folks run your message:
"A new analysis by Urban Institute researchers ... reveals substantial variation across congressional districts in rates of private and public coverage and uninsurance."
First, is "uninsurance" even a word? Not according to dictionary.com; do these folks sit around looking for ways to lose their message in a jumble of foolishness?
It would seem so:
"Rates of private coverage are lowest in districts that have higher poverty rates."
Also, people who live in the east experience sunrise sooner than those in the west. But the UI folks aren't through yet:
"Despite these higher rates of public coverage, uninsurance remains most serious in districts with low rates of private coverage."
There's that word again. But the real takeaway is their indictment of existing public health programs: as my co-blogger Bill observed, "she’s also saying is that public coverage is doing a lousy job of covering the poor."
Indeed.
Posts
