"dads don't care" is the implication

[The Dave©]

New census "info". Seems rather imcomplete to me. It takes one stat
and does nothing to try and find out 'why'.

My first question was "Are single mothers more likely to be on
government assistance while single fathers make just enough to not
qualify?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030826/ap_on_go_ot/u
ninsured_kids_3

[Chris Owens]

The Dave© wrote:
>
> New census "info". Seems rather imcomplete to me. It takes one stat
> and does nothing to try and find out 'why'.
>
> My first question was "Are single mothers more likely to be on
> government assistance while single fathers make just enough to not
> qualify?"
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030826/ap_on_go_ot/u
> ninsured_kids_3

If you look at the numbers, there's actually no significant
difference, given the differential sizes of the populations.
Which means that this could easily be a sampling fluke; and, six
months later, the numbers would be reversed. That's the big
problem with 'one point in time' statistics.

There is a very poorly publicized government program that
provides health insurance to kids if their parents can't afford
it, even if the parents are employed. However, the kicker is
that the parents' employers must not offer any health insurance.
So, the differential easily could be that the men are more likely
to have an employer who does offer insurance -- which the father
cannot afford. Or that men are not as well-informed about the
program than women. Or that they are more reluctant to use the
program even if they know about it.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Chris Owens]

The Dave© wrote:
>
> New census "info". Seems rather imcomplete to me. It takes one stat
> and does nothing to try and find out 'why'.
>
> My first question was "Are single mothers more likely to be on
> government assistance while single fathers make just enough to not
> qualify?"
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030826/ap_on_go_ot/u
> ninsured_kids_3

If you look at the numbers, there's actually no significant
difference, given the differential sizes of the populations.
Which means that this could easily be a sampling fluke; and, six
months later, the numbers would be reversed. That's the big
problem with 'one point in time' statistics.

There is a very poorly publicized government program that
provides health insurance to kids if their parents can't afford
it, even if the parents are employed. However, the kicker is
that the parents' employers must not offer any health insurance.
So, the differential easily could be that the men are more likely
to have an employer who does offer insurance -- which the father
cannot afford. Or that men are not as well-informed about the
program than women. Or that they are more reluctant to use the
program even if they know about it.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----