Health insurance is unaffordable for others in rural Nebraska as well, Knopik said. For example, in Nance County, he said the average annual income is around $28,000, while health insurance for a county employee is $12,000.  

According to the Appleseed Center, the ad explains that while the nation has been discussing health care reform for months, it’s now time for the full Senate to begin its official debate.

Gould said Nebraskans can no longer wait for health care reform. She said health insurance premiums for working families skyrocketed 69 percent from 2000 to 2007 while median earnings only increased 21 percent. Left unchecked, premiums will be $22,976 in 2016-a full 58 percent of project family income in the state.

By Robert Pore

As Americans prepare for Thanksgiving, a new report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service found that food insecurity in the United States was increasing. that in 2008, 85.4 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the year.

According to ERS, food-secure households had consistent access to enough food for active healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year.

The remaining 14.6 percent (17 million households) were food insecure, according to the ERS report.  These households, at some time during the year, had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources, the report said. 

The prevalence of food insecurity was up from 11.1 percent (13 million households) in 2007 and was the highest observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995.

About one-third of food-insecure households (6.7 million households, or 5.7 percent of all U.S. households), the report said, had very low food security, up from 4.7 million households (4.1 percent) in 2007, and the highest level observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995.

In households with very low food security, the report said that the food intake of some household members was reduced, and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because of the household’s food insecurity. The other two-thirds of food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in federal food and nutrition assistance programs, or obtaining emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens.

 Even when resources are inadequate to provide food for the entire family, children are usually shielded from the disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake that characterize very low food security.according to the report.

“ However, children as well as adults experienced instances of very low food security in 506,000 households (1.3 percent of households with children) in 2008, up from 323,000 households (0.8 percent of households with children) in 2007.” the report said. “On a given day, the number of households with very low food security was a small fraction of the number that experienced this condition “at some time during the year.”

Typically, the report said, households classified as having very low food security experienced the condition in 7 or 8 months of the year, for a few days in each of those months.

“On an average day in late November or early December, 2008, for example, an estimated 1.1 million to 1.4 million households (0.9-1.2 percent of all U.S. households) had members who experienced very low food security, and children experienced these conditions in 86,000 to 111,000 households (0.22 to 0.28 percent of all U.S. households with children),” the report said.  ”The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably among different types of households.”

According to the report, rates of food insecurity were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes near or below the Federal poverty line, households with children headed by single women or single men, and Black and Hispanic households.

Food insecurity, the report said, was more common in large cities and rural areas than in suburban areas and other outlying areas around large cities.

According to the report:

*Regionally, food insecurity was most prevalent in the South, intermediate in the Midwest and West, and least prevalent in the Northeast.

*Food-secure households spent more for food than food-insecure households. In 2008, the median U.S. household spent $43.75 per person for food each week—about 14 percent more than the cost of USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan (a low-cost food “market basket” that meets dietary standards, taking into account household size and the age and gender of household members). The median food-secure household spent 18 percent more than the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, while the median food-insecure household spent 10 percent less than the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. Some food-insecure households turn to Federal food and nutrition assistance programs or emergency food providers in their communities when they are unable to obtain enough food.

*Fifty-five percent of the food-insecure households surveyed in 2008 said that in the previous month they had participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs—the National School Lunch Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the new name for the Food Stamp Program), and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

*About 20 percent of food-insecure households obtained emergency food from a food pantry at some time during the year, and 2.6 percent ate one or more meals at an emergency kitchen in their community. used public or private food and nutrition assistance programs.

There is agreement among economists and non-economists alike that the recession began in the housing market, said Mike Walden, Extension economist for North Carolina State University.

He said the enormous run-up in housing prices, housing construction and home buying during the early and middle part of this decade. The collapse of this bulging housing market – beginning in 2006 – is widely cited as the event that pushed the economy into a recession a year later.What motivated builders to build, lenders to lend and buyers to buy so many homes? The conventional answer – heard in many quarters – is greed, incompetence and a focus on short-run gains at the expense of long-run losses. The explanation given is that home buyers snapped up cheap mortgages offered by lenders who were out to make a quick buck, and builders simply tried to keep up with the demand by constructing more homes.

But, according to Walden, economists have two problems with this explanation.

“First, why would greed – which, we argue, is very difficult to measure – suddenly show up this decade and in the housing market? Our training tells us that the motivating factor for businesses – profit – always exists, and we assume any business wants to make as much profit as quickly as it can. Likewise, buyers will make decisions that they believe will lead to greater happiness for them,” he said.

Instead, Walden said for the housing market to become the Incredible Hulk of the decade there had to first be a spark to start the transformation, and then the fuel to complete it.

“The spark came in 1997 when the income tax code was changed for home sellers. Before, for the home seller to escape tax on any profit made from the sale, the seller had to purchase a home of equal or comparable value within 18 months,” he said.

In 1997, Walden said the requirement for buying another home was removed.

“Now, when a person sold his home, all profits automatically were kept tax-free. There were some upper limits on the gains, but they were beyond the reach of most sellers,” he said.

People began looking at homes much more as a tax shelter, Walden said.

“Almost immediately, home sales began to rise, as did home prices. But for the spark to really catch, fuel had to be added in the form of cheap money and plenty of it,” he said.

And after the modest recession of 2001, that fuel came courtesy of two sources – the Federal Reserve and foreign investors, according to Walden said.

“Standard operating procedure during a recession is for the Federal Reserve (aka the Fed) to lower interest rates and pump money into the economy. Beginning in 2001, the Fed did this,” he said.

But there was a difference, according to Walden.

“Although the production side of the economy began recovering in 2002, jobs didn’t start to come back until mid-2003. So the Fed kept its foot on the money accelerator well into 2004. This provided ample cash and credit – fuel – for the now booming housing market, and the increased home buying and price appreciation that resulted kept renewing the spark,” he said.

Another source of money for the housing machine was from foreign investors, Walden said.

“Globalization has enriched many foreign countries, and in some of these countries – China is an example – saving rates are extremely high. So such countries generated huge pools of new funds, and since housing in the U.S. appeared to be such a good investment, many of these funds made their way to the U.S. in the form of mortgage investments. This action made the housing spiral go higher and higher. The average home in the country was now appreciating at double digit rates annually,” he said.

So what ultimately pulled the housing spiral down?

In a word – concern – concern at the Fed that the housing market had reached levels that weren’t sustainable, Walden said.

“ Ultimately, the Fed pulled the plug on the housing market by increasing interest rates and limiting credit availability. The Fed thought there would be an orderly retreat in the housing market, with housing appreciation rates settling down to normal levels of between 2 and 3 percent. Instead, optimism in the housing market quickly turned to pessimism, and the retreat became a rout,” he said.

According to Walden, there are lessons to be learned.

“First, things always look different with the benefit of hindsight. Many mortgages that look bad now looked good at a time when credit was cheap and plentiful and home values were skyrocketing. Second, motivations are important, but there has to be support – fuel – for continuing trends. Which leads to the question – are we putting these lessons to good use today? You decide!,” he said.

A poll of 4,000 Americans shows that 74 percent of rural Americans believe that improving access to health care and making health care more affordable should be a high or top priority for our nation’s elected officials. Only 11 percent of people living in rural America believe improving health care affordability and access should be a low or no priority for elected officials.

“With critical votes rapidly approaching in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, we believe it is important to re-examine rural attitudes toward health care reform,” said Jon Bailey with the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska. “The media and elected officials often suggest that rural people are not supportive of health care reform. But that is simply not true. These results reflect what we have found in our work in throughout rural America. Rural people understand the problems with the current health care system very well,” added Bailey.

According to Bailey, the health care reform bills advancing through Congress will make health insurance more affordable for everyone by placing new requirements on health insurance companies and providing assistance to families and small businesses that otherwise would be unable to afford coverage.

Roger Johnson, President of the National Farmers Union said, “The economy of rural America is dominated by family farms, ranches and small businesses which face some of the steepest challenges in the current health care system. Our current health care system is badly broken and needs major reform.”

The poll, commissioned by the Northwest Area Foundation in St. Paul, Minnesota, found that 90 percent of rural people believe that having affordable health care makes a difference in a family’s ability to make ends meet in the current economy. However, only 48 percent of rural people think national elected officials are either very or somewhat knowledgeable about the economic struggles people in their communities face.

“People in rural America have been hit hard by the recession,” said Kevin Walker, President and CEO of Northwest Area Foundation. “Nonetheless, the poll shows that an overwhelming majority believes the number of people struggling in their community can be reduced. And they recognize that one of the keys to their future prosperity is affordable health care.”