and Texas, which has the most uninsured residents in the country, has kids eight times more likely to go without than Massachusetts.

Those who lack health insurance now are far more likely to live in states that usually vote Republican — the states whose senators and representatives are least likely to support a law to extend coverage.

That would seem to indicate that Republican constituents are the ones who would most benefit from passage of universal health insurance coverage. But an analysis of Congressional districts within those states indicates that those without health insurance are much more likely to live in strongly Democratic Congressional districts. Many of those contain large minority populations with relatively low incomes.

In the Congressional debate now going on, Democrats have generally supported plans aimed at assuring that all Americans have some sort of insurance, while nearly all Republicans have opposed the Democratic bills, raising concerns ranging from cost to worries that providing better health coverage for those who now lack it would diminish coverage for those who have it.

The accompanying graphic divides the states into red states — states that both voted for Senator John McCain in the last presidential election and are represented by two Republican senators — and blue states, which have two Democratic senators and voted for President Obama. The purple states are the ones that split their ballots in the presidential and Senate elections.

Lest you think this is our idea, take a look at what the Texas Observer has to say about health care (and

about Rick Perry's wigout on the subject -- as well as his refusal to acknowledge Texas has a real problem with arson convictions -- and the problem ain't that we let too many firebugs go).