Universal coverage for pregnant women and children = 9 days of DOD spending

[HM2VikingRN]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/02/immoral_lack_of_care.php

but even if schip is fully funded, millions of children will still be excluded from health care coverage.

up until now, medicaid and the schip program have made great strides in providing children with health insurance. but even with their successes, one out of every nine of our children is still without health insurance and millions more are underinsured. as congress considers reauthorization of schip this year, we have a unique opportunity to take the next logical, achievable and moral step that would guarantee comprehensive health and mental health care to all children and pregnant women. we at the children's defense fund propose a plan whereby children’s health coverage under medicaid and schip would be consolidated into a single program. this will include a guaranteed, comprehensive benefits package nationwide for children whose family incomes are at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (topping at about $62,000 a year for a family of four).

under the proposal, children currently enrolled in medicaid, schip and means-tested federal programs like school lunch and food stamps would be enrolled automatically, with an opportunity for parents to opt out. uninsured children could also be automatically enrolled when they are born, enter school or get a social security card, again with the opportunity to opt out.

...

another element of the proposal would substantially increase reimbursements to health care providers so children can actually get health services when they need them. and there would be no additional cost to states for child coverage expansion or enhanced benefits.

health coverage can be provided to every child in america in 2007. the funding necessary to expand coverage to all children and pregnant women would be the equivalent to just nine days of defense department spending in 2007, and three months of the tax cuts to the richest one percent of americans this year.

which is of the greater moral value? 20,000 plus in tax cuts for dick cheney and his family or health care for poor children in your community?

[kidznurse]

i am 100 percent against socialism in any form including that of free health care for adult americans, just go look at the quality of care in socialized nations and youll be happy for america. having said that though i believe anyone under 18 should be protected under their state for healthcare, minors cant get health care and should not be punished for their parents bad choices. once youre 18 though you gotta find your own, just like with education.

i live in a country that has free health and education for its citizens- nz . i have worked in the us, and in the uk, and australia . every system has its issues but i did not find the system in the us superior in quality.i think it is important to be self critical and reflective . i for one am looking at the quality of life and health indicators for children in all scandinavian countries (see who unicef reports) as the most significant for us in new zealand to explore - not the us.

[kidznurse]

Unfortunately we are not all born equal there are people born with lower cognitive abilities (Lower IQ) who cannot get a decent college education . There are many children born with in-utero alcohol and drug damage to their brains, there are people who have genetic predisposition to mental illness, in short there are people who have special needs. What do you suggest punishing them ,or providing for them? Or perhaps we are back to a Hitlerian view of Eugenics.

[Simplepleasures]

Unfortunately we are not all born equal there are people born with lower cognitive abilities (Lower IQ) who cannot get a decent college education . There are many children born with in-utero alcohol and drug damage to their brains, there are people who have genetic predisposition to mental illness, in short there are people who have special needs. What do you suggest punishing them ,or providing for them? Or perhaps we are back to a Hitlerian view of Eugenics.

Thanks, kidznurse, for your response to Cozmo Blozmo, doesnt it make you wonder when you hear such statements? Not all Americans are this way, really.

[cozmo_blozmo]

Okay that accounts for about .0001% of the population what about the other 15% who do nothing productive in this country. I see people with mental disabilities all the time doing productive work cleaning rest areas or other menial jobs and they love it.

Unfortunately we are not all born equal there are people born with lower cognitive abilities (Lower IQ) who cannot get a decent college education . There are many children born with in-utero alcohol and drug damage to their brains, there are people who have genetic predisposition to mental illness, in short there are people who have special needs. What do you suggest punishing them ,or providing for them? Or perhaps we are back to a Hitlerian view of Eugenics.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Any discussion of the current US healthcare system should look at the financial and moral costs we now incur. I know that many of the dollars we spend never help a sick person. Our health system is bloated with excessive costs. I say let's focus our money toward two areas, fighting sickness and the prevention of illness. The moral costs of our present system leave many of us wanting. Too many Americans do not have health insurance. We all suffer when so many of our fellow citizens are left out. Indeed, we are all responsible for each other. I support universal healthcare. Our leaders should help us understand the collective obligation we have to each other and the personal duty we each have to take care of our own health. Beneficiaries should be encouraged to enjoy their optimal level of health but if a citizen chooses to ignore the best advice of healthcare providers, we cannot afford to save them each time he crashes. My vote goes to the politician that tells us Universal Health has responsibilities in addition to rights.

:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

How could anybody in their right mind even think of disagreeing with an organization calling itself the "Children's Defense Fund"? To do so would be admitting that he/she/it who disagrees is against the children. :smackingf

Therefore, I propose doing away with the Department of Defense altogether. Just think about all the money that would be saved and could be used for the children and their mothers. No mother or child would ever want for anything ever again. This would also eliminate such evil entities such as Halliburton, a defense contractor that is still under the iron fist of you-know-who (it has to be true.....it's all over the Internet).

I say, let's try the above suggestion and dismantle that dinosaur of a government agency. I assure you that if we do so, in a few years we will not need it anyway.

Neither a fair or accurate comment. An honest reading of the original post was that we as a country need to examine our priorities. In no way has anyone argued for a dismantling of DOD. However, eliminating private contracting by DOD of transportation services, food service, laundry etc to KBR/Halliburton would more than likely save enough to pay for Universal coverage. (A 2.5% expenditure cut is hardly a proposal to shut down DOD.) Bottom line is that it is pennywise and pound foolish to not provide affordable access to health care to children and pregnant women. Somehow, I think that adopting that position reflects the nursing core value of caring.

[paulaking1978]

Thanks, kidznurse, for your response to Cozmo Blozmo, doesnt it make you wonder when you hear such statements? Not all Americans are this way, really.

:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

It is a shame we all don't live in the " Radical Right-Wing" world. :trout:

[SmilingBluEyes]

Please, try to keep posts focused on the topic and not each other. Hot topic of debate; political lines are clearly demarkated here. Let's just try to keep our cool while we debate these things! Thanks.

[pickledpepperRN]

A Colorado father journeyed to Washington to plead for health-care reform on behalf of his chronically ill son.

...A computer network security expert who earns over $100,000, Wilkes works for a private firm outside of Denver which fits into the large-group insurance category and is allowed to shop around for different providers each year. But when his son Thomas, born with severe hemophilia, developed a resistance to treatment at age 1, Wilkes's claims soared; his company's insurance provider, Wilkes says, soon began hiking premiums 40 to 55 percent each year, and introduced a lifetime cap of $1 million for all employees and their families--including Thomas. Soon, Wilkes says, no other insurance companies would offer to cover the company. Worried he would no longer be able to provide coverage for his son, Wilkes turned to state and local groups for help....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16874285/site/newsweek/

[Overland1, RN]

Neither a fair or accurate comment. An honest reading of the original post was that we as a country need to examine our priorities. In no way has anyone argued for a dismantling of DOD. However, eliminating private contracting by DOD of transportation services, food service, laundry etc to KBR/Halliburton would more than likely save enough to pay for Universal coverage. (A 2.5% expenditure cut is hardly a proposal to shut down DOD.) Bottom line is that it is pennywise and pound foolish to not provide affordable access to health care to children and pregnant women. Somehow, I think that adopting that position reflects the nursing core value of caring.

I never try to be just fair (good or excellent is a much better course) nor am I dishonest; rather I always try to be reasonable. I occasionally use absurdity (some call it "sarcasm", which is not my intent, or "tongue-in-cheek", which may be a more accurate description) to expose absurdity.

I have always been skeptical of placing certain things in the hands of government. Having worked with government agencies over the past decades; I realize that the government is likely the least capable of running anything. Who could better provide laundry, transportation, and other services to the DoD than the terminally eeeeeeeeeevil Halliburton (most have no idea of what Halliburton is or does, other than what they see and hear in the media)? If there is such a company, who and where are they, and how much would their services cost the taxpayers? Look at the Postal Service, the Dept. of Agriculture, etc. as examples. We have too much recidivism among our elected officials, probably because their priority is not caring about us little people. Job #1 for them is to be elected and be re-elected, regardless of political affiliation, geographic location, age, or other categories in which they reside. They succeed because the voters too often want something for nothing, and who is there to promise it will be given to them if they vote a certain way? You guessed it - the politicians who have learned early on about Job #1. I personally knew several who chose elected office as a career; they started out as basically honest, concerned, nice people. Once they got into office, little time passed before they became part of the culture, which will chew you up and spit you out if you do not follow their agenda. No room for individual thinkers in politics; they do not last long because nobody in state and federal politics likes a troublemaker.

We go to "rallies" to protest various things and those we elected are there for face and mike time. They find the biggest and best ways to get more media exposure, with occasional "listening" to each special interest group. Years ago, we had a governor whose approach to nurses' concerns was basically (paraphrased), "so what do you nurses want, anyway?" I realize that NY voters never seem to be able to elect the best nor the brightest.......

Then I read articles such as this

[pickledpepperRN]

We cannot continue on the road we are on now. Hospitals are closing, many are closing ER's and mental health services. Why are prisoners entitled to healthcare but not little boys born with a disorder that is expensive to treat?

This institute has the goal of improving Canadas system. They don't advocate denying care to anyone?

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=877

------------------------------------------------------

Facts on the Cost of Health Care

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Spending higher per person for younger and older Canadians

Total health care spending per capita is expected to reach $4,548 in 2006, a 4.9% increase over last year.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=58214

U.S. citizens spent $5,267 per capita for health care in 2002—53 percent more than any other country.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/903

Despite spending more for health care, Americans do not have the best medical care in the world.

http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=1286

Health care spending seen to nearly double

Government report projects costs growing faster than economy

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.health21feb21,0,2577788.story?coll=bal-health-headlines

[leximast1]

I totally agree that goverment run health would be horrid. But we all seem to agree there has to be something. But what?

I used to work in HR. Image choosing between a good healthcare coverage and your cell phone. The company I worked for had 12 different plans(from $11 a week and up) only 25% of the qualified employees would sign up, rest said that they couldn't afford it or that they would just go to emergencey. But for some reason they could afford their car payments and cell phone bill. For some people healthcare isn't a priority, until they need it.

The ones I really feel sorry for is when women during job interveiws ask how long before they can get health insurance. I tell them in 6 mos or after you have work a certain about of hours, whichever comes first. They look really disappointed and say "but my baby is due in 5 months"