Published Mar 22, 2007
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/21/cutting_native_peoples_health_care.php
in addition to questions about ihcia reauthorization, the bush administration has also targeted the elimination of health care for urban indians (indians who no longer live on their tribal reservations). the administration tried to eliminate the entire urban indian health program from the 2007 budget but congress restored it. now the administration has again removed the entire $33 million program from the proposed 2008 budget.in addition to cost-saving concerns, the administration claims to be worried that serving urban indians is largely a race-based action which federal courts would disapprove of, a white house spokesman told the senate indian affairs committee on march 8. the alleged problem lies in the possibility of some people who are of indian heritage but not enrolled in federally-recognized tribes might receiving care at urban indian health service facilities. but this argument is clearly specious. in fact, the definition of an indian to be served under the ihcia is the same as it has been for the past 30 years and is similar to the definition of indian found in president bush's no child left behind act. the u.s. supreme court long ago laid to rest the idea that government programs for the benefit--or even to the detriment--of indians is a racially-based "affirmative action" issue. in 1974, the supreme court stated in morton v. mancari that the relationship of the united states to the indian nations and their citizens is a political and treaty-based relationship and is part of the federal government's government-to-government relationship with indian tribes. thus, congressional acts regarding tribes and indians are not racial or affirmative action laws but political and diplomatic acts of the congress vis-à-vis the tribal governments and authorized by article i, section 8 of the constitution.
in addition to questions about ihcia reauthorization, the bush administration has also targeted the elimination of health care for urban indians (indians who no longer live on their tribal reservations). the administration tried to eliminate the entire urban indian health program from the 2007 budget but congress restored it. now the administration has again removed the entire $33 million program from the proposed 2008 budget.
in addition to cost-saving concerns, the administration claims to be worried that serving urban indians is largely a race-based action which federal courts would disapprove of, a white house spokesman told the senate indian affairs committee on march 8. the alleged problem lies in the possibility of some people who are of indian heritage but not enrolled in federally-recognized tribes might receiving care at urban indian health service facilities. but this argument is clearly specious. in fact, the definition of an indian to be served under the ihcia is the same as it has been for the past 30 years and is similar to the definition of indian found in president bush's no child left behind act.
the u.s. supreme court long ago laid to rest the idea that government programs for the benefit--or even to the detriment--of indians is a racially-based "affirmative action" issue. in 1974, the supreme court stated in morton v. mancari that the relationship of the united states to the indian nations and their citizens is a political and treaty-based relationship and is part of the federal government's government-to-government relationship with indian tribes. thus, congressional acts regarding tribes and indians are not racial or affirmative action laws but political and diplomatic acts of the congress vis-à-vis the tribal governments and authorized by article i, section 8 of the constitution.
noggin_wise
28 Posts
So what's your point? There are enough tribal casinos in this country to shoulder the burden
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
...American Indians have access to federally-paid health care based on hundreds of treaties the United States signed with Indian nations, under the accepted federal practice of more than 100 years and as a requirement of the trust responsibility the U.S. owes the Indian nations to care for their welfare...http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/21/cutting_native_peoples_health_care.php
If the Indians don't like the United States they should go back where they came from..
ertravelrn
195 Posts
As an American Indian, I carry insurance and use local facilities. However, at times I have used the Indian hospitals and clinics. My daughter uses them at this time, and my Mother does also. My tribe has built their hospitals/clinics and shared the burden of staffing them with the government.
The "free" health care is not the best, and at times is scary. The services are limited, and the pharmacy is very limited in the medications it carries.
Thanks for pointing out another fine example of governemnt run health care.
As an American Indian, I carry insurance and use local facilities. However, at times I have used the Indian hospitals and clinics. My daughter uses them at this time, and my Mother does also. My tribe has built their hospitals/clinics and shared the burden of staffing them with the government. The "free" health care is not the best, and at times is scary. The services are limited, and the pharmacy is very limited in the medications it carries.
Simplepleasures
1,355 Posts
Don't misunderstand, I am glad it is there, but I want people to understand that it is very limited care. It is not like what I have with insurance. It is wasting a whole day at the clinic.......first come, first serve. I think folks have an unrealistic view of this free care. This care was given to us as part of the treaties that were signed.
That is exactly why I posted the excerpt. I take very seriously the agreements that my government signs and I expect my government to keep those promises in full to Veterans (many of whom are Indians) and the Indian nations.
Not all tribes are able to have casinos because of the various state gaming compacts.
Tweety, BSN, RN
35,406 Posts
That is exactly why I posted the excerpt. I take very seriously the agreements that my government signs and I expect my government to keep those promises in full to Veterans (many of whom are Indians) and the Indian nations. Not all tribes are able to have casinos because of the various state gaming compacts.
Correct. The poverty on reservations is well documented. The health problems with diabeties, cardiac problems, infant mortality, alcholism, etc. is also well documented. Despite the existance of a few casinos around the country.
The Rosebud and Pine ridge reservations are prime examples of the problems of poverty and poor health.
HM2Viking,
Thank you, I have had some very heated discussions with some folks about this. They think that the treaties shouldn't be honored. Well, I think they should. I have the opportunity to have private insurance, but not everyone does, and regardless of this......it is owed to us. The poverty that the Indians live in is horrendous in some places. I happen to belong to one of the more prosporous nations, and not just casino money, we have many industries, and are well on our way of becoming self sufficient. I am in a position that if all goes well, I will retire in 2011, at that time I intend to volunteer with the area Indian hospitals/clinics with education on diabetes and alcoholism.
I currently live in one of the poorer areas of the State of Oklahoma, in the Cherokee Nation. I hope that I can somehow pay back what has been given to me.
SharonH, RN
2,144 Posts
LMAO! spacenurse, I loooooove you......