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

tntrn, ASN, RN · Mar 3, 2007

While I feel for all the poor women and children, I also feel that IF one cannot afford to have children, one should not have them. Or continue to have them. I also believe this issue and alleged tax cuts for our Vice President is comparing applies to oranges.

Uberman5000 · Mar 3, 2007

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? 300,000 plus in tax cuts for dick cheney and his family or health care for poor children in your community?

do i have to listen to this liberal bs? yeah right, giving everyone health insurance = 9 days of defense department spending...sure - that is why we spend 15% of our gdp on health care and defense spending is 5% lol..yet you espouse that only 9 days of defense department spending givse everyone health insurance, what a load of crap. why dont you talk about the facts instead of taking cheap shots and cheney and blaming bush for everything wrong in the world, got bias???

you whine about giving healthcare to all the poor children yet in the state of new york you have unemployed drug addicts and sloths getting ny state medicaid, paid for by the working class of course. awhile ago i was working my butt off and had no health insurance yet these drug addict losers were walking in off the street getting free dental care, health care, vision care for contributing nothing to society at the expense of my hardworking productive taxpayer dime. if you want a welfare state move to france and enjoy your 55% tax rate on your income.

pickledpepperRN · Mar 3, 2007

I will work for everyone to breathe clean air, drink clean water, have a warm place to live, nutricious food, and all babies receive healthcare before and after birth.

...After searching for an evidence-based model to reduce child abuse and neglect, the state of Oklahoma decided to implement the Nurse-Family Partnership Model utilizing the county health department system. Children First, Oklahoma's NFP, was created by state statue in 1996 and funded with state appropriations. In February1997, four pilot sites with 19 nurses were based in Garfield, Garvin, Muskogee and Tulsa Counties. By October 1998, services were available in all 77 counties. Currently the county health department staff consists of 170 public health nurses providing home visits, and 22 nurse supervisors. Training, quality assurance through site visits and audits, as well as general consultation is provided to the Children First nurses by Children First Program Staff out of the Oklahoma State Department of Health's central office....
http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=139&navID=119

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

...May, 2005 ■ Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology publishes findings by the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the University of Oklahoma, that NFP/Children First mothers have healthier babies...
http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/resources/files/PDF/OK%20perinatal%20outcomes.Carabin2005.pdf

http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/house/wrap2001.htm

feminist-mama · Mar 3, 2007

Spacenurse, I'm so glad you replied! I feel exactly the same way! Everyone deserves to be safe and warm, with decent healthcare and enough food to eat.

Everyone. Even drug addicts.

Uberman5000 · Mar 3, 2007

Spacenurse, I'm so glad you replied! I feel exactly the same way! Everyone deserves to be safe and warm, with decent healthcare and enough food to eat.
Everyone. Even drug addicts.

Yeah you are absolutely right, everyone should have food, water, healthcare, a four bedroom apartment in manhattan, and the great thing is, if you dont have to work for it you dont need to, you can always count on the next sucker who is working his butt off to give you some of his tax money to pay for your welfare...great concept. Lets tax everybody 55% of their income to make things "Fair" for everybody, Isnt that the liberal thing to do?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Mar 3, 2007

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010625/scherer

the analysis found that even within this select group of sixteen officials, which includes at least twelve millionaires, the income tax cut would mean vastly different levels of savings. while several cabinet members would have saved about as much as one of bush's family examples, the wealthiest seven officials would each have saved more than $16,000 from the income tax cut. and as with the nation as a whole, the biggest windfalls would go to the wealthy few.

....

it is clear, however, that the hagen family of south dakota, eager for a $1,500 tax break, will reap far less than those running the government. at last year's income levels, rumsfeld would have saved at least 393 times as much as the hagens, and bush would have saved about fifteen times as much, or $23,000. meanwhile, the median american family with children will get by this year on an estimated before-tax income of $45,600. at the rally in south dakota, bush did his best to minimize this divide with a scripted expression of empathy. "$1,500 may not be a lot to some," he told the crowd. "it means a lot to the hagens." one can only guess what a total tax savings of at least $88.3 million would mean to bush and fifteen of his closest advisers.

this proposal was citing the cost for a selected subset of the population (pregnant women and children). we need to work for a society where work pays and people have access to the middle class. current tax/spending policies actually work against that broad societal goal.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Mar 3, 2007

In case you haven't noticed, even factoring in Iraq, the 'military industrial complex' gets such a smaller percentage of both the budget and GDP these days that it isn't even fashionable anymore to refer to them as the 'military industrial complex'.

Besides, I happen to think that defense spending is pretty important. It also happens to be one of the few Constitutionally ordained powers of the Gov't. Healthcare - is not.

~faith,

Timothy.

burn out · Mar 3, 2007

Hey let's take it easy on the liberals, I am about as right wing as you can get and believe 100% that universal coverage is the best option for all americans. President bush is even coming around a little ..also alittle late but coming around none the less.

Uberman are you a nurse?

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Mar 3, 2007

Hey let's take it easy on the liberals, I am about as right wing as you can get and believe 100% that universal coverage is the best option for all americans. President bush is even coming around a little ..also alittle late but coming around none the less.
Uberman are you a nurse?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you cannot both support the socialization of 1/7th of our economy and be 'about as right wing as you can get'. Those are mutually exclusive agendas.

That's like saying that, except for uzis, m-16s and saturday night specials being freely available to all, you are about as gun-control minded as you can get. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Mar 3, 2007

the real point of the post was to point out that there is money in the federal budget available to make schip fully available to income eligible pregnant women and children.

i personally am not opposed to dod spending. i posted the information about the number of days of dod spending as an illustration of how much it would take to fund schip. the very short answer is that 9 days of spending is roughly equal to 2.5% of the entire dod budget. somehow i think that dod wouldn't miss the money. on the other hand the really substantial point of the post was that 1/9 children are uninsured. in round numbers that is about 11% of all children in the us. the tax breaks afforded to the extrememely wealthy directly benefit 5% or less of the population at approximately 4 times the cost of fully funded schip.

http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedbud.htm

fully 16% of the federal budget is going to these taxcuts. this is also reoughly equal to half of the dod/homeland security pie slice above. in any event these numbers are an obscene misappropriation of the federal budget. it is simply wrong that the upper 5% of the economy pays a lower marginal tax rate than the middle class.

Uberman5000 · Mar 3, 2007

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010625/scherer
the analysis found that even within this select group of sixteen officials, which includes at least twelve millionaires, the income tax cut would mean vastly different levels of savings. while several cabinet members would have saved about as much as one of bush's family examples, the wealthiest seven officials would each have saved more than $16,000 from the income tax cut. and as with the nation as a whole, the biggest windfalls would go to the wealthy few.
....
it is clear, however, that the hagen family of south dakota, eager for a $1,500 tax break, will reap far less than those running the government. at last year's income levels, rumsfeld would have saved at least 393 times as much as the hagens, and bush would have saved about fifteen times as much, or $23,000. meanwhile, the median american family with children will get by this year on an estimated before-tax income of $45,600. at the rally in south dakota, bush did his best to minimize this divide with a scripted expression of empathy. "$1,500 may not be a lot to some," he told the crowd. "it means a lot to the hagens." one can only guess what a total tax savings of at least $88.3 million would mean to bush and fifteen of his closest advisers.
this proposal was citing the cost for a selected subset of the population (pregnant women and children). we need to work for a society where work pays and people have access to the middle class. current tax/spending policies actually work against that broad societal goal.

wow - quoting from "the nation". no liberal bias in that magazine, isn't that a socialist magazine? this is america if i am not mistaken, i don't think the majority of people agree with socialist policies. it is funny how i come on this forum expecting to see a discussiopn about universal health care and all i see is lib bias and bush bashing...pretty pathetic imo.