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

Nurses Activism

Published

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?

coerced confiscation of wages is not charity. how well you contrive to spend my money is not a mark or measure of how charitable you are.

charity is how you choose to spend your money, not everybody elses.

i reject completely the notion that being entitled to the fruits of my labor is 'selfish'. it is the essense of freedom. otherwise, you are just somebody's slave.

~faith,

timothy.

b_andrew_carnegie.jpg

from common dreams:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/10/23/pm200610235.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1102-22.htm

"gospel of wealth" essays, carnegie demanded that the wealthy give away their fortunes in their lifetimes. those who did not would "pass away 'unwept, unhonored, and unsung'…. of such as these the public verdict will then be: 'the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.' "

even smart and hardworking millionaires did not, carnegie argued, earn their fortunes by themselves. "wealth," he declared, "is not chiefly the product of the individual, but largely the joint product of the community."

...

carnegie, who was opposed to income taxes and property taxes, nevertheless supported near 100% inheritance taxes on large estates. those who held on to their money, he said, instead of distributing it for the good of society, had no moral right to decide what happened to it after their deaths: "by taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life."

...

the hereditary transmission of wealth from generation to generation would create dynastic power over business and politics. this was bad for capitalism, bad for democracy, bad for the children of the rich who were handed leadership positions they had not earned and worse for the poor and middle classes that had to struggle against unreasonable odds to achieve leadership positions.

My taxes pay for killing which I believe is morally wrong.

Specializes in Critical Care.
I personally think that the "religious"/antitax/antigovernment crowd are putting mammon and his values ahead of their professed religious faith and duty and that is perhaps the saddest distortion of all.

I'm in league with the devil because I don't want YOU to spend MY money on things I find immoral. Nice.

Universal healthcare is slavery. It is immoral. It is a violation of our social contract. I object.

But, it is a nice argument that I have a RELIGIOUS duty to give YOU my money. (I seem to recall that the Bible calls it wisdom to be discerning.) It's nice to know that I'm, by definition, selfish to want to keep the fruits of my labor for me. Shame on me for not wanting to be coerced into forced labor for the benefit of others. Don't I know that my life would be so much better if I just let Uncle Sam provide for me?

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Critical Care.
My taxes pay for killing which I believe is morally wrong.

At least THAT expense IS part of our social contract. Providing for a military IS an enumerated power of government.

In that case, how such a military is used is subject to who you vote into power. All those wonderfully, ineffective arguments that universal healthcare can be positively controlled and changed by the power of the vote - how well did that power of the vote get you when it comes to controlling and changing how the military is used?

It's a valid point, since that is a key argument with nationalizing healthcare: that our politicians would actually BE responsive to make essential changes as needed. I'm critical of that suggestion, for good reason.

~faith,

Timothy.

jim wallis makes the point that there are over 3000 verses in the bible about caring for the sick and the poor and not one about tax cuts for the rich.

i personally think that the "religious"/antitax/antigovernment crowd are putting mammon and his values ahead of their professed religious faith and duty and that is perhaps the saddest distortion of all.

:melody: hallelujah,hallelujah,ha-lle-lu-jah!!!! :melody: :saint: :innerconf
Specializes in ER Occ Health Urgent Care.

First of all I would like to say that our fellow Americans are the foundation of our great country. To have Americans without health care coverage weakens our nation and puts our country at risk. 2nd point we don't want to pay for the lazy, stupid, drug addicted and illegals. Well I'd just like to point out that those are the very people we are paying for under the current system. They are the ones getting Medicaid and who frequent our ER's and don't pay their bills because they have nothing to loose, thereby raising the cost for the rest of us who do pay our bills. Then there are people who work at less then their capacity because if they increased say working 30 hours a week to 40 they would loose their Medicaid and the increased money wouldn't be enough to cover their health care. If they felt free to work more they would and that would lead to paying more taxes. Then there are the people making little money who don't qualify for any healthcare and it isn't offered at their job. Many of these people are working very hard desperately trying to get ahead they will often not access the health care system until they are half dead. They can't afford to have unpaid debt but it ends up costing them more because they are so sick when they finally show up. Not only that but these good people who work very hard and pay their bills end up paying more for the same service then a big insurance company does because the insurance company has negotiated price breaks and they have no such leverage. Is that fair? Next I'd like to address the illegal aliens. If every citizen had insurance anyone who walked into an ER should have insurance or a green card. If they don't authorities should be called immediately and they should be sent home if their condition isn't an emergency (as many aren't in our ER) no cash no treatment. The only problem is our current gov't doesn't seem to want to send them home. Next point every time you buy something you either choose to subsidize someone else's insurance or you choose that they are not worthy of insurance. When you buy are starbucks for $4 a cup you pay for their insurance when you go down the street to the cheaper place you've decided not to pay for insurance. When you buy a car you pay for UAW health insurance get the picture. There would be losers with universal health care, insurance company's biller and coders, bill collectors ect. Many could loose their jobs and that would be difficult but in the long run America would benefit. In conclusion I would just like to say a healthy America = a strong America. Peace out!

My taxes pay for killing which I believe is morally wrong.
Bravo Spacenurse! There are those in Congress TRYING to undo this wrong. My own state Senator ,Russ Feingold, who is HIGHLY critisized by the right wing , was from the START, unlike Hillary Clinton, against this war and NEVER changed his stance. There are others in government who also took this stance. Maybe if we can keep a Democratic Congress, we may have a change.Then maybe we can get to the matter at hand, UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.

Moderator's Note:

The threads in this forum are meant to encourage debate and foster constructive thoughts and ideas on nursing and healthcare topics---NOT to incite more liberal-vs-conservative dogfights, such as can be found elsewhere on the Internet.

This particular thread, which started out as a promising discussion, has degenerated into a shouting match and thus appears to be outliving its usefulness. While we at allnurses prefer not to shut down threads or stifle debate, I believe it is necessary to close this one, at least temporarily, for a "cooling-off" period and moderator/administrator review.

Thank you for your understanding.

+ Add a Comment