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?

check

Uberman are you a nurse?

YES I AM - ARE YOU A NURSE?

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.
Uberman, which in German means top man or over man, interesting.The reason politics has been dragged into this Universal Health care discussion is because, there is such a sharp line in the ideologies of the right and left wing on their stances on healthcare, the progressive group whether toward the right or towards the left admit we have a huge problem with the private health care industry and advocate reforms, and brother do we need alot of them, from military healthcare to private. Why do you feel that a 55% tax increase would be nessessary? What facts is this based on,there is so much fear mongering .Do you know that American corporations( right wing capitalistic types) are starting to advocate Universal Healthcare because they cannot bare the financial burden either? Change is hard, but our country has had major changes in the past, we survived, and became the better for it, what are you going to do if in 2008 we vote in a Democratic president? Relax, we are all still Americans , are we not?

The President wants to make health care available for all. I agree.

We only differ on how to achieve it.

"There is no question in my mind that a proper role for the federal government is to help the poor and the elderly and the diseased get health care. We'll do that. And to the extent that these important programs need to be reformed and strengthened, we will do that, as well. ... And so we will do our duty at the federal level, and when we find deficiencies in federal programs we will work to correct them, for the good of the citizens and the taxpayers. ... The second aspect of our responsibility is to work to make health care available and affordable for all our citizens, and the best way to do that is through private health insurance."

-- President George W. Bush

January 25, 2007

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthcare/
all i see is lib bias, blah blah blah.

Please stop crying bias when every other sentance from you is political hackery.

Assumptions of what the liberal thing to do is, equating France (freedom fries, anyone? laughable) as a welfare state to make your point. You are focusing on any and every sterotype you can to make your 'points' (I use the term "points" loosely, btw) while crying bias?

Hey, if you don't agree with it, then don't. Argue the logic behind it, critique the rebuttals. PLEASE, by all means give your opinion and point out any and all holes in your oppositions opinion...but don't cry bias when displaying it yourself so very often.

As amusing as it is, it doesn't really help you to make your points.

Specializes in NICU.

....

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.

i'm really curious to know how this dollar amount for each family represents a percentage of their annual income. i don't doubt that the hagen family would love to be getting the same break at the same dollar amount but that would be a much more significant percentage of their annual income where it may represent a much smaller percentage of the rumsfeld family's income, don't you think?

Uberman, which in German means top man or over man, interesting.The reason politics has been dragged into this Universal Health care discussion is because, there is such a sharp line in the ideologies of the right and left wing on their stances on healthcare, the progressive group whether toward the right or towards the left admit we have a huge problem with the private health care industry and advocate reforms, and brother do we need alot of them, from military healthcare to private. Why do you feel that a 55% tax increase would be nessessary? What facts is this based on,there is so much fear mongering .Do you know that American corporations( right wing capitalistic types) are starting to advocate Universal Healthcare because they cannot bare the financial burden either? Change is hard, but our country has had major changes in the past, we survived, and became the better for it, what are you going to do if in 2008 we vote in a Democratic president? Relax, we are all still Americans , are we not?

If you vote for Hillary care in 2008, then Hillary is elected President, end of story. What do you mean what am i going to do, what am I supposed to say to that question? Sorry I am just not interested in Socialist medicine, thats all.

I will vote for whatever candidate has the best plan for all Americans, whether they be Democrat or Republican. I encourage others to do the same.

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.

' Why can't I be right wing and support universal health care? I don't believe either side is 100% right or wrong or left. That is the wonderful part about being an American you can have your own beliefs and vote that way. At the time I believed Bush was the best man for the office , that doesn't mean I think he is God and perfect and had all the answers. On most other issues I lean toward the right but that doesn't mean I can't vote left either. Yes I beleive that health care issue are important enought that I would cross party lines to vote for someone that had a decent viable plan.

YES I AM - ARE YOU A NURSE?

Sorry the lack of compassion threw me off. I was temporarily blinded by the egotism. Yes I have been nurse for 22 years.

Specializes in Critical Care.
' Why can't I be right wing and support universal health care? I don't believe either side is 100% right or wrong or left. That is the wonderful part about being an American you can have your own beliefs and vote that way. At the time I believed Bush was the best man for the office , that doesn't mean I think he is God and perfect and had all the answers. On most other issues I lean toward the right but that doesn't mean I can't vote left either. Yes I beleive that health care issue are important enought that I would cross party lines to vote for someone that had a decent viable plan.

I agree with everything you said about your right to your point of view. I just disagree that such a point of view makes you 'about as right wing as you can get'. The willingness to 'cross party lines' to support left wing issues, in fact, is evidence to the contrary of solid right wing credentials.

I'm not attempting to be personal in this assessment. I respect your opinions, and I respect you. I'm merely clarifying labels. If you want to support left wing issues, that is perfectly fine, but you cannot do so under the lens of being 'right wing'.

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Critical Care.
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.

This is a total fabrication.

Your assessment of the cost of the tax cut is apt if you compare the tax receipts of 2000 to the expected receipts of 2001, assuming no benefit from the tax cuts. In reality, those cuts spurred growth that increased tax receipts.

As a result of the tax cuts, there is 8% MORE taxes in the federal coffers in 2006 over 2000. 200 Billion dollars more out of a budget that plans on 2,500 BN in taxation (and 2,900 BN in spending).

This is easily verifiable and I have pointed it out to you in other threads. If you want to claim that the tax cuts have cost 16% of tax reciepts, then you would need to show how the current receipts are 16% LESS then in 2000. In fact, those receipts are 8% HIGHER. The greatest bulk of those receipts are being paid by the top 5% of wage earners.

Thanks to the tax 'cuts', we are 'soaking the rich' at even greater levels. You should appreciate that.

~faith,

Timothy.

+ Add a Comment