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?

I think pregnant women should all have access to prenatal care.

All babies should be born with a competent healthcare professional in attendance.

All children deserve a healthy start in life.

I do not think it is good for our society to deny healthcare.

I think anyone in this country illegally should be sent home.

If anyone wants to start a thread in current events on a non healthcare or nursing topic I'll enjoy reading it and probably contribute.

I agree with Spacenurse and the moderator, I would also be happy to share my views on another thread. As for healthcare, US citizens all deserve good healthcare. Those with the funds should be free to seek additional services if they so choose.

thought provoking article.....

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070312/editors

america's infant mortality rate is exceeded only by hungary's; new zealand is the only country where more people under 19 meet violent deaths each year. on teenage motherhood, we're way ahead: forty-six births for every 1,000 girls between 15 and 19. the closest challenger (new zealand again) can manage only thirty. children born in the richest nation on earth are also the most likely to be noticeably poorer than their neighbors: 21.7 percent of america's children live in households whose income is less than half the national median. britain, at 16.2 percent, comes second in the inequality sweepstakes.

...

the areas where american children fare worse than most--infant mortality, low birth weight, early childbearing, family instability and child poverty--are all directly related to the status of women.

...

the deep, intractable connection between military adventurism abroad and the neglect of needs at home has never been more starkly evident. the pity is that it's so difficult to fight the problem, so hard to focus on a pregnant teenager too scared to ask for help or a child hungry at school when the casualty figures from baghdad demand our attention. the fog of war may be most blinding for the folks back home.

these are some of the reasons why i think we really need to examine our priorities as a country. this article was not posted as an attack on serving members of our military! many of these concerns apply to how we treat wounded veterans on their return from service. the bottom line is that i think as a society we have lost sight of our priorities to work together to form a more just and equitable society.

Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

poll: most support u.s. guarantee of healthcare

a majority of americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every american, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest new york times/cbs news poll.

new york times, mar. 2, 2007

pa state government has heard this message and responded to this call for social responsibility.

pennsylvania’s children’s health insurance program is expanding to be able to cover all kids.

(view the governor's

press release)

chip has grown to insure more kids and teenagers. it's the same great program, now available to all families regardless of income.

it doesn't matter how much money your family makes. many will get it free. others, at low-cost. don’t assume that you earn too much to qualify.

click here for more information.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070312/rosen/4

many advocacy organizations--such as the institute for women's policy research, the children's defense fund, the national partnership for women and families, take care net and momsrising--have argued that universal healthcare, paid parental leave, high-quality subsidized on-the-job and community childcare, a living wage, job training and education, flexible work hours and greater opportunities for part-time work, investment in affordable housing and mass transit, and the reinstatement of a progressive tax structure would go a long way toward supporting working mothers and their families.

from:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=viewweb&articleid=11455

progressives seek to secure the common good. securing the common good means putting the public interest above narrow self-interest and group demands; working to achieve social and economic conditions that benefit everyone; promoting a personal, governmental and corporate ethic of responsibility and service to others; creating a more open and honest governmental structure that relies upon an engaged and participatory citizenry; and doing more to meet our common responsibilities to aid the disadvantaged, protect our natural resources, and provide opportunities rather than burdens for future generations. after years of conservative dominance defined by rampant individualism, corruption and greed in american life, the public is ready for a higher national purpose and a greater sense of service and duty to something beyond self-interest alone.

...

this requires true leadership and global cooperation rather than the dominant “my-way-or-the-highway” mentality of the conservative majority today.

progressives should not forget that the common good is a powerful theme in the social teachings of many major faith traditions -- catholicism and mainline protestantism, in particular, but in moderate evangelical denominations as well. the principle of the common good is drawn upon in these faiths to guide people towards more thoughtful consideration of their own actions in light of others; to compel political leaders and policy-makers to consider the needs of the entire society; and to check unrestrained individualism that frequently erodes community sensibilities and values. the goal of the common good in both the secular and faith traditions is a more balanced and considerate populace that seeks to provide the social and economic conditions necessary for all people to lead meaningful and dignified lives.

whatever happend to personal responsibility? if youve (no one in paticular) been working your whole life then retire and dont plan a way to pay for future potential medical problems i wont be crying any rivers over anyones situation. i dont know why we cant hold adults to a standard of being able to provide the basic safe guards for themselves.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=viewweb&articleid=11424

-- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.

this, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. any rank-and-file liberal is a liberal because she or he somehow or another, through reading or experience or both, came to believe in this principle. and every leading democrat became a democrat because on some level, she or he believes this, too.

...

this is the only justification leaders can make to citizens for liberal governance, really: that all are being asked to contribute to a project larger than themselves. in terms of political philosophy, this idea of citizens sacrificing for and participating in the creation of a common good has a name: civic republicanism. it’s the idea, which comes to us from sources such as rousseau’s social contract and some of james madison’s contributions to the federalist papers, that for a republic to thrive, leaders must create and nourish a civic sphere in which citizens are encouraged to think broadly about what will sustain that republic and to work together to achieve common goals. this is what dad asked me to understand that day in our granada.

Thank you Karen for posting the poll results.

Thank you Viking for the important article.

Liberalism IS social responsibility.

"Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest."

http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=11424

I believe our history as nurses is one of social responsibility.

Think of Florence Nightingale, Lillian Wald, Lavinia Dock, Clara Barton, Dorothea Dix, and the many nurse reformers.

We have a proud history. Now it is our turn to work for all people to have a better life.

http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/

report card 1 (2000) and report card 6 (2005) addressed the issue of child income poverty in the oecd countries. some of the main findings:

in recent years, child poverty has risen in 17 out of 24 oecd

countries for which data are available.

[color=#ffffff]

norway is the only oecd country where child poverty can be

described as very low and continuing to fall.

[color=#ffffff]

higher government spending on family and social benefits is

associated with lower child poverty rates. no oecd country devoting 10% or more of gdp to social transfers has a child poverty rate higher than 10%. no country devoting less than 5% of gdp to social transfers has a child poverty rate of less than 15%.

[color=#ffffff]

variation in government policy appears to account for most of the variation in child poverty levels between oecd countries.

[color=#ffffff]

there appears to be little relationship between levels of employment and levels of child poverty. it is the distribution of employment among different kinds of household, the proportion of those in work who are on low-pay, and the level of state benefits for the unemployed and

the low-paid, that contribute most to differences in child poverty rates between countries.

[color=#ffffff]

variations between countries in the proportion of children growing up in lone-parent families do not explain national poverty rates. sweden, for example, has a higher proportion of its children living in loneparent families than the united states or the united kingdom but a much lower child poverty rate than either.

[color=#ffffff]

there is considerable variation in child poverty rates even in countries with broadly similar levels of government spending.

[color=#ffffff]

a realistic target for all oecd countries would be to bring relative child poverty rates below 10%. for the countries that have already achieved this, the next aim might be to emulate the four nordic countries in bringing child poverty rates below 5%.

[color=#ffffff]

The main thing here is that preventative care will always be cheaper than acute care. Where pregnant women and children are concerned, I really do not see how any fiscal conservative could deny the logic in providing them with care. Either provide cheaper preventative care now, or pay in various ways for the rest of this child's life. Let a treatable disorder turn into a lifelong sentance, and pay more time and time again. Hopefully it won't be something that leads to some mental impairment, or you greatly increase the chance of raising the crime rate, this person winding up in tax-funded prisons, etc.

There really are so many ways your selfish "me me me" mentality can turn around to ironically bite you in the butt so many more times. But time and agian the focus isn't on this...it's on assumptions and generalisations while crying that the liberals are doing the same. it's on crying bias by the liberals when again...doing the same.

Name calling, deflection, and various other logical fallacies...meanwhile ignoring the very sound logic of Jesus himself. Why wouldn't we want to take care of our children? The EXACT same reasons that I am against abortion are the EXACT same reasons that I believe pregnant women and children deserve health care.

We are the only western-civilzation (indulstrialized, NOT developing), in the ENTIRE world that doesn't have some sort of socialized medicine. Now tell me something uberman, or heck, anyone else who may agree with him, how many of those are communist countries? Take your time, look it up even, and then answer me honestly.

You equating socialist measures with communism is nothing but short-sighted. It would be like me equating conservative measures with nazis...and it's important to note that even Cuban communism is not Chinese communism...there are stark differences. Many key players in Cuban communism were in stark contrast to the Soviet version of communism.

But you are too quick to generalize and demonize that I doubt you could ever see this.

Social responsibility and personal responsibility are not mutually exclusive. They never have been and never will be.

below are the rankings in order of child health at birth (best to worst).

http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/iwp2006_03_eng.pdf

iceland

finland

sw eden

norw ay

denmark

ireland

netherlands

czech republic

france

belgium

italy

sw itzerland

spain

germany

australia

canada

portugal

austria

new zealand

japan

united kingdom

greece

poland

united states

hungary

this is a very sad commentary about the effectiveness of our current (non) health care system. the nordic countries are bastions of freedom and tolerance in the world. socialised risk is not incompatible with a strong economy or individual freedom.

results:

in chart 4.2.8 mortality rates in the oecd nations range from 7.6 deaths per 100,000 in

sweden to 23.1 in new zealand. alongside sweden, the united kingdom, the netherlands and italy

have rates below ten accidental and non-accidental deaths in 100,000 individuals for this age group.

the worst performing country, new zealand, and the united states have levels more than twice this.

mortality rates for under 19’s in the oecd group are markedly better than those for the non-oecd

group. only malta, croatia and slovenia have rates within the oecd range. rates in the russian

federation and israel are six times that of rates for the best performing oecd nations.

chart 4.2.9 presents a final children’s health league derived from average scores for the

components distributed around the mean of 100 for all countries. sweden, iceland, the

netherlands, finland and denmark do best on this dimension. the united states, new

zealand and austria do worst.

chart 4.2.9: children’s health and safety in rich nations

sweden

iceland

netherlands

finland

denmark

italy

spain

france

norway

switzerland

czech republic

germany

japan

australia

united kingdom

canada

portugal

poland

belgium

hungary

greece

ireland

austria

new zealand

united states

The main thing here is that preventative care will always be cheaper than acute care. Where pregnant women and children are concerned, I really do not see how any fiscal conservative could deny the logic in providing them with care. Either provide cheaper preventative care now, or pay in various ways for the rest of this child's life. Let a treatable disorder turn into a lifelong sentance, and pay more time and time again. Hopefully it won't be something that leads to some mental impairment, or you greatly increase the chance of raising the crime rate, this person winding up in tax-funded prisons, etc.

There really are so many ways your selfish "me me me" mentality can turn around to ironically bite you in the butt so many more times. But time and agian the focus isn't on this...it's on assumptions and generalisations while crying that the liberals are doing the same. it's on crying bias by the liberals when again...doing the same.

Name calling, deflection, and various other logical fallacies...meanwhile ignoring the very sound logic of Jesus himself. Why wouldn't we want to take care of our children? The EXACT same reasons that I am against abortion are the EXACT same reasons that I believe pregnant women and children deserve health care.

We are the only western-civilzation (indulstrialized, NOT developing), in the ENTIRE world that doesn't have some sort of socialized medicine. Now tell me something uberman, or heck, anyone else who may agree with him, how many of those are communist countries? Take your time, look it up even, and then answer me honestly.

You equating socialist measures with communism is nothing but short-sighted. It would be like me equating conservative measures with nazis...and it's important to note that even Cuban communism is not Chinese communism...there are stark differences. Many key players in Cuban communism were in stark contrast to the Soviet version of communism.

But you are too quick to generalize and demonize that I doubt you could ever see this.

Social responsibility and personal responsibility are not mutually exclusive. They never have been and never will be.

Oh, sorry you are right...I meant to say "socialist" countries - Welfare states with 50%+ taxes across the board...if one like that type of thing, said person can always move to such a country. I never said I am not biased....Of course I am biased, I am pro capitalist, pro freekmarket, PRO AMERICAN first...

Have you ever been to New York? I guess not...do you know what New York State medicaid is? Obviously not, can you explain to me why someone who is unemployed gets full medical, dental, vision benefits while people with full time jobs have to pay $200 a month for health insurance that sucks? Or worse, working people don't get health insurance at all because their employer does not offer it....I dont have a problem with giving health insurance to people as long as THEY HAVE A JOB and contribute to society...Socialist policies and welfare create laziness and sloth look at the GDP's of socialist countries...LIke I said, if one likes that type of system one can move to say...FRANCE and that individual can pay 55% taxes and get free "preventative" healthcare.

+ Add a Comment