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

[HM2VikingRN]

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?

[Cosper123]

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.

The problem is not that you are biased, the problem is that you throw around the word "bias" in such a negative light. So ok, you admit you are biased, so stop labeling others as biased in an attempt to discredit their comments. In summary, do not make the case for bias nullifying a point, when you yourself are so biased.

Also, not attempt at implying that you are the only one for America here. The all caps "PRO AMERICAN" clearly states where you believe you stand in relation to the rest of us. Now please remove that foot from your mouth and keep in mind that socialized medicine is not unamerican. I would so love to debate social contract theory with you, but given the nature of your responses so far I really don't think that would be productive. However, rest assured, that the Locke's social contract theory, on which our founding fathers based our great nation, is very much American. Regardless of whether or not you beleive this to be true, who are you to draw question to my intent and motivations here?

And speaking of assumptions, yes I have been to New York. Why in the world would you ASSUME that I have not? "I guess not", "Obviously not"...wow, nice job of putting words in my mouth. I'll be sure and add that to generalisations, red herrings, and other logical fallacies you are making before I ever take you seriously again.

And FYI, it's not the poor who need this care the most...they are generally taken care of. More important it is the middle-class, specifially the mid and lower middle-class. I'm all for a stratified socio-economic layout, and yeah...I'm all for people "GETTING A JOB" and getting their own health insurance...but AGAIN we're talking about pregnant women and children here...for the benifit of the children. Am I to assume (as you would, given your display of logic thus far) that you are advocating sweat shops ran by children?

Also, before you go spouting off about socialized countries and their low GDPs, try to keep a few things in mind...because you are obviously in way over your head here. Consider the level of socialization in these countries and that is NOT what is being advocated here. What IS being advocated here is a very small portion of their socialized policies. This is NOT welfare in general, this is merely about pregnant women and children. Also consider the resources available to these socialized nations when you talk about the GDP, because this is a very dynamic issue that you are so ignorantly narrowing down to: 'you guys are promoting socialized medicine so you are advocating everything be socialized, and this is why they have a low GDP.'

I KNOW this isn't the case, because I have been to various scandinavian countries, throughout various countries in Asia in Europe, and have hit up various islands from New Zealand to Tonga to Somoa, and all up through Australiasia. Oh yes, and in that time I even managed to spend a bit of time in New York. But yes, go on throwing around your grand assumptions and gross generalisations, and please do continue to tell me where I have and haven't been.

We may not make any headway into actually talking about the issues here...but boy oh boy is your arrogance amusing.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

Please remember to debate the topic under discussion, not other members. This thread has already proved to be a hot-button issue; in order for it to continue, the discussion must remain civil. If you have an issue with a post, please address it by clicking on the little red and white triangle in the lower left-hand corner of your screen and reporting it to the moderating team. Thank you.

[pickledpepperRN]

I is clearly very difficult to be working, paying for insurance, and still being under insured.

It seems unfare for those who won't or cannot work to have healthcare when you cannot get care for yourself.

This really belongs in another thread but that is why we need Medicare for All.

"Everybody in"

Nobody out!"

This is not about welfare it is about health.

We are all better off if we live in a healthy society.

The child whose mother doesn't have prenatal care is at risk for so many preventable health problems that could preclude future employability.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Progressives want to assure affordable high quality health care for everyone!

I think we can have honest debates about issues and ideas. I am obviously a progressive but I make it a point to approach all issues with an open mind. Civility in public discourse is a virtue to strive for.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

found at physician's news digest:

hospitalized children who lack health insurance are twice as likely to die from their injuries as those with insurance, are less likely to get expensive treatment or rehabilitation, and are discharged earlier, according to a study by the health care advocacy group families usa.

the findings are consistent with others showing the medical implications of living without health insurance, as studies by the institute of medicine, the american college of physicians-american society of internal medicine and the commonwealth fund have shown higher death rates among the uninsured, reported usa today. representatives of two major hospital associations disputed the families usa study's methodology, however, saying that it failed to take into consideration the types of hospitals involved, clinical decisions made and details on each patient's condition; while the sample size was small and the report was not peer-reviewed, usa today added.

usa today, march 2, 2007

read on...

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

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.

no bush bashing.....this is just data showing why his spending priorities are misguided.....

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/06/undoing_bushs_budget_priorities.php

a budget concretely expresses priorities through its choices. in the budget submitted by president bush in early february, reducing the taxes of the wealthiest americans is such a high priority that it is paid for in part by billions of dollars in cuts to domestic programs, with the rest covered by borrowed money. the tax breaks enacted since 2001 will be worth $73 billion to millionaires in 2012, providing them with an average of $162,000 each in that year. in that same year, the president would cut domestic programs such as education, housing, nutrition, public health, head start, job training, environmental protection and much more by $34 billion. and that's not all--the budget shrinks the federal role in providing medical care to the poor by $60 billion over 10 years. it would reverse the progress made in insuring children by freezing funds for the state children's health insurance program (schip), and eliminate food stamps for 300,000 people in low-income working families.

these priorities are utterly and generously misguided. they follow upon six years of beneficence to the wealthy and erosion of services for most everyone else. today, 150,000 fewer children receive child care subsidies than did in 2000; 150,000 fewer households get help to keep rent affordable than did in 2004. food stamps have not been adjusted for inflation, and so are worth only $1 per person per meal.

some molly ivins to lighten the mood:

* it is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our constitution to everyone in america.

* one function of the income gap is that the people at the top of the heap have a hard time even seeing those at the bottom. they practically need a telescope. the pharaohs of ancient egypt probably didn't waste a lot of time thinking about the people who built their pyramids, either. ok, so it's not that bad yet -- but it's getting that bad.

of pat buchanan's culture war speech at the 1992 republican convention, she said, "it read better in the original german."

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16760690.htm

washington - the percentage of poor americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

...

many could have exhausted their eligibility for welfare or decided that the new program requirements were too onerous. but the low participation rates are troubling because the worst byproducts of poverty, such as higher crime and violence rates and poor health, nutrition and educational outcomes, are worse for those in deep poverty.

over the last two decades, america has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries, according to the luxembourg income study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations.

[withasmilelpn]

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.

That assumes alot! Lots of families go through circumstances out of their control. Layoffs, illnesses... There was a period of time when my children were covered by CHIP and my husband and I were not, until I found a job with benefits. (His job provided them and the cobra cost was way too much. He hadn't worked long enough to qualify for unemployment... )At any rate when we first had children we both made plenty of money to support them. Things happen! It is also no fault of the children either!

[Overland1, RN]

How could anybody in their right mind even think of disagreeing with an organization calling itself the "Children's Defense Fund"? To do so would be admitting that he/she/it who disagrees is against the children. :smackingf

Therefore, I propose doing away with the Department of Defense altogether. Just think about all the money that would be saved and could be used for the children and their mothers. No mother or child would ever want for anything ever again. This would also eliminate such evil entities such as Halliburton, a defense contractor that is still under the iron fist of you-know-who (it has to be true.....it's all over the Internet).

I say, let's try the above suggestion and dismantle that dinosaur of a government agency. I assure you that if we do so, in a few years we will not need it anyway.

[errn58]

Any discussion of the current US healthcare system should look at the financial and moral costs we now incur. I know that many of the dollars we spend never help a sick person. Our health system is bloated with excessive costs. I say let's focus our money toward two areas, fighting sickness and the prevention of illness. The moral costs of our present system leave many of us wanting. Too many Americans do not have health insurance. We all suffer when so many of our fellow citizens are left out. Indeed, we are all responsible for each other. I support universal healthcare. Our leaders should help us understand the collective obligation we have to each other and the personal duty we each have to take care of our own health. Beneficiaries should be encouraged to enjoy their optimal level of health but if a citizen chooses to ignore the best advice of healthcare providers, we cannot afford to save them each time he crashes. My vote goes to the politician that tells us Universal Health has responsibilities in addition to rights.

[Simplepleasures]

we're all at walter reed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/

"there's another side to the unfolding scandal at walter reed army medical center and other veterens administration facilities. the bush administration's attitude toward our wounded veterns parallels its behavior toward the rest of our healthcare system- neglect-inadequate funding and privatization. "

we can take a lesson here, private handling of our( private health insurance) and our military's healthcare (contract workers) has proven itself to be unacceptable. would we want private firefighters, police, etc, etc. certain services cannot be trusted to the corporation, why? greed. contracts are given to the lowest bidder, shown to provide shoddy workmanship. can we trust our health to corporations whose bottom line is profit?

[cozmo_blozmo]

puuuuuhhhhlease,

the clinton administration who despised and gutted the military did nothing to repair these facilities. for democrats to now stand up and try and take credit for supporting the veternas in nothing short of disgusting. democrats constantly complain about militray spending and constantly trying to gut the military is the real truth. democrats never have and never will support the troops and the american people know it. the reason we are in iraq right now is because of inaction by the inept clinton administration to deal with terrorists. it's sad in america when democrats care more about helping illegal aliens than helping the military. the va system is governemnt run health care at it's finest, but you won't find any private facilities like that in the u.s.

we're all at walter reed

http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070306/cm_huffpost/042748

"there's another side to the unfolding scandal at walter reed army medical center and other veterens administration facilities. the bush administration's attitude toward our wounded veterns parallels its behavior toward the rest of our healthcare system- neglect-inadequate funding and privatization. "

we can take a lesson here, private handling of our( private health insurance) and our military's healthcare (contract workers) has proven itself to be unacceptable. would we want private firefighters, police, etc, etc. certain services cannot be trusted to the corporation, why? greed. contracts are given to the lowest bidder, shown to provide shoddy workmanship. can we trust our health to corporations whose bottom line is profit?