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?

[lorita]

I would like to see universal coverage. But we also need to make people more responsible like say making people who have unhealthy life styles pay higher copays or if they use ER inappropriatly time and time again their ER copay should go up. If you are a bad driver you pay more for car insurance right. Now I'm not suggesting people who have health problems pay more but those who abuse the system and their bodies should. I've also been reading the argument that we shouldn't be providing health care because then we'll be paying for people who don't work. hello thats what we're doing now anyone who doesn't work or is illegal walks in an ER gets care and never pays for it. It's the working people who can't get healthcare. There are many more employers who just aren't offering it anymore. :welcome:

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Anyone can find themselves without health insurance due to unfortunate circumstances that may be completely beyond their control. That realization is part of the reason I feel compassion for those without insurance. I have also lived without insurance and know how difficult it is, and I have family members who are experiencing that problem now.

1 in 5 Americans do not have any health coverage. I do not believe it is because 1 in 5 Americans are lazy moochers. There are many options to fix this problem, each with their own pros and cons. I don't think ignoring the problem or blaming it on the victims is the way to go.

:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

[sumoe]

Why is everyone else responsible for the children of the irresponsible?

[Simplepleasures]

Why is everyone else responsible for the children of the irresponsible?

Because the children did no wrong, they did not ask to be born. What would you suggest we do with them?

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Because the children did no wrong, they did not ask to be born. What would you suggest we do with them?

Give them the OPPORTUNITY to excel without becoming future slaves to irresponsible people like their parents.

Everybody here, probably, would detest slavery. But, that is EXACTLY what is being advocated here. When you command my labor for the fruits of others, by threat of the full power and coercive mechanisms of gov't, you are, in effect, advocating a form of slavery.

The whole concept of ownership of property stands against the concept of slavery. It's not enough to be able to own 'yourself' if you cannot likewise own the fruits of your work.

The key phrase oft bantered about is the 'common good'. When the gov't takes that concept and applies it, not to providing services that benefit us all equally, such as roads or defense, but expands that concept to taking from some to provide services for others, the result is slavery.

I detest the concept of universal healthcare because I believe the concept of slavery to be repugnant, MORE repugnant than the potential benefits that could result from coerced labor.

But, you say, how on earth will we be able to feed everybody if slaves aren't harvesting our crops? It's for the 'common good', afterall. Right? Who could be against feeding little children?

You might point out that experience has now proven that food can be provided for the masses by means that do NOT include slavery. Exactly so. That's MY point.

Just because the taskmaster raids your paycheck at the threat of jail instead of a whip across the back in order to get the fruits of YOUR labor does NOT make it essentially more humane.

There ARE better ways to create access to healthcare without resulting to slavery. In any case, I can think of no WORSE ways.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Simplepleasures]

give them the opportunity to excel without becoming future slaves to irresponsible people like their parents.wouldnt that be giving them something? it might mean a social entitlement program.

i detest the concept of universal healthcare because i believe the concept of slavery to be repugnant, more repugnant than the potential benefits that could result from coerced labor. slaves in norway, sweden , canada, germany, england,australia.do you think they see themselves as slaves?

but, you say,(you said that, not me.) how on earth will we be able to feed everybody if slaves aren't harvesting our crops? it's for the 'common good', afterall. right? who could be against feeding little children? whoa, this is really streching.

.

~faith,

timothy.

i know that there are folks out there that dont agree with universal healthcare, but to say that this will turn us into slaves is an insult to the real slaves of america's past.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

I know that there are folks out there that dont agree with Universal healthcare, but to say that this will turn us into SLAVES is an insult to the REAL slaves of America's past.

Not at all. It's EQUALLY offensive and insulting to command the fruits of THEIR labor for the benefit of others as it is to command the fruits of MY labor for the benefits of others - both at the threat of coercion.

There might be a huge difference in coercive tactics, but there is absolutely NO difference in the moral case for such action. In BOTH cases, the intended coercion of "service" is repugnant.

Please explain the moral difference. Perhaps you wish to argue that if the gov't proposes to take only 40% of my income, then that makes me only 40% a slave, thereby being a morally superior argument than making me 100% a slave. But, in making THAT argument, you would be making a moral case FOR slavery, with your only objection being the quantity of it. In effect, slavery is GOOD, in moderation.

"But, you say, how on earth will we be able to feed everybody if slaves aren't harvesting our crops? It's for the 'common good', afterall. Right? Who could be against feeding little children? Whoa, this is really streching."

That's not stretching at all. In fact, that is EXACTLY the case made 150 yrs ago for the necessity of continuing slavery. It's a 'necessary evil' to ensure access to crops for everyone. Otherwise, 'little children' back in the great Northeast will starve.

I intend to use coercive efforts to compel you to provide the benefit of your labor for the use of others. That is a definition that applies to universal healthcare as equally as it does to slavery. If you disagree, point out the difference.

~faith,

Timothy.

[rngreenhorn]

Because the children did no wrong, they did not ask to be born. What would you suggest we do with them?

There are millions of families in America who provide for there children. There unfortunately are those who do not. For those children, there already are programs.

For the most part, kids are healthy. There are however sick kids and families who are finacially challenged because of their child's health. These are sad cases, but it makes more sense to reform the current system to make health care/ health insurance more affordable.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a family.

[pickledpepperRN]

Who is profiting from our nursing work?

■ Hospital profits-$28.9 billion (2005), a record. Hospital revenues, 544.7 billion. (Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006) NURSING CARE is the only reason for a hospital to exist. Yet they cut nursing care to make a profit.

■ The 20 largest HMOs in the U.S. made $10.8 billion in profits in 2005. The top seven U.S. health insurers made a combined $10 billion, nearly triple their profits of five years earlier. 12 top HMO executives pocketed $222.6 million in direct compensation in 2005 (Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy). It takes a lot of money to find reasons to deny care.

■ William McGuire, CEO, UnitedHealth, the nation's second leading health insurer, had $1.6 billion in stock options at the end of 2005 (IHSP). (This is the corporation for AARP and many employee plans)

■ Donations from healthcare industry to Democratic and Republican campaigns for 2006-$72.3 million (Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006). If you have health insurance you are forced to contribute to political candidates.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05233/557458.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0510-22.htm

[rngreenhorn]

I got a decent paycheck today.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

I got a decent paycheck today.

My paycheck on Thursday would have been MUCH more decent if Uncle Daddy hadn't taken 648 dollars out of it first. . .

This is especially true in that, when you eliminate bridges to nowhere in Alaska, L. Welk museums, and the slavery Uncle Daddy NOW sees fit to impose (in other words, if gov't were actually limited to its enumerated powers), such confiscations of my labor should have been less than half that.

Why, with THAT kind of money, I could devise a retirement for myself that could dwarf some lousy social security check that likely won't be there in 35 yrs, in any case. Or, if I didn't have healthcare, I could actually afford it on my own. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

If you have health insurance you are forced to contribute to political candidates.

As opposed to a proposed scheme that would 'force' me to contribute to the health care of deadbeats that don't choose to get their own. (NO, I didn't say that meant everybody not on health insurance now, just the majority, anecotal evidence aside.)

When the political goal of such reforms is to encourage dependence upon gov't, isn't that ALSO contributing to the campaigns of political candidates that wish to pay for their votes with MY dollars?

~faith,

Timothy.