Medieval America
As disgusted as I am to learn that the Bush administration has unilaterally imposed rules intended to limit the number of American children who have access to affordable health care, I can only imagine how this must look to someone raised in another country. The fact that millions of American kids lack access to health care must seem downright medieval to the rest of the industrialized world. I mean, we're talking about children here.
I imagine that the average person in Germany or France or Japan would react to this news much the same way we would react to a report that the German, French, or Japanese governments had repealed laws against child sweatshop labor or child pornography. We'd be aghast. And rightly so. But when the President takes steps intended to cut off health care access for children, we simply chalk it up to a policy dispute.
Well I'm sick of it. There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as ours allowing innocent children to go without access to basic health care. And if policymakers take steps that result in a net increase in the number of children without access to care, they have a moral duty to find a way to fix that problem immediately. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush administration is morally responsible for what happens to the children who lose access to health care as a result of these new rules. If any of them die or suffer permanent harm from a condition that could have been prevented with routine care (and it's bound to happen), the Bush administration bears the blame.
While I think they are terribly misguided about the realities of health care policy, I understand that there are people out there who, for principled reasons, believe that it is important to limit the role the government plays in providing health care to its citizens. And I understand that these folks believe in their hearts that if the market were simply left to work its magic, we'd soon find ourselves in a health care utopia where every child had top notch care. I know they don't mean any harm. But people like this need to realize that this isn't some grand experiment. We're not dealing with hypotheticals here. When policies like this are put in place, real children--ones with real hopes and dreams and fears--are made to suffer. Some even die. And that is unconscionable.
Opponents of government-funded health care often argue that most of the uninsured in this country are so by choice. Putting aside the merits of that (very weak) argument, it is undeniable that children do not choose to go without health insurance. They have no say in the matter. It is therefore unacceptable to treat children as pawns in a struggle over policy principles. If the administration is worried that the government's role in providing health insurance is becoming too large, it needs to pursue policies that ensure that those children who are purged from the public rolls are covered by private insurance (through the use of mandates or some other mechanism). That's just a basic moral responsibility.
Only in America would a politician have the temerity to implement a policy guaranteed to increase the number of children forced to go without basic health care. We've got a lot to be proud of as a country, but when it comes to health care, we can be downright medieval.
I imagine that the average person in Germany or France or Japan would react to this news much the same way we would react to a report that the German, French, or Japanese governments had repealed laws against child sweatshop labor or child pornography. We'd be aghast. And rightly so. But when the President takes steps intended to cut off health care access for children, we simply chalk it up to a policy dispute.
Well I'm sick of it. There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as ours allowing innocent children to go without access to basic health care. And if policymakers take steps that result in a net increase in the number of children without access to care, they have a moral duty to find a way to fix that problem immediately. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush administration is morally responsible for what happens to the children who lose access to health care as a result of these new rules. If any of them die or suffer permanent harm from a condition that could have been prevented with routine care (and it's bound to happen), the Bush administration bears the blame.
While I think they are terribly misguided about the realities of health care policy, I understand that there are people out there who, for principled reasons, believe that it is important to limit the role the government plays in providing health care to its citizens. And I understand that these folks believe in their hearts that if the market were simply left to work its magic, we'd soon find ourselves in a health care utopia where every child had top notch care. I know they don't mean any harm. But people like this need to realize that this isn't some grand experiment. We're not dealing with hypotheticals here. When policies like this are put in place, real children--ones with real hopes and dreams and fears--are made to suffer. Some even die. And that is unconscionable.
Opponents of government-funded health care often argue that most of the uninsured in this country are so by choice. Putting aside the merits of that (very weak) argument, it is undeniable that children do not choose to go without health insurance. They have no say in the matter. It is therefore unacceptable to treat children as pawns in a struggle over policy principles. If the administration is worried that the government's role in providing health insurance is becoming too large, it needs to pursue policies that ensure that those children who are purged from the public rolls are covered by private insurance (through the use of mandates or some other mechanism). That's just a basic moral responsibility.
Only in America would a politician have the temerity to implement a policy guaranteed to increase the number of children forced to go without basic health care. We've got a lot to be proud of as a country, but when it comes to health care, we can be downright medieval.
posted by A.L. at 10:34 PM
25 Comments:
RELATED: How do you feel about the fact that Congress' expanded S-CHIP is to be substantially funded by an increase in the cigarette tax, as opposed to the general fund (which gets its money from a progressive income tax, corporate taxes, etc.) ?
I support expanded S-CHIP, but not through an extremely regressive cigarette tax (a per-item tax which is more regressive than a sales tax).
No kidding. I'm Canadian, and have lived in the US for 10 years. I was conservative in Canada, until I got here. I used to believe that people should buy their own health care, that national health care was foolish.
And then I moved here. And I saw the people without health care. And I went to a doctor and was hit with a huge bill, in spite of my insurance. And saw my grandparents be terrified of visiting us down here, because of their fear that they would get sick. And I remembered that any time I was sick, in Canada, I could walk into a doctor's office and be seen, and I remember the times I've gone in for something routine or sensible (e.g. an HIV test) and been hit with a $500 bill.
But then, that's the US mantra: we're rich, we're great, we're the best, we're the most powerful. The US, it's true, could bomb Toronto into rubble, but could never build it.
Alone in the civilized world do poor people here have no access to health care.
"Well I'm sick of it. There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as ours to allow innocent children to go without access to basic health care."
AL,
I think it's important to take care in how this issue is framed. While I don't know the numbers, I'd be curious to know which way is actually more expensive--not covering children, and paying for that non-coverage via ER services, a decrease in the productivity of a large segment of the future population, and increased future health expenses in that generation, vs. the expense of timely healthcare for children now. Again, while I don't have the numbers, I'd like to think there is an argument simply from the bean-counter's point of view, that publically underwritten children's health care makes financial sense.
If this is true, then framing the debate along the lines that "we're wealthy enough to afford this extra expense" makes it sound as if this is purely a charitable strategy. I don't believe it is. It is a long-term investment that hopefully pays dividends (not just ROI) in a more productive, heathier population of taxpaying adults in the future.
CO,
Your right. There have been studies done that show that uninsured children cost the government more money than those covered under S-CHIP. So it is actually cheaper to cover more kids (which is why states are eager to expand eligibility).
But I think that when you approach the issue that way, conservatives and libertarians just tune out. It becomes an abstract policy debate and they either question the data or just agree to disagree.
What's missing from these debates, in my opinion, is a focus on the actual human consequences of decisions like these, an appreciation of the fact that moves like this cause real children to suffer and die and real families to go bankrupt. If these human consequences were better understood, it would not be politically feasible to pull stuff like this.
"There is no excuse for a country as wealthy as ours to allow innocent children to go without access to basic health care."
First it's "basic" health care, then it's "adequate" health care, and then it's "universal" health care. The costs will soon balloon out of sight. Any limitations on coverage are going to cause real children to suffer and real families to go bankrupt.
/innocent children? As opposed to guilty children?
What I don't is the issue of enrollment of those children who are eligible under the program now. The government seems to be saying that before changes are made the states sould have 93% enrollment but this being challanged as unattainable. I am sorry but I would think if enrollment is not 100% then we would have to fault the parents or state beauracrats/civil servants.
The expansion of the S-CHIP program would save money, but the money saved would be from the local governments who pay for the last-ditch health services.
This means that you won't get buy-in from the conservatives, even if it saves a lot of money, because it isn't their money you are saving. Similarly, the suffering of children would only be a problem for most conservatives if it were identifiable with their own children -- which it's not.
As for the argument that it will produce, long-term, more tax dollars -- imagine the ease with which this argument will be accepted by those who think that the best way to increase tax revenues is to cut taxes.
I am sorry but I would think if enrollment is not 100% then we would have to fault the parents or state beauracrats/civil servants.
Enrollment is not 100% for several reasons, but the main one is that not everyone who is eligible needs it. Some of the families who are qualified income-wise do have private insurance through their employer, and therefore don't utilize S-CHIP. The 95% number was chosen because it is unattainable.
First it's "basic" health care, then it's "adequate" health care, and then it's "universal" health care. The costs will soon balloon out of sight. Any limitations on coverage are going to cause real children to suffer and real families to go bankrupt.
Actually, as pointed out in the article, it costs less to cover kids under S-CHIP than to leave them uninsured.
I'd also remind you that this administration presided over the biggest increase in government spending of all time, across all categories. But now, 7 years into his presidency, Bush suddenly decides he cares about expenditures and the first thing he targets is children's health insurance. That would be funny if it wasn't so sick.
Couple of things:
Quiddity has an excellent point on the tax issue. Not only is the tax regressive, but it also implies that we either can't, or shouldn't, fund these programs through general revenues. Universal health care needs to be viewed as an intrinsic American right, not just something nice to have if we can find a special tax to support it.
Secondly, if we're going to shift the dialogue on health care, I suggest never, ever stating that there is even a "weak" meritorious argument that the uninsured have chosen to be uninsured. There are only two reasons people remain uninsured: 1)they can't afford insurance or 2)they can't find someone to cover them because of a pre-existing condition. In either case, it's really not much of a choice, is it?
Well, let's add a 3rd leg to the argument then, in addition to the righteousness of caring for our youth, and the fact that it makes financial sense domestically.
The third leg would be international competitiveness. The famous factoid we've all heard is that GM and other domestic car makers now spend more money per car for labor insurance and benefits than they do for the steel. Whatever we can do to take the burden of insurance from employers makes our services and products more competitive.
Regardless of the value of the arguments, I believe that the majority of american voters know that the current system is comeplete crap. They also know that our lawmakers are bought by big healthcare, big insurance, and big pharma. That's a very powerful block of special interests.
Subsidize domestic car makers? Shifting the financial burden of union contracts from the auto makers to the tax payers, is not something I can support.
Secondly, if we're going to shift the dialogue on health care, I suggest never, ever stating that there is even a "weak" meritorious argument that the uninsured have chosen to be uninsured. There are only two reasons people remain uninsured: 1)they can't afford insurance or 2)they can't find someone to cover them because of a pre-existing condition. In either case, it's really not much of a choice, is it?
I'm not so sure that's true. While I think a large percentage of the uninsured fit that description, there are a significant number of young adults out there who could afford insurance but choose not to get it, gambling that they are young and healthy and won't need it.
The problem, of course, is that these people 1) often gamble wrong and 2) are not a part of the overall insurance risk pool, which increases the costs for everyone else.
In any sensible system, the young and healthy would not be able to opt-out. They would be required to contribute to the risk pool, either through private premiums or taxes, thereby protecting themselves and helping to keep costs down.
nal,
as a fellow taxpayer, I'd argue that all this expense is on our backs already. It's simply done so poorly, so inefficiently, that we're not getting our money's worth. I suggest that the time for insurance-via-employer is past. Time to forge ahead into the 20th century and find a new way to run this system.
When was the last time you can point to where a child was turned away from an Emergency Room. A more reasonable comment might have been there are children that have no access to health insurance. But EVERYONE in America has access to healthcare. It is not free, if you can pay. If you cannot pay the courts usually wipes the debts at our (the insured) expense. What a Lie!!
the law: When was the last time you can point to where a child was turned away from an Emergency Room. A more reasonable comment might have been there are children that have no access to health insurance. But EVERYONE in America has access to healthcare. It is not free, if you can pay. If you cannot pay the courts usually wipes the debts at our (the insured) expense. What a Lie!!
Me: Even if we assume that everything that you just said is true, providing some sort of coverage for children (or the whole population) would make compelling economic sense as well as moral sense. Anyone who pays the least bit of attention knows that preventative care would be less expensive than the eventual ER visit. However, uninsured people can't afford preventative care, so they will eventually go to an ER only when they have to and we all end up paying more. If they'd had some sort of coverage many problems would be dealt with sooner and at a lower cost. So even after putting aside the compelling moral arguments, it make ECONOMIC sense for these kids to have some sort of coverage. If you think you're paying for these ER visits, you should be in favor of universal health coverage for all Americans because if would cost less.
it is time for us to look to our fiefdoms for protection from the plague.
well it helped a lot during the dark ages didn't it?
they will tell us it is a good thing that children must die, and parents must go bankrupt. for it shall solve their mortgage crisis.
I just want to know how in the hell a family of 4 making over $50,000 cannot afford health insurance.
I have 2 children. My wife and I make $56,000 a year. We live in a pretty expensive area of the country. I don't drive a beautiful car, I don't have a plasma tv, I don't get to go away on vacation very often, but I DO provide health insurance for my family.
To do it, we have to make some sacrifices. Big whoop. It's called responsibility.
Personally, even though I can't stand the man, I applaud Bush for this.
When was the last time you can point to where a child was turned away from an Emergency Room. A more reasonable comment might have been there are children that have no access to health insurance. But EVERYONE in America has access to healthcare. It is not free, if you can pay. If you cannot pay the courts usually wipes the debts at our (the insured) expense. What a Lie!!
The Law, if you'll notice, I never claimed that children would be turned away from emergeny rooms and left to die on the street. I claimed that children would die from conditions that could have been cured/treated/prevent by routine care.
Not being kicked out of the ER is not the same thing as having access to health care. Kids without insurance cannot go to the doctor for checkups, they can't get tested or diagnosed until their condition becomes so dire that a trip to the ER is warranted. And then it can be too late (and at the very least, financially ruinous to the family).
I'd should also point out that the same people who point to the availability of ER care were the ones who fought hard against there being any such law in the first place (and often continue to object to it as an example of government interference).
I just want to know how in the hell a family of 4 making over $50,000 cannot afford health insurance....
To do it, we have to make some sacrifices. Big whoop. It's called responsibility.
Personally, even though I can't stand the man, I applaud Bush for this.
And I suppose children should needlessly be made to suffer because their parents have poor priorities? In what moral universe does that make sense?
Moreover, whether you can "afford" healthcare largely depends on your job situation and what your employer offers. And if you are self-employed, there are often no good options. Not everyone's circumstances are the same.
And let's face it, some parents are irresponsible. Kids should not be punished for that.
To the pull-yerself-up-by-your-bootstraps-fella who was claiming that $50K/yr buys all the insurance you need if you just get your priorities straight: Nice "I've got mine" platitude. Damn the statistics!! Spare me the bleeding-heart drama!!
You wouldn't happen to vote Republican thru and thru, now would ya? :)
You guys have been conned for years by your insurance companies and big pharma. I live in Australia and, like the rest of the developed world, we have a public health system that is cheaper to run and produces better outcomes than running everything by insurance companies. For every 60c health care paid by Aussie, UK, French or German citizens for health care you Americans pay $1 -- and you get a lousier service. The 40c difference is going straight to the middle men. Get rid of the idea that you need these parasites. Simply put the whole US public health system out to tender and purchase the French bid when it comes along. There is already more than enough money allocated for health care to pay for your national needs. Get rid of the parasite middle men. You're nice people and you deserve a whole lot better than what's on offer.
Remember, these are the same people that think cutting taxes for the wealthy makes us all more prosperous. (Yeah, right) The reality of this logic applied to health care is less for us means more for them. Same old story, song and dance.
"And I understand that these folks believe in their hearts that if the market were simply left to work its magic, we'd soon find ourselves in a health care utopia where every child had top notch care."
The market has been left to work its magic. The system we have now is the result of the market working its magic. That result has been millions of uninsured children. Are people suggesting that interference in the market has resulted in higher numbers of uninsured children?
MAXIDEX WARNING
I had eye surgery and in the post-op pack was MAXIDEX(dexamethasone) drops by ALCON LABS.
Two days later I was BLIND
Use Google and enter EPOCRATES MAXIDEX to verify
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home