News > Culture > Or At Least It Ought to Be

commentary
TUESDAY AUGUST 28 2007 4:00 PM

Or At Least It Ought to Be

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by Bitch_PhD

Tags: child health insurance program, chip, health insurance, bush administration, reproductive rights

What's the connection between Bush's assholish attempt to deny health insurance to children and reproductive rights?

Glad you asked.

The Congressional Budget Office found that increasing Medicaid access to contraception would save money--thereby offsetting Bush's oh-so-compassionate concerns about whether the richest nation in the world can afford to pay for sick kids to see the doctor.
SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program) covers children up to the age of 18--which is obviously going to include teenage girls.
Nonetheless, SCHIP only covers Abortion services . . . to save the life of the mother, or to terminate a pregnancy resulting from an act of rape or incest.
According to the assholes at the Heritage Foundation,
State officials in Michigan, concerned that the law required SCHIP to fund contraception and sterilization services,amended Michigan's Title XXI State Plan to remove coverage for those services.

And finally, apparently [LIST]Hillary Clinton is not only saying that we need to make sure that reproductive health be part of any planned health care reform, but--for those of you who've forgotten or never realized--the very existence of the SCHIP came out of the work she did after her "failed" attempt at health care reform during her husband's first administration. (And yes, that's her taking credit for it--but don't worry, right wing nutjobs as well as lefties who support other Democratic candidates back this up.)

And now the latest news about poverty rates now includes information that further puts the lie to Bush's bullshit about not wanting to expand SCHIP to cover those above the poverty line.

The nation's poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, but the number of Americans without health insurance rose to a record high of 47 million in 2006, according to Census figures released today.

Children fared even worse. Last year 11.7 percent of youngsters under 18 years had no health insurance, up from 10.9 percent in 2005. The percentage of uninsured children has increased two years in a row after declining for at least five years, according to the Census data.

How is that possible?

"Despite SCHIP's earlier success in decreasing the number of uninsured children, their numbers have risen for the second straight year because of a decline in employer-based coverage."

So people are working harder, earning less

(The increase in this year's median household income appeared to be largely due to a jump in the number of people in each household taking on full-time jobs, rather than a rise in wages. In fact, earnings of both men and women declined by just over 1 percent.

The drop in the poverty rate from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006, meanwhile, was almost entirely driven by a decrease in poverty for those over 65),

and fewer jobs are offering health coverage.

HIllarycare--or fuck, any kind of national program, whether a single-payer system or nationalized hospitals--is starting to look pretty goddamn good, don't you think?

Bitch_PhD still isn't sure who she supports in the primary, but is pretty sure that Hillary's the best choice soley from a reproductive rights perspective.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 12

Comments

Cassiel

Aurora, CO

September 2004

AUG 28, 2007 05:40 PM

RileyStClair said:

SockPuppet said:
It is not biologically normal for humans to drink and smoke.

i beg to differ.
some of us got the "lush" gene, ok?

...when Irish eyes are smiling...

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

AUG 28, 2007 05:42 PM

SnowgodCCR said:
Right, because the debate about funding a public healthcare system is soley a womens issue.

Oh please. My comment wasn't specifically about this thread, it was about the fact that, recently, it seems that anytime a vaguely feminist article is posted here lurkers come out of the wordwork to say things that boil down to "women should keep their legs closed if they don't want to get pregnant!" or "most feminists don't shave their legs and hate teh mens".

Skywisdom

Portland, OR

December 2005

AUG 28, 2007 05:45 PM

SnowgodCCR said:

Morgan said:
Seriously, what the fuck is with all the lurkers coming out of the wordwork and saying really stupid things every time an article about women's issues gets posted?

Right, because the debate about funding a public healthcare system is soley a womens issue. I don't have a better solution, but I'm not interested paying for other people's healthcare, or other people's anything for that matter, unless I choose to. I don't have a problem giving a vagrant my takeout if I see fit, but I have a problem with someone coming up to me and telling me to give that same person my takeout. I plunk into the employee fund at work every week, that way if someone's house burns down or spouse dies, they have a bit of money to cover some costs. But it's my choice to contribute to the fund, I'm sure that my dilhole boss sure as hell doesn't contribute, and that's his choice.
If I were given the choice to pay into a public healthcare system or not to, I probally would contribute a few percent of my check per week. But I'm not happy about someone TELLING me to pay into it.
Time to jump on me and make me look like an asshole.

I'm certainly not going to call you an asshole, but think about it this way: Those same people you would be paying to help are also paying to help you if you need it, right?

Seej

I'm lost

August 2007

AUG 28, 2007 05:48 PM

raist333 said:
If I choose to smoke, why should you have to pay for my lung transplant?

If I choose to drink heavily, why should you have to pay for my liver transplant?

If you are a teen girl, choose to have sex and get pregnant, why should America be responsible for paying your medical expenses?

So no Bitch_PhD, socialized medicine doesn't "look pretty goddamn good" ...if you're pro-choice and pro-consequence.

Y'know, if you were here in the UK then I would be paying for those transplants. That's OK though, because you'd have been paying for it too. And we'd both pay for the pregnant teenage girl. Y'know why?

It's a nice thing to do.

I appreciate that each person's personal politics are different, and that perhaps you were just trying to play devil's advocate, but is it really worth digging your heels in and forcing some poor kid to birth a baby she's ill-prepared to care for just because it's gonna cost you a few extra dollars each year?

And then of course there's the theory (see: Freakonomics for an intro) that readily available abortions dramatically lower the crime rate by reducing the number of kids born into ill-educated poverty, if all the "Help your neighbour" stuff rubs you up the wrong way.

I'm not saying we should all go communist, and I do happen to think there's a whole slew of problems with the UK's NHS, but arguing against abortions on economic grounds is even more heartless than the pro-life lot.

CannedAir

Tempe, AZ

June 2007

AUG 28, 2007 05:49 PM

SnowgodCCR said:

Morgan said:
Seriously, what the fuck is with all the lurkers coming out of the wordwork and saying really stupid things every time an article about women's issues gets posted?

goog point sir.... im also perplexed as to where public healthcare became a women's issue... while 'decent' to pay for someone elses abortions or prenatal care (whatever thier choice is) it should not be mandatory.. the decent thing for the government or whoever supports it to back off of everyone who is against it.. and pay it themselves... i have made sure to have health insurance.. i have made sure to also have protected sex..... im doing my part... and in my opinion thats enough... if i get laid off or something unforseen like that happens, i will rely on my own preparation and funds to make up for where the very basic government healthcare falls short... and will be GRATEFUL for what the have provided...