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 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

... 12

Comments

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH

February 2007

AUG 28, 2007 09:31 PM

Morgan said:
I hate the argument people put forward that they don't want to pay for some random person's surgery/abortion/wart removal/whatever. You would never be paying for someone's entire bill. You might just be adding two cents to a fund that helps them. If that's such a big deal, you really need to take a closer look at your priorities.

They already do, they just don't realize it. The government gives tax money to pharmaceutical companies for research and development of new and better drugs to treat people with.

The pharmaceutical company then goes forward and makes the new drug, advertises it, makes millions and billions off of it, and continue only to pay minimal taxes that big corporations pay. Meanwhile someone with cancer and no insurance dies.

I would rather the money that is outright given to Pharmaceutical companies be given to someone who needs it a bit more, rather than just line the pockets of the rich. Or maybe *gasp* actually raise taxes on big corporations.

The healthcare industry is doomed for FAIL! anwyay, it's too big fat and greedy. I will laugh when it follows the steps of the housing industry, choked on it's own greed.

Quirky

Birmingham, AL

October 2005

AUG 28, 2007 09:34 PM

Morgan said:

_Poptard_ said:
I was just suggesting that we open some fucking windows.

And then all the dumb people will fly off of this virtual "plane" known as the internet through suction?

Oh please, please tell me that's possible!

Oh, it is! You have the powah of tha

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost

February 2007

AUG 28, 2007 09:35 PM

indiecred17 said:
hey smart one.. once again its not a matter of me not liking the benefits i have in this country. i enjoy them the same as you. i just dont want to pay for universal healthcare... get some reading comprehension... ill gladly pay for your public education.

So you'd rather pay for emergency care, the bureaucratic overhead of medicare and medicaid, the bureaucratic overhead of your own private health care plan, the social security and disability payments for people who are sick or disabled because of inadequate health care, and so on?

At least you should learn something about what universal health care would actually "cost" before you form a foolish opinion.

michael9000000

New York, NY

July 2007

AUG 28, 2007 09:35 PM

Morgan said:

michael9000000 said:
what i was stating was a simple rebuttal to your claim that women ultimately have no control over whether or not they get pregnant

That wasn't my statement. That was another person you were replying to.

michael9000000 said:abstinence is valid choice for anyone who absolutely positively wants to make sure that they don't make a baby through consensual sex...

Okay, but some people never want to be pregnant, or don't want to have children until they are in their 30's. It is perfectly reasonable for them to have sex using birth control, understanding that if there is an unintended pregnancy they have a variety of options, including abortion. Expecting people to withhold from sex for decades or forever because they are not interested in having children is patently ridiculous and naive.

my apologies... the "no control" quote was someone else's statement indeed... i'm sorry i attributed that to you...

as far as abstinence goes... i wouldn't recommend it to anyone... lol... i was just simply stating that it was a valid choice for fool-proof birth control

i have an opinion on why some people get all burned up over the idea of public funding for abortion... would you like to know what my opinion is?

CannedAir

Tempe, AZ

June 2007

AUG 28, 2007 09:40 PM

Morgan said:

indiecred17 said:
obviously you werent a fan of married with children... and i punctuate the way i choose to... im not in class right now im on a porn site.. when im at school i write accordingly...

Failing to use any punctuation whatsoever makes you look just as stupid online as it would make you look on a paper at school.

i guess i spoke to soon about the lack of personal attacks you were dishin out... meh.. instead of discussing a point you decide to hate on my punctuation choices... once again.. school grammar > porn site grammar... and im sure that there are people that would judge you (wrongfully so) based PURELY on the fact that you are a model on a nekkid site... but that would be just as wrong as judging someone for not using apostrophes or commas....

CannedAir

Tempe, AZ

June 2007

AUG 28, 2007 09:43 PM

Bitch_PhD said:

i just dont think that a universal healthcare system could be properly enacted to create a system that would benefit everyone.... just a little skeptical about my money going to pay for other peoples stuff when they cant even get the current system right... if it could be effectively run i would be all for it... and yeah i do like my current healthcare.. i know that much for sure... i dont want to change it unless id be sure it would benefit me...

Rafi

Santa Monica, CA

January 2003

AUG 28, 2007 09:46 PM

indiecred17 said:

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.

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 suggest taking a good, hard look at the world in which we live and sucking it up. There are scores of taxes and allotment we all pay out to the state and federal government that don't please someone or other; I'm not thrilled about my tax dollars going to fund ill-conceived adventures in Middle Eastern countries or abstinence-only public health education, but the fact of the matter is we don't have a line-item menu of programs that you can check off for how you want your taxes to be spent. Until we do, it's incumbent upon the nation as a whole to ensure that reproductive health care is funded because it's the right fucking thing to do.

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

AUG 28, 2007 09:48 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
And even if it were, how 'bout you go first and show us all how to do it, 'kay?

Ha! Good reply!

Bitch_PhD said:
At least you should learn something about what universal health care would actually "cost" before you form a foolish opinion.

Indeed. Too many people seem to have wrongheaded assumptions about what universal healthcare might actually mean.

michael9000000 said:i have an opinion on why some people get all burned up over the idea of public funding for abortion... would you like to know what my opinion is?

Of course.

indiecred17 said:i guess i spoke to soon about the lack of personal attacks you were dishin out... meh.. instead of discussing a point you decide to hate on my punctuation choices... once again.. school grammar > porn site grammar... and im sure that there are people that would judge you (wrongfully so) based PURELY on the fact that you are a model on a nekkid site... but that would be just as wrong as judging someone for not using apostrophes or commas....

What can I say? It's hard to take someone seriously if they can't form a coherent sentence. Just as I'd find it hard to take someone seriously in real life if they stood in front of me saying that abortion was wrong because "it done keeelhauled all them babies!".

The fact that you are posting on a porn site or an online message board doesn't mean you should dumb yourself down or completely disregard everything you know about how to speak. It's hard not to judge someone on their net-speak when that's all you have to judge them by, isn't it? If all I see of you is that you can't even be bothered to add an apostrophe every once in awhile, then all I can assume is that you're too lazy to form a coherent, correct sentence.