Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Are Killing Our Babies

The Save the Children organization released its annual State of the World’s Mothers report. According to the report, out of the top 33 industrialized nations, only Latvia has a worse infant mortality rate than the US. After looking at reports from previous years to get a sense of trends, I found that America’s infant mortality rate had steadily declined until 2001, but subsequently, the trend reversed and the number of infant deaths began to climb.

It's no surprise that America's working poor bear the brunt of this trend. Since 2001, the number of Americans who can no longer afford healthcare insurance has grown by millions every year. Right now, almost one in five Americans can't afford to see a doctor. And every year that Republicans obstruct efforts to make affordable healthcare available to all Americans, they kill increasing numbers of American children.

"Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well," [Emory University health policy expert Kenneth] Thorpe said. "What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases."

There is no reason why every American can't have access to quality, affordable healthcare. Massachusetts Democrats just passed a healthcare initiative with broad bi-partisan support that ensures coverage for everyone in the state. Senator John Kerry laid out a series of initiatives to decrease the cost of healthcare in his Presidential campaign, and Democrats in Congress introduce healthcare legislation (1, 2) every year.

But for some reason, our Republican representatives are content to let America's newborn babies die.

Posted by American Pundit at May 10, 2006 9:45 AM
Comments
Comment #146792

Which branch of Congress did Republicans take over in 2001, such that they were in control of blocking public healthcare legislation? If Republicans are responsible, surely it should coincide with a takeover of power. If you want to look for correlations, try immigration.

More importantly, [most] Democrats (including Kerry) support abortion, which has roughly a 25% mortality rate. That’s about 360 times higher than the infant mortality rate.

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #146794

The only correlation I’m making is between Republicans and lack of affordable healthcare. The 2001 date is merely coincidence — unless you know something I don’t.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #146796

How’s this for a solution: ban all government funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood, and put that money towards healthcare. You’ll kill two birds with one stone! Or maybe I should say, “save two birds” ;)

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #146797

And as for abortion, affordable healthcare would provide alternative options and preventative education. It’s Republican obstruction on healthcare that’s keeping abortion from being safe, legal, and rare.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #146799

Middle Class
Just look at this , High fuel prices put me out of business therefore I have no health care. I know at 61 years old that if I’m here alot of people are in worse shape. Alot of these people have families to take care of. So what can we do Nothing, we have no authority or the way to do anything. By November it will be to late to care.
Come See Me www.fredwilkes.blogspot.com

Posted by: Fred Wilkes at May 10, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #146800

AP,

Thanks for raising the subject. For all the Republican talk about how wealthy we are and what a great country this is, it is appalling that the United States can perform so poorly on the topic of infant mortality. There’s no excuse.
We do great at the medical High-Tech in this country, but are an abysmal failure at the routine when compared to our peer countries. High tech means high profits. If you don’t have the money to pay, no one wants to provide you with health care. It’s as simple as that and that is capitalism, folks. The health care industry in the United States is a great example of how markets can and do fail. All our wealth does not make us healthier, in fact (as the recent study comparing the US and the UK notes), we are less healthy.

Posted by: Steve k at May 10, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #146802

Considering that most abortions result from unplanned pregnancies, perhaps it’s Democratic obstruction of abstinance education that necessitates the “need” for abortion in the first place.

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #146803

gandhi:

You’re kidding, right? Abortion has a 25% death rate? It’s closer to 99.999999%…the baby always dies.

Plus, the Republicans were in charge of Congress back by 1995 when Clinton was president, not just in 2001…Republicans gave no support for universal healthcare (available in the majority of industrialized nations), just like they pooh-poohed Clinton’s anti-terrorism initiatives…and we all know what the latter fomented.

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #146804
More importantly, [most] Democrats (including Kerry) support abortion, which has roughly a 25% mortality rate. That’s about 360 times higher than the infant mortality rate.

Excuse me: are you saying that 25% of the women in the US who have abortions die from the procedure?

Posted by: Steve k at May 10, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #146805
If you want to look for correlations, try immigration.

If you’re going to make a correlation between infant mortality and immigration, than that implies that the number of illegal immigrants was dropping up until 2001 at which time the trend reversed. I doubt the data would back up that correlation.

I’m also curious where you obtained that 25% mortality rate figure. Do you have an actual source for that information?

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #146807

Gandi,
It seems your argument is just you blowing off steam and distracting the conversation. You are entitled to be against abortion, but this posting is not about a personal and religions choice or belief issue. Nor is it about immigration, although I am sure huge numbers of immigrants mean more people without access to healthcare. However, If we are a country who walks its talk, no one should have to die in an ER or not be admitted to a hospital or be refused medication because of a lack of money.

There was a time when this was unheard of. WHen i was younger and worked in a hospital, it was illegal for a hospital to turn anyone away for emergency care. Instead of tax cuts, why can’t we use that money for good, affordable, everyday health care? A few years ago, there was a movement that coincided with the rest of the industrialized world, that focused on the benefits of preventive care. Even insurance companies touted the financial benefits of preventive care, not only in pregnancies, but throughout a person’s life. We are now looking at regulation that will put everything in the insurer’s hands and mandatory mammagrams, pregnancy care, birth control counseling, etc might be stricken from state statutes. We are going in the wrong direction. And, this is not about abortion—-this is about health care.

Making this conversation about abortion is as inappropriate as me talking about gun control and how many guns kill children as well as adults every year. I am amazed at a society who says a woman cannot make a choice about her own body, but everyone can have the choice—in fact is almost pushed into—having a gun —-and handgun—-whose only purpose is to kill people.
But again, that is not what this conversation is about.

Posted by: judye at May 10, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #146808

What I’m saying is that a quarter (hence, “roughtly 25%”) of pregnancies are terminiated by abortion.

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #146809

Gandhi,

“Considering that most abortions result from unplanned pregnancies, perhaps it’s Democratic obstruction of abstinance education that necessitates the “need” for abortion in the first place.”

Did you ever think that it might be the “head in the sand” Republican approach of “sex never happens”?

Teens have been getting pregnant since the begining of time. You’d think that, by now, parents might take a slightly more enlightened approach to teaching their children about the birds and the bees.

Posted by: Rocky at May 10, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #146811
…perhaps it’s Democratic obstruction of abstinance education that necessitates the “need” for abortion in the first place.

No, it’s the Republican’s insistance on abstinance only education that’s the problem. People are going to have sex. You can’t stop it.

It would be better if a significant number of American women didn’t actually believe babies are delivered by the stork. Education, contraception, AND abstinance are what we need.

But, as long as almost one in five Americans can’t afford to talk to a doctor about prevention, we’re going to have plenty of unplanned pregnancies, pre-mature births, infant deaths, and, yes, abortions.

The longer Republicans refuse to make affordable hralthcare available to every American, the more babies die.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #146812

judye - my points are entirely relevent. AP suggested one correlation for the data, so I’m suggesting another. And since he wants to blame Republicans for one form of death, I’ll blame Democrats for another, much more prevalent form. Or, we can raise the intellectual bar by suggesting more specific correlations.

Lynne is correct about the Republicans having control back in 1995, when the sharp drop in mortality began to slow down. But just because Republicans blocked Clinton’s massive health care proposal, does that mean we decreased health care? I’d like to see a lot more data backing your proposal. I’m doing some searching in immigration data right now…

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #146813
perhaps it’s Democratic obstruction of abstinance education

Democrats don’t obstruct abstinence education. They support broad education about all the alternatives, including abstinence, birth control and contraception. What democrats do object to is “abstinence only” education.

Republicans love to bury their head in the sand and assume, well, if we only teach abstinence than kids won’t go have sex. How stupid can you be.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #146815

AP - what do you think of Bush’s stipulation of matching funds for abstinance and contraceptives in Africa? Most Democrats didn’t like that idea.

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #146816

To make a metaphor - how many of you agree with the following philosophy on alcohol:

“I’m worried that my underage kids will drink too much alcohol and get hurt. So I’ll hold a keg party at my house for them so that they’ll be safe.”

This was surprisingly common when I was in high school.

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #146818

Quoting from a recent article in the Dallas paper (and I know this hit several local papers, too, and TV news):

But the new study showed that when minorities are removed from the equation, and adjustments are made to control for education and income, white people in England are still healthier than white people in the U.S.

“As far as I know, this is the first study showing this,” Dr. Suzman said. The study, supported by grants from government agencies in both countries, was published in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association.

Other studies have measured the U.S. against other countries in terms of health care spending, use of medical care and availability of health care. But this is the first to focus on the prevalence of chronic conditions, said Dr. Anderson, the Johns Hopkins professor.

Differences in exercise might partly explain the gap, he suggested. One of the study’s authors, Jim Smith, said the English exercise somewhat more than Americans. But physical activity differences won’t fully explain the study’s results, he added.

Dr. Marmot offered a different explanation for the gap: Americans’ financial insecurity. Improvements in household income have eluded all but the top fifth of Americans since the mid-1970s. Meanwhile, the English saw their incomes improve, he said.

Dr. Marmot cautioned against looking for explanations in the two countries’ health care systems.

“It’s not just how we treat people when they get ill, but why they get ill in the first place,” he said.

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #146822

Gandhi:

What metaphor are you trying to post? I saw no metaphor regarding keg parties and teen drinking…

Maybe it’s too much of a stretch and you’d better actually come out and explain the point you’re attempting (not too clearly) to make????

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #146824

“There is no reason why every American can’t have access to quality, affordable healthcare”

Every American does have “access” to quality, affordable healthcare.

“If you don’t have the money to pay, no one wants to provide you with health care”

If you don’t have the money to pay, grocery stores won’t provide you with food either. That is why you work and budget your money so that you can eat.
I understand that sometimes, severly ill people will incur expenses they cannot handle and will need help, but if they were to have created a personal health plan as they do with food, they would lighten the load placed on the rest of us.

“I am amazed at a society who says a woman cannot make a choice about her own body”

I am amazed at a society who says a woman can play God and determine whether another human life lives or dies, but yet she does not have the same right with her own life.

“But again, that is not what this conversation is about”

Oh but it is. Both are personal freedoms issues.
Simply saying Republicans are killing our babies is the same as saying Democrats are killing our poor because they don’t practice what they preach by actually doing something about themselves about the problem. Instead, they expect everybody else to take care of the problem.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #146826

That’s a ridiculous analogy. That would be like saying, I’m worried about my kid having unprotected sex, so I’m going to let my kids have sex if I can watch to ensure they use the condom correctly.

The more appropriate analogy would be:

“I’m worried about my kids drinking too much and getting hurt, so I’m going to educate him about the dangers of drinking too much and ensure that he knows that if he’s in trouble, if he drank too much or feels uncomfortable, he doesn’t need to be afraid to call.”

It’s about education. It’s about teaching people and providing complete information rather than the republican perspective of mandating how people will live and telling people what they can or can’t do because somebody decided it is or isn’t in their best interest.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #146828
perhaps it’s Democratic obstruction of abstinance education that necessitates the “need” for abortion in the first place.

Nope. There’s not a single sound peer-reviewed study that supports the notion that abstinence-only “sex ed” programs works. There’s significant evidence that they lead to dangerous behavior.

Blaming any political party for people having sex is ridiculous. However, one can blame a party that refuses to educate our children on how to deal with the fact of life that sex is.

BTW, New York Times Magazine had a good article on the politics of contraception this week.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #146830

First of all, to overtly blame Republicans for the deaths of thousands of babies is unjust.

But besides the point, creating a national healthcare program and dismantling private healtcare, like many Democrats want to do, will create more problems than solutions. First, people who can afford better healthcare will be forced to settle for less, and that isn’t fair. Secondly, I don’t think people understand how much money and resources will have to be allotted in order to initiate and maintain such a program. And, presonally, I don’t believe, at this current time, that the federal government is equipped to handle such a burden, nor do I believe this issue should be at the top of their “To Do” list.

The feds should worry about more prevalent issues in this country, such as responding to national disasters more swiftly (Katrina) and fighting an exasperating War on Terror.

The bottom line: In my opinion, the feds lack the ability to adequately introduce and manage a national healthcare system, with so many other vital issues stealing the limelight.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 10, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #146833

Is there a possibility that the US horrible #32 ranking among industrialized countries for infant mortality is linked to the influx of illegal immigrants/aliens that contribute to the child bearing process.

Posted by: steve smith at May 10, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #146835

Oh, Alex, the rich will always find a way to get the healthcare they “deserve”…but the majority of the country is getting shafted…

Try out these statistics:

• The estimated number of people without health insurance has increased by 6 million since 2000, rising to 45.8 million, or more than one in seven people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

• The percentage of companies that offer health benefits - the primary source of insurance for people under 65 - fell to 60% last year from 69% in 2000, according to an annual survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which does health policy research.

• The number of people who get health insurance through their employer dropped by 3.7 million from 2000 to 2004 while the population increased by 11.6 million.

• The number of people insured through Medicaid and affiliated programs rose to 37.5 million, or 12.9% of the population.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online 2006-01-22

As the only major industrialized country not offering universal health care, the US lags far behind…

And then there was the study that found middle class English were much healthier than middle class U.S….and the only difference was that the U.S. middle class (actually the entire lower 4/5th of the entire country) was not keeping up monetarily with the upper 1/5th!! Monetary instability contributes to a lack of health…

I wouldn’t waste my time worrying about the rich…worry about the children and the workers and the elderly and the disabled…if anything’s unfair, it’s that the insurance companies are getting mega-rich (Humana alone posted a $83.7 million PROFIT for the first quarter of 2006)while people are dying for lack of medical care. Ability to obtain preventative medical care means our system is more expensive and the ER becomes the first medical care a good number of people ever obtain.

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #146838
Is there a possibility that the US horrible #32 ranking among industrialized countries for infant mortality is linked to the influx of illegal immigrants/aliens that contribute to the child bearing process.

That would imply that up until 2001, the level of illegal immigration was going down. Now, I know that blaming illegal immigrants for all of our woe’s is a popular pasttime these days, and it’s obvious that protecting our ports, borders, etc is of no interest to Bush, but I don’t think that illegal immigration began in 2001.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #146839

It’s sad, I know. But maybe that’s the price we pay for capitalism.

Posted by: ALex Fitzsimmons at May 10, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #146842
If you don’t have the money to pay, grocery stores won’t provide you with food either. That is why you work and budget your money so that you can eat. I understand that sometimes, severly ill people will incur expenses they cannot handle and will need help, but if they were to have created a personal health plan as they do with food, they would lighten the load placed on the rest of us.

kctim,

I think everyone — rich and poor — has a “personal health plan.” The problem is it’s impossible to know what sort of health problems — and the costs of taking care of those problems — youeveryone needs insurance.

Posted by: Steve K at May 10, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #146843
I don’t think people understand how much money and resources will have to be allotted in order to initiate and maintain such a program.

Alex,

We’re spending all that money — and more — now. It’s just that around 20% is going straight to the insurance companies as administrative costs and profit.

Posted by: Steve K at May 10, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #146845
What I’m saying is that a quarter (hence, “roughtly 25%”) of pregnancies are terminiated by abortion.

I dont believe that stat for a second. I’ve known thousands of women who have gotten pregnant and never even heard of anyone getting an abortion.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #146847

kctim,

last sentence should read:

The problem is it’s impossible to know what sort of health problems — and the costs of taking care of those problems — you are going to have. That’s why everyone needs insurance.

Steve K

Posted by: Steve k at May 10, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #146850

Personally, I don’t think that human life should be viewed as a commodity, subject to free market forces and the great invisible hand.

The idea that the strong (wealthy) deserve to live while the weak (poor) are allowed to get sick and die off shouldn’t be a principle of an educated and enlightened society.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #146851

Grant,

You are correct to be sure that illegal immigration did not begin in 2001 (although it did increase measurably). This huge number, 10-15 million by many accounts when used as part of the numbers and/or percentages that are used for healthcare by employers, etc. is certainly distorted by the fact that the illegal immigrants are not in the employer paid healthcare coverage group.

So the number of companies offering healthcare insurance to employees (legal employees) has gone down in general. As well has the total # of people,the % of which is distorted by the illegals.

AP,
Saying that ” Republicans Killing our Babies” certainly is an attention getter albeit disingenuous IMO.

Posted by: steve smith at May 10, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #146852

I’ve read through this entire thread and can’t find a single conservative/Republican who has addressed the issue of the United States’s abysmal record on infant mortality without trying to interject the abortion issue into it.

Do any of you Republicans actually care about the health of the infants who are actually wanted and brought into this world? What do you have to say about these numbers? Can you suggest anything that might actually help these kids survive?

Posted by: Steve K at May 10, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #146853

Ghandi,

“How’s this for a solution: ban all government funding of abortion…”

By executive order, no federal money can be spent on abortion. The order was initially Reagan’s, left in place by Bush 41, revoked by Clinton, and reimposed by Bush 43.

President Bush also signed an executive order stating that federal money cannot go to international agencies that either perform or provide information about abortion.

Just so you know.

Posted by: Arr-squared at May 10, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #146857

Schwamp - did it ever occur to you that most women might not want to admit to having had an abortion?

If anything, the 25% figure is a very conservative one (I used it since the abortion rate has continued to decline in the 90s, and it’s harder to find data on very recent years). But since it’s too hard for you to type “abortion pregnancy ratio” into Google to check my claim, here’s one source for an example. The data is from the 80s and early 90s.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2911597.html

Posted by: Schwamp at May 10, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #146858

Infant mortality ratings by country

Please note especially the U.S.’s dismal ranking…

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #146861

Whoops, the above comment should be posted under “Gandhi”, not “Schwamp”.

Arr-squared - what about state funds?

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #146862
Do any of you Republicans actually care about the health of the infants who are actually wanted and brought into this world?

Of course they don’t. I live in the most conservative state in the US and recently we had a baby who was born from a dead mother. The mother was stabbed or shot or something. The baby was a few weeks premature and the mother had taken drugs which were in the baby’s system. The state gave the kid a few days and then said, hey, pull the plug. The same people who were whining and complaining about the whole Terri Shaivo thing.

No, conservatives don’t care what happens to baby’s after they’re born, they just care that they come out of the birth canal with a beating heart. After that, they wash their hands of the situation. If the child dies afterwards, then it must be his fault for not creating an adequate “personnal health plan”.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #146865

According to data I’ve found:
Annual Number of births per year (2000 to 2005): 4,090,000
Infant Mortality Rate (2000 to 2005): 6.9/1,000 births (0.69%)
Abortion info:
Abortion Rate in 2000: 246/1,000 births (24.6%)
Total Legal Abortions in 2000: 857,475 (Alaska, California, and New Hampshire did not report abortion info)

Posted by: SirisC at May 10, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #146866

Ghandi,

The women don’t report the abortions, the Doctor’s do. It was the rate of abortion while abortion was illegal that was under reported. As was the death rate of the mothers.

r^2

It’s generally called the “Global gag rule”. All USAID money is revoked if a health care provider even mentions directly or indirectly anything about abortion. Nice “winning of the hearts and minds” It’s more like “making fewer hearts and minds” to have to win over.

Posted by: Dave at May 10, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #146883

We have our moral priorities screwed up. People who call themseleves pro-life are really pro-birth. Once you are born the value of your life varies depending wealth, race and political opportunities. The term pro-life is limited to being anti-abortion to protect life from conception to birth. I wish they would extend that definition to include birth to death.

To me, pro-life means more than being anti-abortion, but being concered about equal access to human needs, treated equality regardless of wealth or race and having opportunities - from concepton to death. Most importantly being concerned for the welfare of all of our fellow human beings.

I do not hear any pro-lifer speaking against poverty, infant mortality, lack of health care for 40 million people, an unjust death penality that is race bias, and an unjust war that kills 35,000 innocent Iragis. They are more concerned about gay marriage, flag burning, the war on Christmas, keeping marijuana illegal, and teaching abstenance and intelligent design in school. Meaningless but safe politically.

It is a moral outrage that infant mortality is as high as it is. We all responsibile and accountable. Lets not pass the blame to Democrates or Republicans. Lets stop passing the buck an fix it…

Posted by: Steve at May 10, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #146885

Conservatives could care less about what happens to the child once born. After the child is born all they are concerned about is their capitalistic ideals. Quite amazing from a group of people who profess to being “Christians”. Don’t they know the real reason that their God destroyed Sodom? (Hint: It wasn’t homosexuality)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 10, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #146886

We can be unhappy about American statistics, but your chart shows nothing in particular and the idea that is a Republican thing is just silly. According to the chart, it bumped up a little in the middle of the Clinton years, anyway.

I could with as much “truthiness” argue that it was the Dems, who by their disasterous war on poverty and social engineering, created an American underclass are responsible for the declining progress.

The most likely reason is massive immigration and the differential U.S. birthrates. I would be interested to see how rates in communities that have recieved little immigration in recent years compare to the U.S. and world figures. Anybody got some fact and figures from N. Dakota or New Hampshire?

Posted by: Jack at May 10, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #146889

Steve,

Well said.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 10, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #146891

Steve:

I think you’re quite right about that pro-birth vs. pro-life reading.

Want to see something really interesting? Read the journal “Human Life Review”…it’s all anti-abortion, but makes no mention of poverty, healthcare…nothing after birth…it did go in heavily on the Schiavo thing…so maybe pro-birth anti-death is their bag?? Nothing much in between birth and death however…

What’s really interesting about the journal is its “cartoons”…one shows a husband and wife on the verge of shooting each other…oh, very pro-life that is!! Another shows a ditzy woman walking right past a drowning person and making some “funny” quip.

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #146894

Just for clarification, infant mortality rates are defines as the deaths occuring from birth until the age of 1year, therefore abortion does not affect these numbers, the problems is that there has been cuts for social programs needed to support the not so wealthy individuals, therefore they are less likely to seek help until they are really sick, even in the cases of pregnancy.
So if abortion becomes illegal, what systems (economically, emotion, etc) are now set up to support those individuals who are forced to carry on a pregnancy they can not support (and for the child growing up in a possible unwanted enviornment), we know the right doesn’t really have programs that they care enough about.
I am against abortion as contraception, we need to educate, but we dont’ have the right to tell people how they must live.

Posted by: scooter at May 10, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #146910
So if abortion becomes illegal, what systems (economically, emotion, etc) are now set up to support those individuals who are forced to carry on a pregnancy they can not support

There won’t be any, because obviously, if you can’t afford to support a child, you shouldn’t get pregnant, you shouldn’t be having sex at all, isn’t that right republicans? You should only be having sex if you want a baby and you should only be having a baby if you can afford that baby, right?

Following this logic, the average middle class income, assuming the mother doesn’t work because her job is to stay at home, could afford maybe what, 3 kids? So in the end, any individual, in the republican utopia, should only have sex 3 times in their lives. Well, let’s say 5 or 6 since it doesn’t always happen the first time.

This is the republican world. Hope you enjoy it.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #146921

Okay, seriously, are you people for real? Nationalized health care is not reasonable. Unless we want to turn America into a socialistic society. Poor people die (due to the lack of healthcare) because they have crappy jobs and crappy education. It is darwinistic economics. When the governement takes over a new responsibility of either the state, the individual, or the family, they must raise taxes or cut benifits somewhere else. They also limit our freedom everytime we ask them to care for us. This is the same liberal song and dance about how we are too stupid or helpless to care for ourselves. We must rely on our gov. to decide what is best for us, we must give them our money because we are too idiotic to spend it ourselves. What a load of BS!!!!
Perhaps those that can’t care for themselves don’t desereve to be cared for? Yeah, I know, it sounds cold-hearted. So what? The real world is a cold and uncaring place, the liberal utopia doesn’t exist!!! If it did, all the communist and socialist nations wouldn’t be coming here for health care!!!!!! Go ask a Canadian or a Frenchman, or and Englishman how good their healthcare system is and then explain to me why we should adopt the same philosophy!!! A national gov. is only intended to provide international relationships, national security, and monitor the states to make sure they are following the ideals and principles of the constitution. Why are they going to be made to pay for my tylenol?

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #146924

I don’t believe that single payer healthcare necessarily would have to be nationalized healthcare…

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #146925

You guys make me sick, with the title of this blog, it is a wonder you can look at yourself in the mirror without losing all respect for yourself!

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #146926

“So if abortion becomes illegal, what systems (economically, emotion, etc) are now set up to support those individuals who are forced to carry on a pregnancy they can not support”

None. Because the people who “say” they care, don’t really give a rats ass. They believe everybody else should do it for them.
Nothing quite like listening to people whine and complain about the poor and how somebody should help them, right after they just paid $5 for a cup of coffee or bought a new CD.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #146927
Nationalized health care is not reasonable. Unless we want to turn America into a socialistic society.

You’re right. We shouldn’t consider a program that might be good for fellow citizens if it can be described with a bad word.

Semantics over good policy any day.

Go ask a Canadian or a Frenchman, or and Englishman how good their healthcare system is and then explain to me why we should adopt the same philosophy!!!

Considering that a major study came out this week showing that the British are healthier than Americans in every economic strata, I think you might not want to make this challende.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #146928

Are you saying that dem’s (and/or liberals) aren’t trying to get nationalized health care? Do you really believe that? I suppose they do only want it for the poor though, so you might have a point. Once again, let the succesful and educated pay for those who don’t contribute anything to society. Hmmmm sounds a bit unlike a self-reliant democracy, which by the way we are supposed to be!

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #146930

lawnboy, go back to cutting grass. American’s are lazy, over eat, don’t excercise etc. We have one of the worst rates of obesity. What does that study have to do with anything? Correlation please?

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #146931

and socialistic isn’t a bad word grass boy, it is just a word that does not describe AMERICA!!!! Half the problems in the last 60 years are due to our obsession with trying to be both a free market economy and a socialistic society. Started with FDR. You do realize it is that deep don’t you?

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #146932

kctim

great post…

kind of like the hollywood thumpers that tout on about the poor, or starving, or the environment. Then drive off in a hummer to pay a thousand bucks for dinner.

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #146934

wow, looks like the phlegm is leaving a slimey trail all over the place.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #146936
American’s are lazy, over eat, don’t excercise etc. We have one of the worst rates of obesity. What does that study have to do with anything? Correlation please?

And those factors were considered and found lacking.

They couldn’t prove a conclusive link, but the only major difference between the groups they weren’t able to exclude was the health care system.

So, you might think that our system is so much better, but the evidence is not on your side.

and socialistic isn’t a bad word grass boy, it is just a word that does not describe AMERICA!!!! Half the problems in the last 60 years are due to our obsession with trying to be both a free market economy and a socialistic society. Started with FDR. You do realize it is that deep don’t you?

Do you realize it’s acceptable to spread your capital letters across your statments? You don’t have to save them up to use them only in individual words. In fact, using correct captialization makes you seem like you might know anything close to what you’re talking about.

Do you understand the meaning of your earlier statement that Nationalized health care is not reasonable. Unless we want to turn America into a socialistic society.? You’re saying that nationalized health care is unreasonable simply because you would describe it as socialist. Never mind that it might be good policy - you dismiss it because you label it.

Great logic there.

Also, how do you justify saying that America isn’t socialist, but that our problems are because we are socialist. Do you recognize the logical break there?

Anyway, that’s my last cookie for you. Trolls shouldn’t be fed.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #146938

got that right, I am just sick of people older than their 20’s living in a fantasy world. No political system is perfect, everyone knows that. We must stop pretending to be what we aren’t. I just wish those that are trying to turn us into a European styled country would do us a favor and move over there. Has anyone else noticed how Europe is being forced to change their ways, and move closer to what we used to be? Ahhhmmm, immigration would be a great example. Oh wait, I might hurt someone’s feelins. Awwww!! What a pathetic nation we are quickly becoming!!! Where is the pride we used to have? Where is the idividual reliance? Where is the family unit? With the 1/2 assed system we have now, we might as well let La Raza take over the south, we will just ruin it anyways!

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #146939

[Critique the message, not the messenger] We are TRYING (hey there, all caps, wow) to move towards a socialistic society. We are implementing their kind of systems everyday. And I don’t consider it a bad idea just because I labeled it, I consider it a bad system, because our financial structure is not set up to handle it. For it to work, we will have to adjust our tax system to that of the european countries.

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #146940
OMG! You really are a moron lawn boy.

Hey buddy, calling names isn’t allowed on this site. The motto is “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger”. Keep it up, and you won’t get to post here ever again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 10, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #146941

Someone here ought to read something besides the NY times and such, listen to something besides the big 3 networks. Do some private research. Do your own homework. Procure a sense of logic and come back when you are past mental maturation.

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #146944

Ah, yes, the Rovian technique. You want to talk about topic A, which reflects badly on my position, so I will change the topic to B, an irrelevant but divisive issue that I will exploit to derail the discussion of A, which I know is bad but don’t want to talk about because I’m to blame. If we talk about it, I might have to do something about it or lose my position of power. For those keeping score, A = infant mortality (healthcare)/B = abortion (sex education).

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 10, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #146945
I just wish those that are trying to turn us into a European styled country would do us a favor and move over there.
What a pathetic nation we are quickly becoming!!! Where is the pride we used to have? Where is the idividual reliance? Where is the family unit? With the 1/2 assed system we have now, we might as well let La Raza take over the south, we will just ruin it anyways!

We are what we are. What we are becoming is precisely what we chose to become. The path this nation is following is the path set down by a majority of its populace. We have a popularly elected government. If most of the nation didn’t like the path we are following, things would change. Not overnight. Not in a single election. But over time, things would change, just as we as a nation have changed over the last 200 years. It’s the nature of our government and our society.

If you don’t like the path this nation is following, than why don’t you go? You seem to think it’s a small handful of liberals trying to socialize the US and that they should leave, but it’s our society as a whole that’s changing. Stop whining and complaining and just leave. I hear Iraq needs a government. You and your neo-con, darwinistic economy crew can head over their and try it again. You can just as easily blog about how wretched you think the US is over there.

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #146946
I am just sick of people older than their 20’s living in a fantasy world.

The only people older than 29 who are living in a fantasy world are drying out at Sierra Tucson…we’ve lived through enough wars and economies to know reality when we face it…and we’re not facing a very nice reality right now…

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #146948

last post, but I must mention a last comment. I do not believe it is a few liberals trying to change the gov. I think the problems are due to a few contributing factors. You are right, if the public wants change it will get it. Consider this though, how many undereducated people vote? How many people vote to get personal gains from their elected officials? How many people actually have a clue what they are really going to get from their officials?

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior. “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

Posted by: phlegm at May 10, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #146953

Nationalized health care is not reasonable. … This is the same liberal song and dance about how we are too stupid or helpless to care for ourselves. We must rely on our gov. to decide what is best for us, we must give them our money because we are too idiotic to spend it ourselves.

I hope you never find yourself suddenly unemployed and then get into a bad auto accident on the way to a job interview

Posted by: bobo at May 10, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #146954

“I hope you never find yourself suddenly unemployed and then get into a bad auto accident on the way to a job interview”

Care to share how you personally help those who do suddenly find themselves in that position?

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #146958


There is probably no finer example of capitalism than our healty care system. The least amount of health care at the maximum price possible=== soaring profits.

Way to go Jack. If the democrats had not waged a war on poverty there would be no poverty.
wait, that was Johnson.

Roosevelt created the socialist welfare state so he could create poverty. Before Roosevelt there was no poverty right Jack.

And if capitalism was unchained, poverty would be eliminated in a matter of years, months, weeks, hours, seconds, immediately. Anyone who believes this must be a capitalist.

Infant mortality is but one of many indicators that when it comes to health care, we are getting shafted and we are paying for the shafting through the nose.

Posted by: jlw at May 10, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #146962

Care to share how you personally help those who do suddenly find themselves in that position?
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Posted by: bobo at May 10, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #146963

The last time capitalism was unchained and unrestrained led to almost complete destruction of American capitalism, i.e. the great depression.

I just read a great quote by Arthur Schlesinger Jr: “The object of (American) liberalism has never been to destroy capitalism, as conservatism invariably claims – only to keep the capitalists from destroying it.”

Posted by: Grant at May 10, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #146966

Sorry Bobo, but National Health Insurance is not available yet.

I am talking about the present.
Do you live a very modest life and donate every spare cent you have to support what you “say” you believe in? Or do you just sit back, complain and expect others to support your beliefs so that you don’t suffer any lifestyle changes?

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #146972

kctim,

I’ve heard you on this warpath before.

I do not, as you put it “sit back, complain and expect others to support my beliefs.” I get involved, support candidates who espouse my values, and try to make America a better, more caring country through changes to public policy.

I realize that you don’t consider that a reasonable thing, because you believe it somehow infringes in your liberty when you have to pay taxes to support other people. I believe differently. I believe in a sense of community which says we all feel empathy towards all our fellow citizens and act in concert to fix things. I believe that there is a thing called the “public sphere” which we all have a role in. I sense that you believe differently.

You’d just assume that everyone who has problems and doesn’t have the money to fix things change their “behavior,” and then you further hope that acts of charity take care of all the remaining problems in this country. That’s fine for you to believe that, but I don’t believe it’s anywhere near enough.

Posted by: bobo at May 10, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #146975

“Considering that most abortions result from unplanned pregnancies, perhaps it’s Democratic obstruction of abstinance education that necessitates the “need” for abortion in the first place.”

Abstinance is the easiest thing to wish on other people.

Posted by: tony at May 10, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #146978

“I do not, as you put it “sit back, complain and expect others to support my beliefs.” I get involved, support candidates who espouse my values, and try to make America a better, more caring country through changes to public policy”

Why must it be “public policy” for you to support what you say is right?

“I realize that you don’t consider that a reasonable thing, because you believe it somehow infringes in your liberty when you have to pay taxes to support other people.”

Wrong. It infringes on my freedoms when others tell me how to support others.

“I believe differently. I believe in a sense of community which says we all feel empathy towards all our fellow citizens and act in concert to fix things.”

But yet, you do not believe in it enough to lead by example.

“That’s fine for you to believe that, but I don’t believe it’s anywhere near enough.”

If its fine for me to believe that, then why do I not have any say in the matter?
If you don’t believe its enough, then why don’t you do more?

“I’ve heard you on this warpath before”

Many times, I’m sure.
But, unlike the vast majority of lefties, you had the guts to state your opinion and I thank you.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #146980

kctim

1. Only public policy can solve these issues.

2. It doesn’t infringe on your “freedom” when someone is provided National Health Insurance.

3. I believe I am “leading by example.” Just ask anyone who knows me.

4. You do have a say. it is your vote.

Posted by: bobo at May 10, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #146983

“Abstinance is the easiest thing to wish on other people”

Its also easy if your a freakin robot.
How quickly some forget what happens when your young and the wind blows.
Good quote there Tony.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #146988

1. Only public policy can solve these issues.

- I disagree. Only a public who cares and actually acts on those cares on a personal basis, can solve these issues.
We have had “public policy” that deals with these issues for many years, with Rep and Dems leading the way, and no substantial progress has been made.

2. It doesn’t infringe on your “freedom” when someone is provided National Health Insurance.

- Your right, it doesn’t one bit. But forcing me to pay for it, against my will, does.

3. I believe I am “leading by example.” Just ask anyone who knows me.

Glad to hear that.

4. You do have a say. it is your vote

- I really wish my vote had a say in this matter, I really do.
But, the people are so dependent on govt today and so afraid of giving people a choice on the matter, that my vote means nothing.
Personal freedoms have gone the way of the dinosaur.

Posted by: kctim at May 10, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #146992
“Abstinance is the easiest thing to wish on other people”

Its also easy if your a freakin robot.
How quickly some forget what happens when your young and the wind blows.
Good quote there Tony.

Learn some self control. I practiced abstinance until I was married; it may have been tempting not to at times, but I can keep myself under control.

Posted by: SirisC at May 10, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #146998


Kctim: “It infringes on my freedoms when others tell me how to support others. By your standard, my freedoms have been infringed on all my working life.

Example: A woman who makes $50,000 per year and is single with no dependents pays a much higher percentage of her income thru taxes than her coworker who also makes $50,000 per year because he has a wife and three children he is supporting. She chose not to have children so she is forced to help her coworker support his.

I wonder if you have children.

Posted by: jlw at May 10, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #147023

Mabey you libs should push for even more abortions. Then we republicans would have less babies to kill. [Critique the message, not the messenger]

Posted by: commander jc at May 10, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #147037

Dear freepers:

Please explain to me how our current healthcare system is a free market.

Demand comes from the ill. Supply comes from Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals, and Drug Companies.

Supply is a highly regulated industry with exclusionary rights to practice medicine. How can the buyer evaluate the services recieved? How do hospitals compete? Why do drug companies adverise to patients who cannot order prescriptions? Are there any market controls that require disclosure of success/cost comparisons? A recent program (I forget what it was) had a doctor try to compare costs of a procedure at various Hospitals. He could not. They do not operate on free market prnciples.

Is health insurance controled by demand of the users or is it a regulated industry also? Why can the industry choose it’s pool, doesn’t this shift cost to the ill? Is that fair? What is the purpose of insurance? How does this incease market efficiency?

Saying that government can’t afford to run our healthcare system ignores the rest of the world.
It also ignores a major reason for healthcare rising costs.
Trying to sell a health savings plan is just another wall street sham that hides the regulated, give away, socialized(for corporations) medical industry we currently operate under. This is the political spin of a protected industry with powerful lobbyists.

Posted by: gergle at May 10, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #147071

commander jc:

Mabey you libs should push for even more abortions. Then we republicans would have less babies to kill.

Fewer, not less…and are you so sure that Republican women aren’t aborting future little Bush sheep???

Besides, the “libs” are at least attempting to provide healthcare and services so abortion will become a rare occurrence…what, besides “abstinence” teaching that has proven to result in more unwanted pregnancies and STDs than birth control information, are the Republicans doing???

Posted by: Lynne at May 10, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #147090
It’s sad, I know. But maybe that’s the price we pay for capitalism.

ALex, as we get closer to November, I hope you and Jack continue to remind America what true Republican values are. Thank you.

Saying that “Republicans Killing our Babies” certainly is an attention getter albeit disingenuous IMO.

How so? I haven’t heard anyone here dispute the facts presented in the article. As more and more Americans can’t afford basic healthcare, more babies die. Republicans are obstructing Democratic efforts to make healthcare affordable, therefore Republicans are killing our babies.

And people like Jack and ALex (Republicans) and kctim (Libertarian, I guess) have not disputed the facts. Conservatives truly believe that people who can’t afford healthcare are too stupid to live and their children should all die as well.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 10, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #147101
And people like Jack and ALex (Republicans) and kctim (Libertarian, I guess) have not disputed the facts. Conservatives truly believe that people who can’t afford healthcare are too stupid to live and their children should all die as well.

No, we don’t believe that stupid people don’t deserve to live, we just believe that healthcare shouldnt be handed out freely…to borrow a previously stated example, when you go to the grocery store, do they just hand you food for free? No, you have to pay, just like everybody else. Just like you have to pay for the clothes on your back and the house you live in…all considered basic life necessities, all of which must be payed for.

Should the government provide everybody with a house, two dress shirts and a year supply of food? Maybe in communist Russia, but not in America.

Again, capitalism can be a drag, but hey, id take capitalism over socialism any day!

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 10, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #147126
we just believe that healthcare shouldnt be handed out freely

Nobody’s talking about free healthcare. None of the Democratic plans I linked has anything to do with free healthcare. You’re absolutely ignorant of Democratic policy if you believe anything different.

The Massachussetts plan isn’t free. Kerry’s plan isn’t free. The plans Democrats have introduced as legislation aren’t free.

They are all measures to bring down the cost of healthcare by modernizing the healthcare system (“Paper kills”, as Sen. Clinton and Newt Gingrich say), by adopting the basic market principle of amortization (the more people who buy into a plan, the cheaper it becomes), leverage all those people’s buying power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, make doctor’s malpractice suit information public so that patients can choose a doctor that won’t cause another malpractice suit, institute a “three strikes” policy on lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, collect and disseminate data on the effectiveness of teatments so that quality can be improved — but most important — modernize the healthcare system. Offering tax incentives to upgrade administrative systems will cut healthcare costs in half and save lives.

None of these Democratic programs hand out healthcare for free. Democrats are trying to make healthcare affordable, which creates a virtuous cycle of more coverage, better preventative care, and ever more affordable, quality healthcare.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #147127

Oh, and I forgot to mention the huge positive impact of affordable healthcare on business. If everyone had a personal, portable, affordable health plan, then we could take the burdon of healthcare off the backs of business.

These Democratic initiatives are win-win for everyone (except possibly the insurance companies and pharmaceutical conglomerates that are so instrumental to Republican Party funding).

Posted by: American Pundit at May 11, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #147137

I think we left Capitalism behind a few years ago, were now in a Predatory Capitalism mode in this Country. How else would you explain a bill that would not allow the government negotiate for better pricing on drugs? The bill was written by the Drug industry for and passed by our bought and paid for Congress.
One more comment if you call what FDR did for this Country Socialism then count me in as a very proud Socialist. Any one not born with a silverspoon in their mouth has benefited from the policies of FDR. This Country was in a depression due to Predatory Capitalism. His policies created a middle class in this country.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 11, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #147142

The Republicans are killing our babies!

Of course we are! They make the best pate. We tried fluffy kittens, but they are just not as tender and they lack the fruity aftertaste that infants provide.

Posted by: goodkingned at May 11, 2006 3:06 AM
Comment #147145

Freely as in handed out cheaply like candy, but not free of cost…sorry, poor wording.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 11, 2006 6:20 AM
Comment #147162

“She chose not to have children so she is forced to help her coworker support his.”

And I am totally against this form of taxation too.

“I wonder if you have children.”

2

Posted by: kctim at May 11, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #147187

AP,

SO I was intrigued and started looking at the data and some of the conclusion by the CDC. A couple of things related to your premise became apparent. First, the rise in the infant mortality rate in 2001 and 2002 did not continue in 2003. See the cdc for source here. While completely coincidental, it does occur with the inaugeration of a Republican President, does it not?

In further research, it became clear that infant mortality rates while a good index of health and nutrition in the developing world is much more complex in industrial societies. Infant mortality in the U.S. is attributed to a whole host of factors only some which are medical. It has a strong correlation with maternal behaviors (drug, alcohol, and tobacco use). It also has a strong race bias that can be attributed to some degree to socio-economic patterns, but not completely. For instance, Asians and Pacific Islanders have a lower infant mortality rate than whites while not necessarily having a higher standard of living. It also correlated with age wtih teenage mothers being higher as well as mothers over 40.

As to the medical aspects, ealry prenatal care is the highest, but not the only links. There has also been a marked increase in the birth of multiples in the early 2000’s attributed to increases in fertility treatments. Those pregnancies resulted in lower birth rate infants that were more susceptable to complication resulting in death. There was also a lower birth weight for single baby births that resulted from fertility treatment with similar but not as drastic morbidity and mortality.

Another interesting medical correlation was that the rate of miscarriages in late term dipped at the same time that infant mortality rate increased. This was attributed to better monitoring that resulted in more early deliveries for medical reasons (both C-Sections and inducements).

The U.S. clearly has challenges in decreasing the infant mortality rate; however, they are not all medical. To use this as a cry for national health care is not much more than a convienant argument. The challenges is more public health related than medical and nature. Public health has always been a public function in the U.S. and will continue to be. So I will be the Republican here that rejects the premise that Republicans are killing our babies.

Posted by: Rob at May 11, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #147232

AP,
I believe that the impact of a healthcare plan for all employees provided by employers is an admiral goal and should be pursued with every resource available.

I submit however that the illegal immigrants/aliens who are in the work force and are treated differently (lower wage, tax evasion, etc,) issue must be resolved in order to make this happen.

Healthcare rates to employers are presently keyed directly to such things as size of workforce, type of jobs performed, utilization of ergonomic work methods, automation, safety equipment in use, etc.. Companies with high levels of illegal immigrants/aliens are typically catagorized as high risk, virtually prohibitive premium costs (if in fact it is legal to insure them at all).Considering that there are about a handful of OSHA inspectors for the entire US, workplace safety is not high on many lists of small business owners.

Posted by: steve smith at May 11, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #147238

Some 2004 American stats to chew on from the 2004 US Census Bureau:

59.8% covered by employment based insurance
9.3% covered by privately purchased insurance
13.7% covered by Medicare
12.9% covered by Medicaid
3.7% covered by Military insurance
15.7% uninsured

I know, I know that adds up to 99.4% you can try to figure out the other 0.6% yourself at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

If you add up the number of those covered by any government plan and the uninsured it amounts to 46%. So nearly half of Americans are either uninsured or their insurance is paid for by other Americans!

I’d almost bet if a person factored in all government officials and employees (both at federal and state levels) you’d have 50% either not covered or covered by government plans.

Now, consider that 91.6% of those earning $75,000 or more are insured and only 75.7% earning less than $25,000 are covered. So common sense tells me that many “wage earners” are actually providing coverage for others that they can’t afford to provide for themselves.

I am puzzled as to why only 91.6% of those earning $75 grand + have coverage. I can only imagine that the other 8.4% are (1) wealthy enough to be self insured or, (2) the same kind of idiots that wouldn’t have car insurance if not required by law.

The percentage of children not covered by insurance should make anyone hang their head in shame:

11.2% of ALL children are uninsured
7.6% of white children are uninsured
13.0% of black children are uninsured
9.4% of asian children are uninsured
21.1% of hispanic children are uninsured

Time for a change?

The true conservative solution: End Medicaid and Medicare. Bar those without insurance or the means to pay from recieving any care other than that provided by charitable institutions. Let everyone fend for themselves. (This also requires segregating schools along new lines, can’t have dirty, filthy, unhealthy kids spreading disease to healthy, well kempt kids)

The true liberal solution: This is a national problem and requires intervention at the national level. All Americans must be provided with healthcare coverage to build stronger communities.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at May 11, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #147245

Another reason for “single payor” health coverage?
IMO a perfect example of the GOP dismantling the “Safety Net” for seniors:

Cut-n-paste from the Hillsboro Free Press:

Seniors should be cautious about new private health insurance

By: Don Ratzlaff May 10, 2006

Local hospital officials are concerned that area senior citizens may not be fully understanding the implications of signing up with private health insurers who are promising no premiums.

Mike Ryan, chief executive officer at Hillsboro Community Medical Center, and Marion Regier, chief financial officer, said last week that seniors who switch to plans such as Humana Gold Choice may be left holding the bag for services that otherwise would be covered by Medicare and the senior’s secondary insurance provider.

“I don’t know if they’re realizing it or not, but they’re dropping Medicare,” Ryan said.

Regier said seniors may not realize that when they give up their Medicare coverage, they also have to drop their secondary insurance through companies such as Blue Cross and Mennonite Mutual Aid.

“When they sign up for Humana Gold Choice, they’ll be dropping both of those,” she said. “Then, if they have a service done under Humana, they will owe that co-insurance amount.”

Responsible for services

Regier said if seniors were to be hospitalized at HCMC under Humana Gold Choice, they would have to pay out of their own pocket $180 a day. If they would go into a skilled level of care, such as swing bed, they would have to pay $90 a day.

“We’ve had some patients in who did not realize that when they signed up for this they actually were losing their Medicare coverage,” Regier said. “It’s not necessarily presented to them very clearly.”

No deductible

Another factor to consider is that Humana Gold Choice offers no deductible, she added.

“There was a deductible under Medicare, but your secondary insurance would always pick that up,” Regier said.

“Now, with Gold Choice, there’s no premium, so (seniors) can save some money on the front end. But what some people aren’t realizing is that on the back end they’re going to be open for 20 percent for every out-patient service they have done, as well as these other co-insurance fees for swing bed and inpatient stays.”

Privitization movement

Ryan said the emergence of options such as Humana Gold Choice is part of the government’s long-term plan to privatize Medicare.

“(The government) is subsidizing companies like Humana for the first two or three years to really get these companies to make money and to offer (coverage) at a lower cost, he said.

But the subsidy will end in two to three years, he added.

“Then, these private companies, to make money, are going to have to raise premiums or cut back benefits,” Ryan said.

Regier said people also need to realized that they will have to comply with the reimbursement practices prescribed by the private companies-and those will be different than Medicare’s.

“For instance,” she said, “with the insurance company we have (for employees), if somebody comes to the emergency room and our insurance company says that really wasn’t a medical emergency, they’re not going to pay for it.

“The same thing is going to happen with this. Since it’s a private insurance company, they’re going to be asking, ‘Well, was that really an emergency?’”

A push to sell

Ryan said he doesn’t believe plans such as Humana Gold Choice are fraudulent, but that those who sell them aren’t as clear as they could be about the implications of buying into them.

“These people selling this are making money selling it,” he said, “They get a commission for every contract they sign. They’re selling, so they don’t tell the whole story. They are trying to sign up as many people as they can.”

Ryan and Regier said they aren’t sure how many local seniors have signed up already for Humana Gold Choice.

“I’ve got a feeling there are quite a few,” Ryan said. “There are several here in HIllsboro who have already signed up.”

Nationwide, Regier said, about 15 percent have made the switch.

She said people who opt of Medicare can get back on board-but that’s only half the story.

“Each year they will be able to determine whether or not they want to get back on Medicare, but they may not be able to get back on to their secondary insurance if they have a pre-existing health condition,” she said. “(The secondary insurer) wouldn’t have to take them back, or it could be a very high premium.”

Advice for seniors

So, what advice to Ryan and Regier have for seniors?

“If they want to be maintained the way they are right now, the safest thing to do would be to stay with the Medicare and the existing supplement that they have,” Regier said.

Added Ryan: “We would probably urge that. We would also offer that if any seniors would like to find out more about it and talk about it with one of us, they’re certainly welcome to come in and to talk to us.

“We may not have all the answers either, but we’ll sure look into any questions they have.”

©Hillsboro Free Press 2006

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16613587&BRD=1163&PAG=461&dept_id=103377&rfi=8

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at May 11, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #147481
Freely as in handed out cheaply like candy, but not free of cost…sorry, poor wording.

So Alex, you’d rather just play word games instead of looking at serious legislation to make healthcare affordable for all Americans. A typical “Let them eat cake” Republican. Please keep posting.

The U.S. clearly has challenges in decreasing the infant mortality rate; however, they are not all medical.

Rob, you may be right that the horrible US infant mortality rate is not ALL medical. Unfortunately, neither you nor your Republican Party are offering any solutions, which makes y’all part of the problem.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 12, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #147487

American Pundit,

I believe the Federal government’s duties, on a broad scale, are the following:

Facilitate business
Protect its people (police, military)
Provide emergency relief in times of dire stress
Dictate foreign policy

There’s some other things too, but these are the biggies. I don’t believe the government should supply people with clothes, food, and housing, and healthcare…when do people start taking responsibilty for their own actions instead of constantly relying on the government to pull them out of holes?

The bottom line: if you want to better yourself, work hard, study hard, and society will compensate you.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at May 12, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #147516
More importantly, [most] Democrats (including Kerry) support abortion, which has roughly a 25% mortality rate. That’s about 360 times higher than the infant mortality rate.

Posted by: Gandhi at May 10, 2006 10:15 AM

“Gandhi” - that is a Lie. And here is the Proof:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5103a1.htm

From the Above CDC web-page:

In 1998, 884,273 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC, representing a 2% decrease from the 900,171 legal induced abortions reported by the same 48 reporting areas for 1997. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 264, compared with 274 in 1997 (for the same 48 areas); the abortion rate for these 48 areas was 17 per 1,000 women aged 15—44 years for both 1997 and 1998.

From 1993 through 1997 (years for which data have not been published previously and the most recent years for which such data are available), 36 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion, and three deaths were associated with known illegal abortion. The annual case-fatality rate of legal induced abortion ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 reported legal induced abortions.

Numbers of deaths due to legal induced abortion were highest before the 1980s; the last 5 years showed one third fewer deaths than the previous 5 years. Possible abortion-related deaths that occurred during 1998 and 1999 are being investigated.

Table From CDC-Webpage, Showing Average Of Only .8 Deaths Per Every 100,000 Legal Abortions In America Between 1972-1998

That’s less than 1 in 100,000 folks!

Please stop fabricating Nonsense and trying to sell it as Fact. I know: you’re a Conservative and can’t help it - but if you cannot Inform yourself then please keep the Spin in your home, rather than spewing it out all over WatchBlog as “Fact.”

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 12, 2006 3:04 AM
Comment #147529

Betty,

Never, ever present a conservative with facts. Facts eat at the soul of a conservative and they will make us liberals pay until we can convince those who believe they have no voice that WE (the Democratic Party) are their voice.

I try. I really try.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at May 12, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #147582

Betty,

Case Fatality Rate is referring to how many mothers die due to an abortion. Which is a completely different fact than there being 246 abortions per 1000 births as measured in 2000 by the CDC. (If you want a link, see my previous post)

Posted by: SirisC at May 12, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #147647

AP said, “Rob, you may be right that the horrible US infant mortality rate is not ALL medical. Unfortunately, neither you nor your Republican Party are offering any solutions, which makes y’all part of the problem.”

That was a pithy response to an argument I put some time in doing some research. Did you lose your reasoning skills since the first article?

As to the meat of your argument, the CDC continues to lead the way in analyzing the problem of infant mortality under all flavors of administrations. Their current goal is to erase the discrepancy of infant mortality among the races by 2010. Assuming they accomplish that by bringing the other races in line with whites (or better yet Asians and Pacific Islanders), that should have the mortality rate down to around 5 by the end of the decade. Again, most of the steps involved to do this are not medical, but public health in nature. Getting mothers to stop using drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products during the pregnancy first among them. Lowering the teen pregnancy rate will help as well.

The next major goal is getting mothers to come forward earlier for prenatal care. There are already programs in place to cover those costs for those that can’t afford it.

There are other correlations that haven’t yet been explained that research will help. Grants from the National Science Foundation, the NIH, or the CDC to better understand the racial disparities that don’t correlate with socioeconomic statistics will also help. Writing the Congress to do this will help more than national healthcare.

Finally, infant mortality is a sad thing. But it is not a good indicator of the health of the health care system in the U.S. By trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, I don’t think you and your party (if you speak for the Democrats) are doing much to help either. There are many other things that will help more.

Posted by: Rob at May 12, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #147928

Betty - you completely fail to understand the figures I was using, and what I meant by them. So I’ll explain yet again:

Roughly one out of every 4 pregnancies (not including those that result in miscarriages) is terminated. Hence 25%. Depending on region and year, this figure has bounced between roughly 20% and 33%.

I made no statements about the likelihood of a mother dying. See the source I cited above. As I made clear, I brought up abortion merely in response to the exremely partisan way that this topic was authored in the first place. So please try to be a little more careful in your reading before you call me a liar.

KansasDem:

Never, ever present a conservative with facts.

The same goes for you. Now, away from this partisan bickering, and let’s get back to intelligent posts like Rob’s.

Rob mentioned “Getting mothers to stop using drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products”. Health care won’t do much to help here. Education will help a little, but the basic problem is dealing with people who don’t care, and getting them to care. As a libertarian, I say that’s not the government’s job.

So let’s focus in on drugs. Here’s a question for thought: if drugs were made legal, and taxed heavily, banned in certain situations (i.e. driving), this might also result in a new market sector for addiction-breaking products equivalent to the nicotine patch. Do you think the effects of drug legalization would statistically raise or lower infant mortality rates?

Posted by: Gandhi at May 13, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #148250

“Gandhi” (sick, dude: really Sick to use that name):

Here is a FACT; you wrote:

More importantly, [most] Democrats (including Kerry) support abortion, which has roughly a 25% mortality rate.

Don’t try to Waffle or FlipFlop out of it; it’s right there in Black and White over your “name” for everyone to see! You said that abortion has roughly a 25% mortality rate!

Or, are you now claiming that you don’t know how to use the English Language?

Go back and read it again! And stop Lying!


KansaDem wrote:

Never, ever present a conservative with facts.

Well, as you know, Truth does have a Liberal Bias to it…

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 15, 2006 6:42 AM
Comment #148920

Betty - wake up. If you take my quote out of context, does it even support my argument?

Posted by: Gandhi at May 17, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #321657

What a batch of crap. Do you really think that we are ignorant and do not know the facts. do yourself a favor, quit saying anything and people will not know how ignorant you are.

Posted by: Jose Saenz at April 15, 2011 4:19 PM
Post a comment