apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Universal Healthcare.

Should we be doing something? How about providing adequate and affordable health care?

I second Universal Healthcare.

By adequate and affordable, I would mean universal.

We have been stuck in an administrative nightmare with our child's insurance for a few months, resulting in her not being covered at the moment and us having exactly nothing we can do to fix it. Her plan should be back in place next week, but in the meantime, it has been like hitting a brick wall and a lot of people saying, "Sorry for the inconvenience." Um yeah. Broken broken broken system.

Did anyone hear the piece on NPR (in NY) yesterday about the S-CHIP conflict between the Spitzer and Bush administrations? I'm always startled by those who believe that universal coverage is just freeloading.

Not only does the US have the highest maternal death rate among developed countries, they also have the highest infant death rate too. And the healthcare system as a whole was ranked 20th in the world back in 2003 (it may have slipped again since then).

Thus far, only John Edwards has come out with a Universal Healthcare platform. Of course, all the special interests (i.e., insurance companies) will target him, and he will be sunk.

Most people don't have a clue how universal non-profit coverage works, although the concept is simple -- when everybody pay into the same pot, the risk is ultimately minimized, thus everyone's premiums are lower. Americans don't realize that Canadians pay less than 1/5 (don't know what the exact number is as the average premium in US varies so much) what Americans do, and yet get much more extensive coverage (COMPLETE coverage). When the pot is administered by an effective non-profit (i.e., the government), there is no profit margin to tack onto the costs. Most people don't get the concept that by sharing, coverage is cheaper and everyone comes out ahead.

And to think we Canadians have Keifer Sutherland's grandfather to thank for Universal Coverage. Yay Tommy Douglas! (He was voted the Greatest Canadian a while back).

Wonder how Sicko is being recieved...

"Not only does the US have the highest maternal death rate among developed countries..."

Monika1 could you tell me where you pulled this from? I didn't see that in the article so maybe it was elsewhere?

I think I was looking through some WHO reports on health care systems and saw it a while back; not sure which though, sorry. (I should qualify this statement -- by "developed countries", I was actually meant similarly developed countries -- i.e., western Europe, etc.,).

Here is a cnn report on infant death rates
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

The story is the same for infants as for maternal health -- it disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. The articles points out that the US has disparities in access to care.

Can't give you a cite, but I have heard/read several times that infant mortality rates in urban Black communities (read something about Harlem specifically a couple years ago) and Native American reservations are higher than in many so-called third world nations. We truly have third world nations within our own borders.

Culturally, I think we need to change the way we look at birth and decide to look at cultures with lower infant mortality rates like Denmark and Sweden. I gave birth at home, twice, and am not AT ALL an earth mother type. I read the statistics and they convinced me. Having no complications, I found a great, experienced midwife. I had one ultrasound with each pregnancy. No amnio or other testing. And I was over age 35 with both of my kids. If insurance companies weren't dictating the care we get and doctors weren't trying so hard to protect But I DO feel for those who aren't so lucky. Our healthcare system desperately needs to change.

People often argue that universal care would be too expensive, but considering that the cost to insure my family per year (partially paid by my employer) is almost $15,000, you could double what what most Americans pay in Federal taxes and they'd still come out ahead. The healthcare system doesn't need tweaking; it needs FDR-style, wholesale reorganization.

It's interesting how starting a family has really changed what are the important issues to me, policy-wise.

It is not just that covering everyone would lower the costs overall; that is but one aspect to Universal Healthcare.

The other is that right now, because of the number of uninsured, the US healthcare system is in "pound of cure" mode instead of "ounce of prevention" mode. Once everyone has insurance, they will be able to see their primary care physician on a regular basis, and deal with problems before they become big, bad and expensive. For example, poor mothers will receive prenatal care, thus heading off the need for expensive noenatal care for premature babies born as a result of untreated gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia. When catastrophic things such as this happen, people cannot be denied care, even if they are unable to pay. E.R.s, hospitals, and the system absorb these tremendous costs, making the system the most expensive in the world (according to the UN report on healthcare systems in 2003).

has anyone out there had a baby on medicaid?

-uninsured graduate student