Kerry to propose universal health care for children
Senator Kerry is going to propose universal health insurance for kids.
This has been a favorite policy/wedge issue of mine since Howard Dean proposed it in the primaries. Dean accomplished this in Vermont and the program has been a great success that deserves to be replicated nation-wide.
Here's some of the reasons I like this idea:
1. It's the right thing to do. All kids deserve health insurance. It will help level the playing field between the working class and the middle class. And you can't argue that the choices or life situation a parent makes should affect whether or not their kids should be insured. Kids aren't responsible for their lot in life.
2. As Dean pointed out in the primaries, insuring kids is cheap. They rarely get chronicle ill, unlike older people. If it's cheap, why not do it?
3. It will reduce health care costs by encouraging preventive medicine and eliminating the free rider problem of the rest of us paying for the emergency room health care of the poorest children.
4. It's a middle class entitlement that will bind a large swath of voters into our agenda and pave the way for comprehensive national health insurance. Just try to take away kid's health insurance once (if) this passes. It'll become a third-rail issue, like Medicare.
5. How can you be against health insurance for kids? It makes a great wedge issue for Democrats. Republicans know that if any kind of national health insurance gets passed in this country, they won't be able to stop it and their buddies in the insurance industry will be screwed. They'll stop at nothing to kill this plan...and make themselves look like the heartless monsters they are.
Watch the video and sign the petition to "co-sponsor" Kerry's legislation.
posted by Luke Francl @ 3:54 PM |
| 
5 Comments:
Kick ass.
I certainly do NOT speak for all the emergency room workers at the hospital that employs me, much less the country... but yes, it would significantly reduce costs. In the Emergency Department right now, kids with sniffles totally outnumber kids so legitimately sick and injured they can't wait for days or hours.
Anyone who would vote against universal coverage for kids is saying they prefer parents rack up $600 in an Emergency Department for a $65 outpatient problem. They're saying they'd rather make people wait 4 hours to be seen, and then wait another 2 or 3 hours for exam, treatment, and discharge home. They're saying that the ER is just a community clinic with really good hours, and not the high-acuity, specialized place it's supposed to be.
If all of a sudden everyone under the age of 10 had half-decent insurance, you can bet that the marketplace would explode with MinuteClinic-style walk-in care centers for kids.
Dean said it in the primaries, too: you think you're not paying for this inefficiency now, but you are. It makes a lot more sense to pay for a smarter, better, more appropriate -- and cheaper! -- system of doing this.
Let the marketplace decide. Get the burden and the waste away from the Medicare safety net, so the safety net can be used for the right things instead. The costs will go down across so many dimensions. What conservative in their right mind would be against that?
Here's a freebie.
While I personally appreciate your candor, it's probably not a good idea to post your admissions of tactical pandering and hypocrisy right out there front and center.
You were on a roll.."it's for the children", "right thing to do", "heartless monsters" & etc.; best to stick with that and avoid stuff like wedge issues, larger agendas, buying partisans with entitlements.. getting the picture?
"It will help level the playing field between the working class and the middle class."
I thought the working class and middle class were basically the same. I would put myself in both classes.
Swiftee -- a Republican lecturing me to avoid wedge issues? Nice. I must be on the right track.
Anonymous and Decaf9 -- I do believe there is a difference between working class and middle class. Everyone from the guy making 20,000/year to the investment banker making 500,000/year before bonuses thinks they're middle class, but clearly they are totally different in lifestyle and how well off they are.
However, I should've been more clear. Perhaps "working poor" would've been a better phrase.
I meant that insuring all children would narrow the gap between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who don't. However, it's important to note that because of our flawed employeer-based health insurance system, anyone can fall through the cracks if they lose their job, even for a short time.
Decaf9 -- your story indicates the vital importance of the social safety net, even to the middle class.
However, I would note that not "everyone" works their way up from the working class (or working poor, to be more specific) to become middle class. Some people are fortunate and never are really poor. For example, I've had a pretty good job since I graduated from college. And while my parents certainly weren't rich, we always had a roof over our heads and food on the table, and health insurance through my dad's job.
Post a Comment
<< Home