- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 11
-
Sparkle (0)
In health care (especially for women and their children, because our society is sexist), ideology often trumps reality. And US Conservative ideology is incredibly biased against women and children. Current fights over a comprehensive Planned Parenthood health care clinic, and the reauthorization of SCHIP draw this into sharp focus.Catherine Morgan covers the battle over Planned Parenthood's opening of a clinic in Aurora, IL. The PP blog notes:
Unfortunately today’s ruling means that, yet again, we will have to reschedule appointments for our patients. Our main concern is that every day our health center is not open, more women go without pap tests, birth control supplies and breast exams. These are critical services that this community has been lacking and that we will provide.
In this country, the definition of good health care is subjective. Planned Parenthood is the US's largest health care provider, but many Americans want it killed. Indeed, the controversial Aurora center will be a major provider for women who cannot afford health care elsewhere. Says Steve Trombley, the center's CEO, "He said patients at other offices and medical centers have been asking for a Planned Parenthood in this region. It will be Planned Parenthood's largest health center.
One reason it is in such hot demand is the increasing cost of medical care, testing and doctor's visits.
"That's a major reason people come to us -- the affordability," said Julie Rabinovitz, vice president of client services for Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area."
This week, another debate rages on health care in this country, and, like the Planned Parenthood clinic, it concerns who Americans in power deem worthy of subsidized health care. It's children, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.
I wrote about the Bush Administration's attempts to cut this crucial program a few weeks ago. Now, the need to reauthorize SCHIP looms, and Bush is threatening to veto Congress' extension.
"This is no longer about children's coverage; it's a debate about the future of the health-care system," said Nina Owcharenko, senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.....Conservatives became alarmed when supporters proposed more than doubling the funding for the program; they prefer private market solutions for health insurance. Liberals argued that the program had been a success -- it insures about 6 million children for $5 billion a year -- and deserved more support.
"A compromise bill hashed out last week by Congress would devote $60 billion to the program in the next five years, $35 billion more than current funding levels. Lawmakers expect to send the bill to President Bush this week.
"Bush has threatened Congress with the third veto of his presidency over the bill. He has proposed keeping spending at the current level of $5 billion a year.
The program will expire Sept. 30 without legislative reauthorization, but Congress can keep the program going temporarily.
"The activity in Washington is escalating. Last week, 29 governors, including Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, wrote to Michael Leavitt, Health and Human Services secretary, urging the administration to revoke strict new rules limiting states' ability to extend the program to more residents. The week before, 44 senators issued a similar call to the White House. Congress is expected to advance new legislation early next week; on Thursday, the president reiterated his intent to issue a veto."
DemfromCT presents strong empirical evidence that SCHIP improves childrens' access to good health care, but she highlights why it's such an effective scapegoat for Conservatives:
So why not just reauthorize the legislation? Well, it's not just the money; that's where ideology comes in. You'll see it in Bush's quotes aboutn the bogieman of 'socialized medicine'. There is a tendency to use SCHIP instead of private insurance, which is known as "substitution" or "crowd out" and estimates vary widely (the range is presented in the report). If you use the higher estimates (10 to 56%, you have a data point to sound the alarm. If you use the lower estimates (0.l7 to 10%), it appears to be a non-problem.
Again, we see an ideological argument over the source of health care taking precedence over the fact that needy Americans get health care.
Rikyrah sees it this way:
Of course Bush is going to veto it. Can't have children being covered by insurance. Oh, there's money for his War Profiteering buddies in Iraq, but making sure that children have health insurance, well we can't have that, can we? We can spend 400 Billion in Iraq, and Billions of that has been wasted,if not
