Awhile back I wrote about [1] an effort by New Hampshire's Democratic Governor, John Lynch, trying to lead a bipartisan effort to ensure quality healthcare for American children. At the end of that article, I mentioned my own Governor, Eliot Spitzer, was threatening to sue George Bush over healthcare.

Well, Spitzer was true to his word. While Bush and the "drown America in a bathtub" Republicans try to cut healthcare for Americans even further, Eliot Spitzer, joined by Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, are suing the Bush Administration [2] for its failure to follow the law requiring provision of healthcare for America's children.

From the NY State Governor's website:

Governor Eliot Spitzer today announced that a group of states will be pursuing legal challenges against the Bush Administration for violating provisions of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides affordable health coverage for children in families that cannot afford to buy private health insurance.

The state action was triggered in August when the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) arbitrarily imposed new rules that block states from expanding their children’s health insurance programs. Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, California and New Hampshire will participate in litigation, either as plaintiffs or by filing supporting briefs, against the Bush Administration for violating the provisions of the SCHIP statute.

The SCHIP reauthorization bill passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress last week would roll back these new rules. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation.

“With the health of our nation’s children hanging in the balance, President Bush is preparing to veto a bipartisan compromise that Congress has forged to ensure that all children receive quality health care,” said Governor Spitzer. “I join with Governors from states across the country in urging the President to do the right thing by signing this important legislation. If this bill does not become law, we will proceed with our lawsuit. Our kids deserve nothing less...

“It sends a powerful and compelling message when the U.S. Congress, States across the nation, and the public are so clearly committed to ensuring that families have access to affordable health care for their children,” added Governor Spitzer.

Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington State said: “In Washington, we know that taking care of our kids not only makes good economic sense, but it is the right thing to do. The federal government should continue to be a partner, rather than a roadblock, to our children’s health.”

Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland said: “The SCHIP program has enjoyed bipartisan support since its inception and it has provided millions of children access to needed health services including preventive services. These barriers imposed by the Bush Administration mortgage both the fiscal and health future of our nation.”

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey said: “SCHIP is an unqualified success in New Jersey and in states across the nation, and the Bush Administration’s determination to pursue a course of action that will harm our children’s health is incomprehensible. This same Administration previously signed off on our decision to cover the 10,000 New Jersey kids they are now seeking to kick out of SCHIP, and the lawsuit we filed today demonstrates that we will simply not let that happen. Washington should be a partner to states that are trying to cover more children, not an opponent, and I urge the President to reverse course and sign the bipartisan legislation before him.”

Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire said: “Hard-working families are caught in a no-win situation - they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, their employers do not offer coverage, and they cannot afford private coverage. The Children's Health Insurance Program has made quality health care affordable and possible for these children. At a time when we should be working together to expand access to affordable, quality health care, this sudden and arbitrary rule change threatens the health insurance coverage of children across the nation. We will fight this in Court if necessary, but I hope the federal government will do the right thing on its own - overturn this rule and pass funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program.”

Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois said: "Regardless of political affiliation, most of us agree that every child deserves a chance to see a doctor and get the medical care they need. In Illinois, we became the first state to make sure that all kids have access to healthcare their parents can afford. And while we've taken the lead at the state level in implementing a program that meets the needs of Illinois' families, the federal government has an obligation to these same families. For years, SCHIP has been a key component of the federal government's response to the growing healthcare crisis in our country. If the Bush Administration ignores its responsibility to our children, despite Congress' overwhelming support for an expanded and flexible SCHIP, we're prepared to join with other states in asking the courts to intervene."

Meanwhile, what does George Bush have to say about your children's healthcare:

"I mean, people have access to health care in America. They can just go to the emergency room."

This is the man who did nothing when he received a warning "Osama bin Laden determined to attack the US." This is the man who did nothing (except have a party with John McCain) when warned that a category 5 storm was bearing down on Mississippi and Louisiana and was SPECIFICALLY warned that the levees in New Orleans were likely to break. This man wants your children to have no access to healthcare other than an emergency room.

As a parent I am horrified by Bush's callous disregard for the health and well being of Americans. And Bush isn't the only one. Although moderate Republicans (sadly a dying breed) support healthcare for America's children, right wing extremists who now control the Republican party consider healthcare for America's children socialism (don't take my word for it: this is what the right wing "newspaper" the NY Sun claims [3]). In fact, when I wrote about New Hampshire's Governor Lynch calling on the Federal government to provide healthcare for our children, a Republican commented on the diary, calling healthcare for America's children "left wing extremism" and "communism."

Let's keep one thing in mind. The kind of healthcare that works best is the kind you see in places like Scandinavia. These are the systems that have relatively low costs (even if you consider the higher taxes) and have far better outcomes in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc. I have written before [4] on how the American business model for healthcare DOES NOT WORK. Simply put, we pay more for worse healthcare than most of the industrial world. If I may quote from that earlier diary: (figures from 2006)

How about healthy life expectancy (the age at which someone can expect to remain healthy, on average)? The US ranks 29th for healthy life expectancy. Now many things affect this: diet, genetics, poverty, health care… But it is one measure of how well a nation is doing in health care overall. We rank 29th. That is just between Slovenia and Portugal. Keep in mind, America is a far wealthier nation than EITHER Slovenia or Portugal, yet our healthy life expectancy is only 69.3 years. Slovenia beats us slightly with 69.5. UK, with a more socialized system, ranks 24th. Netherlands with a more socialized system ranks 18th. Canada, the system Republicans most like to denigrate when nationalized health care is suggested, ranks 11th. Sweden, which is almost synonymous with socialized health care, ranks 3rd with 73.3 years. We are beaten by nations with much lower levels of wealth (like Slovenia and Italy and Greece). I think our business model does not measure up when we look at healthy life expectancy.

How about maternal mortality (women who die in childbirth)? We’re not so bad with 8 deaths per 100,000 births. But the socialized medicine nations do as well or better. Netherlands and UK, both well known for having more nationalized healthcare than us, are at 7 per 100,000 births. Sweden again beats us, with 5 deaths per 100,000 births. Once again, it seems the business model does not beat the nationalized model.

How about this measure: the probability of not reaching 60 years old? In the US there is a 12.8% chance of not reaching 60 years old. That is slightly better than Portugal and slightly worse than Albania. Again, we are far wealthier than Portugal or Albania, but that is where we rank. In socialist Sweden, a person has only an 8% chance of not reaching 60 years of age. Canada, the UK and the Netherlands all rank better than us on this measure as well.

I can go on. There are dozens of ways of measuring national health. There are also many things that contribute to national health. But one thing is clear. The money spent in taxes to pay for a more nationalized system in places like Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada seems to pay off in terms of lower mortality, higher life expectancy and better health. Our business model is certainly performing no better and it involves a larger discrepancy in care depending on race and class.

If our current business model method of health care is not performing better than socialized medicine, and it is screwing over a large percentage of our population—the poor and minorities—then why are we so addicted to it? Why do we persist in a failed system?

So let me just say: Go Eliot Go! Sue the callous, fat-cat extremsits and get our kids better healthcare!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

[5] | [6] | [7] | [8] | [9] | [10] | [11] | [12] | [13]