MURTHA AIRPORT BAILOUT
Government-Mandated Health Insurance – Could It Be Any Simpler?
The proposal: Everyone must purchase health insurance. The government will help offset insurance costs for those who cannot afford it. Insurance companies will not deny anyone coverage or increase premiums based on an individuals’ health status.
Could it be any simpler? Such a system would not only provide health care coverage for every American, it would do so in a way that does not jeopardize the quality of care received. Because insurance and health care would remain privatized, Americans would not have to suffer through long waits for inadequate care – a fate that has riddled international universal health care systems with hassles and hold-ups.
Yes, Americans would have to make one concession: Everybody would have to purchase insurance or suffer a tax penalty. This keeps premiums low for everyone, and is the key selling point to get the insurance industry on board. Some say that this type of system will only work to keep insurance executives employed. Yes… and so what? If they’re giving Americans – and especially pregnant women – what we want and what we need, they should be able to keep their jobs. It’s funny how people will complain about universal health care coverage, yet sit idle while Congress passes a stimulus bill that, among other things, will spend half a million dollars on a fruit fly facility, millions for land acquisition, and many more millions for infrastructure updates.
Universal health care is not socialism – it is people taking care of people. That principle has nothing to do with economic systems, social classes or geography. Every one of us depends on someone else for survival, from the baby suckling from her mother’s breast to the CEO cashing in on consumer spending. Classes might be divided; but our country – and humanity – is united.
The proposed universal health care system is simple, and provides for everyone. Under it, disadvantaged pregnant women would no longer have to suffer the indignity and stress of begging for maternity services and fair and equal treatment. All pregnant women would have access to proper prenatal care, and all children would receive proper medical care.
Taxes that cover Medicaid, Medicare and a slew of other federal, state and local health care assistance programs would no longer be necessary, not to mention the taxes that currently assist hospitals in covering the costs of government-mandated emergency services for the uninsured and unable to pay. These are taxes we’re already paying.
Some have said that universal health care would cost $1.5 trillion, which might be true. What they’re leaving out of the argument is that Medicare spending alone is expected to exceed that mark within the next 20 years. By consolidating all of our health into one program, we can reduce redundancies, increase efficiencies and provide much-needed high-quality health care for everyone – including pregnant women – while still saving money.
Or, are we being set up???? I want your thoughts?
Do We Need Pregnancy Discrimination Laws?
Pregnancy discrimination is a terrible thing, especially when hard-working women are punished in the workplace because they are pregnant. That’s why we need pregnancy discrimination laws – or do we?
In a recent ABC News piece (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/Story?id=7479662&page=3), Carrie Lucas from the Independent Women’s Forum wonders if the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which makes it illegal to fire or refuse to hire a woman because she is pregnant, has actually made it more difficult for women to find and maintain employment.
The irony is thick: anti-discrimination laws breeding discrimination? But Lucas might have a point – since the PDA was enacted, more women have filed discrimination complaints, and employers might be afraid to fire women who are not doing a good job, viewing them as potential lawsuits. Just because the law says employers can’t fire or not hire a woman because she is pregnant, doesn’t mean they can’t find another reason to justify their decisions.
On the other hand, perhaps the law has no teeth – employers are actively practicing pregnancy discrimination because they think it can’t be proven, and they therefore can’t be penalized. This is not a case where you say, “Oh, the law’s not working – they’re still discriminating, so we might as well repeal it.” Instead, the law needs some teeth. But it also needs to be fair – frivolous lawsuits should be tossed; those with merit should be adjudicated.
For large corporations, it might be easy to track and survey with accuracy the number of pregnant women per capita, and their perception of how their firm treated them during their pregnancies. For small businesses, especially those with fewer than 100 employees, this would be impossible to do.
If pregnancy discrimination laws put women at a disadvantage, it is because the laws are not being enforced – NOT because the laws shouldn’t exist.
Deadbeat Dads… Here’s What The Good Guys Do
We hear a lot about deadbeat dads. Here’s a story about one of the good guys:
Macon.com published an interesting article about Kevin Lyons, a baker who, after work, spends a few hours selling drinks to motorists before going home to see his family (http://www.macon.com/news/local/story/632114.html). Why does he do this? To afford health insurance for his family.
Kevin’s wife lost her job after missing too many days during her high-risk pregnancy (pregnancy discrimination, anyone?), and she has struggled to find another since the couple’s daughter was born. So Kevin began moonlighting to earn about $20 extra a day – which he says is just about what health insurance costs.
Uninsured and underinsured pregnant women are often left alone to struggle with locating access to affordable maternity care. Too many deadbeat dads leave the family or refuse to help – but there are so many more who work hard to provide for their families. Heroes like Kevin can be found in every nook and cranny in this great nation, though often unsung.
Some might think that peddling Gatorade on the streets is humiliating or demeaning, but not me. I think that Kevin Lyons is on an admirable quest and is providing for his family. He should be very proud – no doubt his family is.
Pregnant Women and Newborns At Greatest Risk During Pandemic
The other day I postulated that our government is more concerned with the swine flu, which as of this writing has killed three people in the United States, than the prenatal care inaccessibility epidemic, which kills more than 6,000 babies in the United States each year. Pregnant women and their babies are continually left to fend for themselves when it comes to political policy.
And so it should come as no surprise that the groups at greatest risk for suffering the devastating effects of a pandemic are pregnant women and newborns (http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=4970). The irony is thick, indeed.
At least some of us are watching out for the sake of pregnant women and their babies; and our cause gained even more momentum this week when a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center study published in the Emerging Health Threats Journal (http://www.eht-forum.org/ehtj/journal/v2/full/ehtj09002a.html?fileId=ehtj09002a&page=recent) concluded that priority must be given to pregnant women and their babies in the event of a flu epidemic.
Still, it’s unsettling that our country’s most precious resources are drowning in the bottom as everyone else steps on their figurative heads to get closer to the top of the bucket. Only slightly less unsettling is that the UPMC study found that while 78% of responding maternity hospitals had written plans for handling a sudden influx of sick patients, fewer than 44% of those same hospitals had written plans for stockpiling and replenishing resources to care for those patients.
From the UPMC study Abstract: “In conclusion, the majority of the Council of Women’s and Infants’ Specialty Hospitals maternity hospitals have preliminary infrastructure for pandemic influenza planning, but many challenges exist to optimize maternal and fetal outcomes during the next influenza pandemic.”
In one respect, this is just another heaping helping of hurt piled on the collective plates of Moms in the Middle. On the other hand, the study brings to light inherent problems in the maternity medical infrastructure – and that’s the first step to developing solutions.
Let’s bring all the problems to light, so we can solve each and every one.
COBRA Alternatives for Uninsured Pregnant Women
If your pregnant and recently lost your job due to layoffs, you’ve probably been offered COBRA – an opportunity to continue to receive health insurance benefits provided that you pay for them. And, you’ve probably discovered that COBRA is expensive – extravagantly so.
If you’re eligible for COBRA, the stimulus plan has provisions to subsidize 65% of your premium until December 31, 2009. That means that if your monthly COBRA premium is $1,000, you will actually pay $350 – still a large chunk of change, especially when you’ve recently lost your income.
eHealthInsurance.com has instituted a new COBRA comparison tool (https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/health-insurance/cobra-learning-center.html?allid=Com22130) that allows you input your COBRA premium, find out what your subsidized payment would be if you take COBRA coverage, and then offers alternative individual and family health care plans.
WARNING: Watch what you sign up for. While the eHealthInsurance.com tool seems to offer excellent COBRA alternatives (starting at around $50 per month for a 29 year old woman, depending on location and health history), certain factors can turn appealing offers into nightmares laden with shortcomings.
For example, a plan with a $50 premium might sound good, but when you take a closer look you might find that you have a $10,000 deductible, a 20% co-pay, and that the plan DOES NOT COVER PRENATAL CARE OR HOSPITAL DELIVERY. At the end of the day, such a plan would not offer much of a benefit to pregnant women at all; despite the $300/month premium savings over COBRA.
The bottom line is that comprehensive health insurance policies are not cheap – so don’t be fooled by affordable policies that will come up short when you need them the most.
