I woke up at 5am this morning after a rather rough day yesterday. As I was reflecting on what is really going on in this world and in my own life and those around me I thought I need some GOOD news. I want to read about, see, experience people going out of their way to do RIGHT and GOOD. I want to see people NOT think of themselves but instead ask how can I take personal responsibility and make someone else’s life better.
I was frustrated at how much “digging” around I had to do to find "Good". I know it is out there and all around us just nobody seems to “Promote” it. (Including me) In the coming weeks I am going to change that and I am asking you to join me. Stay tuned for details. In the meantime please take a few minutes and read about what I am talking about.
Now, go out and make a difference for someone else today. I BELIEVE in YOU!!!
By Rick Reilly
ESPN The Magazine
They played the oddest game in high school football history last month down in Grapevine, Texas.It was Grapevine Faith vs. Gainesville State School and everything about it was upside down. For instance, when Gainesville came out to take the field, the Faith fans made a 40-yard spirit line for them to run through. Did you hear that? The other team's fans? They even made a banner for players to crash through at the end. It said, "Go Tornadoes!" Which is also weird, because Faith is the Lions. It was rivers running uphill and cats petting dogs. More than 200 Faith fans sat on the Gainesville side and kept cheering the Gainesville players on-by name."I never in my life thought I'd hear people cheering for us to hit their kids," recalls Gainesville 's QB and middle linebacker, Isaiah. "I wouldn't expect another parent to tell somebody to hit their kids. But they wanted us to!"And even though Faith walloped them 33-14, the Gainesville kids were so happy that after the game they gave head coach Mark Williams a sideline squirt-bottle shower like he'd just won state. Gotta be the first Gatorade bath in history for an 0-9 coach. But then you saw the 12 uniformed officers escorting the 14 Gainesville players off the field and two and two started to make four. They lined the players up in groups of five-handcuffs ready in their back pockets-and marched them to the team bus. That's because Gainesville is a maximum-security correctional facility 75 miles north of Dallas . Every game it plays is on the road. This all started when Faith's head coach, Kris Hogan, wanted to do something kind for the Gainesville team. Faith had never played Gainesville, but he already knew the score. After all, Faith was 7-2 going into the game, Gainesville 0-8 with 2 TDs all year. Faith has 70 kids, 11 coaches, the latest equipment and involved parents. Gainesville has a lot of kids with convictions for drugs, assault and robbery-many of whose families had disowned them-wearing seven-year-old shoulder pads and ancient helmets. So Hogan had this idea. What if half of our fans-for one night only-cheered for the other team? He sent out an email asking the Faithful to do just that. "Here's the message I want you to send:" Hogan wrote. "You are just as valuable as any other person on planet Earth."Some people were naturally confused. One Faith player walked into Hogan's office and asked, "Coach, why are we doing this?"And Hogan said, "Imagine if you didn't have a home life. Imagine if everybody had pretty much given up on you. Now imagine what it would mean for hundreds of people to suddenly believe in you."Next thing you know, the Gainesville Tornadoes were turning around on their bench to see something they never had before. Hundreds of fans. And actual cheerleaders!"I thought maybe they were confused," said Alex, a Gainesville lineman (only first names are released by the prison). "They started yelling 'DEE-fense!' when their team had the ball. I said, 'What? Why they cheerin' for us?'"It was a strange experience for boys who most people cross the street to avoid. "We can tell people are a little afraid of us when we come to the games," says Gerald, a lineman who will wind up doing more than three years. "You can see it in their eyes. They're lookin' at us like we're criminals. But these people, they were yellin' for us! By our names!"Maybe it figures that Gainesville played better than it had all season, scoring the game's last two touchdowns. Of course, this might be because Hogan put his third-string nose guard at safety and his third-string corner back at defensive end. Still. After the game, both teams gathered in the middle of the field to pray and that's when Isaiah surprised everybody by asking to lead. "We had no idea what the kid was going to say," remembers Coach Hogan. But Isaiah said this: "Lord, I don't know how this happened, so I don't know how to say thank You, but I never would've known there was so many people in the world that cared about us."And it was a good thing everybody's heads were bowed because they might've seen Hogan wiping away tears. As the Tornadoes walked back to their bus under guard, they each were handed a bag for the ride home-a burger, some fries, a soda, some candy, a Bible and an encouraging letter from a Faith player. The Gainesville coach saw Hogan, grabbed him hard by the shoulders and said, "You'll never know what your people did for these kids tonight. You'll never, ever know."And as the bus pulled away, all the Gainesville players crammed to one side and pressed their hands to the window, staring at these people they'd never met before, watching their waves and smiles disappearing into the night.
Anyway, with the economy six feet under and Christmas running on about three and a half reindeer, it's nice to know that one of the best presents you can give is still absolutely free.
HOPE.
What Path Will We Take?
What path will we take to a public health care system? That's the question posed by Atul Gawande in this New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all). Gawande's poignant piece ponders the transition from private to public health care, or variations thereof, from Britain to France to Massachusetts. In each example, the historical factors that drove a fundamental change in health care were very different. The article begs the question, what path will we take?
The answer is still largely undecided. What can be answered, however, is the question of whether national health care can work. The answer is yes.
During his inauguration speech, President Obama spoke of America's courage, of America's values, of America's prosperity. National health care reform is part of his message of change; and working hard to address social issues that put our nation in danger has already helped to combat inequality. Still, the battle against inequality is waged on many fronts: status, career, wealth, race, religion and health care, among others.
Every day pregnant women are subjected to inequalities, whether it's unnecessary stress related to ethnicity or a refusal of treatment because of socioeconomic status or a lack of insurance. Health care reform can combat these issues by providing better access to needed services, preserving the lives and livelihoods of women and their children.
The question then becomes: Should health care be 100% government-run or government-subsidized? The answer is a bit trickier. America doesn't like to be in the business of, well, putting people out of business; particularly large corporations like those who dole out health insurance policies. It could be said that these companies have dug their own graves by making insurance unaffordable for many Americans, thus necessitating government intervention.
On the other side of the fence are those who believe the private health insurance sector would be adequate without government intervention. It is the government's willingness, they say, to pay whatever health care providers charge that has driven up medical costs, causing insurers to charge more for insurance. Without government bail-outs, both medical practices and insurers would be in a truly competitive marketplace, and would in effect have to institute a bidding war to attract customers.
The problem with that is that, often, when the lowest bidder wins the quality of service is compromised. American health care quality is already suspect, and jeopardizing this any more spells trouble for everyone.
The most likely scenario, and one that current proposals seem to advocate, is one in which private insurance companies continue to operate in that capacity while the government subsidizes specific plans available only through public avenues. At the same time, the government will enact policies that strive to keep health care costs low without sacrificing quality of treatment.
The success of any health care reform will be decided by two measures: can everyone access quality health care, and can the program that allows them to do so be sustained?
In the meantime, many Americans are suffering, putting off cancer treatment, ignoring a chest pain, and skipping prenatal care – causing untold numbers of complications and deaths.
President Obama, the spotlight is on you. You've promised change. Now it's time to make good on that promise. If you're going to bring proper health care and equal treatment to pregnant women, regardless of socioeconomic status, wealth, race or insurance, you have my support.
The answer is still largely undecided. What can be answered, however, is the question of whether national health care can work. The answer is yes.
During his inauguration speech, President Obama spoke of America's courage, of America's values, of America's prosperity. National health care reform is part of his message of change; and working hard to address social issues that put our nation in danger has already helped to combat inequality. Still, the battle against inequality is waged on many fronts: status, career, wealth, race, religion and health care, among others.
Every day pregnant women are subjected to inequalities, whether it's unnecessary stress related to ethnicity or a refusal of treatment because of socioeconomic status or a lack of insurance. Health care reform can combat these issues by providing better access to needed services, preserving the lives and livelihoods of women and their children.
The question then becomes: Should health care be 100% government-run or government-subsidized? The answer is a bit trickier. America doesn't like to be in the business of, well, putting people out of business; particularly large corporations like those who dole out health insurance policies. It could be said that these companies have dug their own graves by making insurance unaffordable for many Americans, thus necessitating government intervention.
On the other side of the fence are those who believe the private health insurance sector would be adequate without government intervention. It is the government's willingness, they say, to pay whatever health care providers charge that has driven up medical costs, causing insurers to charge more for insurance. Without government bail-outs, both medical practices and insurers would be in a truly competitive marketplace, and would in effect have to institute a bidding war to attract customers.
The problem with that is that, often, when the lowest bidder wins the quality of service is compromised. American health care quality is already suspect, and jeopardizing this any more spells trouble for everyone.
The most likely scenario, and one that current proposals seem to advocate, is one in which private insurance companies continue to operate in that capacity while the government subsidizes specific plans available only through public avenues. At the same time, the government will enact policies that strive to keep health care costs low without sacrificing quality of treatment.
The success of any health care reform will be decided by two measures: can everyone access quality health care, and can the program that allows them to do so be sustained?
In the meantime, many Americans are suffering, putting off cancer treatment, ignoring a chest pain, and skipping prenatal care – causing untold numbers of complications and deaths.
President Obama, the spotlight is on you. You've promised change. Now it's time to make good on that promise. If you're going to bring proper health care and equal treatment to pregnant women, regardless of socioeconomic status, wealth, race or insurance, you have my support.
Remember Lee Iacocca?
Remember Lee Iacocca , the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'. Lee Iacocca Says: 'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.' Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!' You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.) Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001 , we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership. But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point. Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time. Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it? Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry. I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change? Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.' Make your own contribution by sending this to everyone you know and care about. It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!
All Or None: Pregnancy Must Be Covered
Colorado is considering several proposals that might provide health insurance to hundreds of thousands uninsured individuals across the state (http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/01/05/story7.html?b). Concepts include adding a surcharge to medical bills that would go toward providing health care to the uninsured, and creating a low-cost, guarantee-issue government-subsidized health coverage plan. Yet another proposal would require all insurers operating in Colorado to provide maternity care coverage. All concepts have stirred debate.
The Denver Business Journal quotes Rebecca Weiss, government affairs director for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado, as saying that maternity insurance is a wonderful option, but warning that including it on every policy could drive up costs and put insurance out of economic reach for many.
Of all the conditions covered by medical insurance, pregnancy should be the last one to choose from. Care for cancer treatment can quickly rise to six or even seven figures, while the average pregnancy costs under $10,000. Are we being told that it's okay to expect coverage for cancer treatments, but not pregnancy?
Pregnancy is the number one reason for hospitalization in the United States, which is probably why insurance companies do not want to cover it. Holier-than-thou attitudes predictably argue that, because one can control whether or not to become pregnant, no one can choose to not get cancer. But this premise slaps the face of humanity itself: are we encouraged to purchase (or have our health insurance cover) contraceptives and physically change how our body behaves in order to avoid insurance costs? Or should we remain abstinent, refusing to fulfill urges that many psychologists agree are key to human happiness?
As some would have it, the answer is yes, we should either change how our bodies naturally behave, undergo invasive procedures or simply refrain from sex and become unhappy in order to stave off the 'condition' of pregnancy. Have these holier-than-thou personalities forgotten how they got here?
Legislators must not ignore nature's course when determining the future of health care and the policies that form the framework of fair and equal health care coverage. If pregnancy is allowed to be considered a condition by health insurance companies, then it must be provided for under health insurance coverage.
The Denver Business Journal quotes Rebecca Weiss, government affairs director for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado, as saying that maternity insurance is a wonderful option, but warning that including it on every policy could drive up costs and put insurance out of economic reach for many.
Of all the conditions covered by medical insurance, pregnancy should be the last one to choose from. Care for cancer treatment can quickly rise to six or even seven figures, while the average pregnancy costs under $10,000. Are we being told that it's okay to expect coverage for cancer treatments, but not pregnancy?
Pregnancy is the number one reason for hospitalization in the United States, which is probably why insurance companies do not want to cover it. Holier-than-thou attitudes predictably argue that, because one can control whether or not to become pregnant, no one can choose to not get cancer. But this premise slaps the face of humanity itself: are we encouraged to purchase (or have our health insurance cover) contraceptives and physically change how our body behaves in order to avoid insurance costs? Or should we remain abstinent, refusing to fulfill urges that many psychologists agree are key to human happiness?
As some would have it, the answer is yes, we should either change how our bodies naturally behave, undergo invasive procedures or simply refrain from sex and become unhappy in order to stave off the 'condition' of pregnancy. Have these holier-than-thou personalities forgotten how they got here?
Legislators must not ignore nature's course when determining the future of health care and the policies that form the framework of fair and equal health care coverage. If pregnancy is allowed to be considered a condition by health insurance companies, then it must be provided for under health insurance coverage.
Blind Spending
Would you agree to purchase a car without knowing the price? Of course not. Should public health care coverage be instituted without knowing what it will cost? Again, of course not. Before the United States can consider publicly-funded health care, we must first reform the medical industry at its core.
Many conditions exist in the American health care industry that drive costs to exorbitant levels that would threaten the entire U.S economy if the current system fell under the umbrella of public funds. So says columnist and author George Will (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010109.php3), who argues that ambiguous pricing, non-competitive equipment purchasing practices and a carte blanche Medicaid reimbursement policy despite dubious medical billing practices add up to big trouble.
If the medical industry is free to charge whatever it wants, and American citizens are footing the bill no matter what the costs, then free medicine could bankrupt America.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I want everyone to have access to adequate health care. But I want to make sure that any publicly-funded health care system is sustainable. Checks and balances must be instituted to stop reckless spending. Competitive bidding must take place to reduce medical equipment costs. Procedural protocols must be in place to ensure that every citizen is provided the best care available – hospitals and doctors must not be able to take short cuts with our treatment simply because they receive reimbursement. If due diligence in health care is not exercised, no reimbursement should be issued.
At the same time, we must not limit the ability of doctors and hospitals to provide high-quality care; medical equipment manufacturers to develop state-of-the-art technologies; and prescription drug companies to advance discovery. Certain spending segments must be prioritized – maternal care and cancer research, for example – and a governing body must be appointed to make decisions on such prioritization.
Blindly spending public funds no matter what the expense could yield tragic results, and so could limiting the ability of medical professionals to provide world-class care. There can be no 'you get what you pay for' mentality – there must be a 'you get everything you need' mentality for everyone across the board.
Before the American people enter into an agreement to fund the medical industry, policies must be put in place to ensure sustainability. This is the only way we can provide proper care for everyone in the nation.
Many conditions exist in the American health care industry that drive costs to exorbitant levels that would threaten the entire U.S economy if the current system fell under the umbrella of public funds. So says columnist and author George Will (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010109.php3), who argues that ambiguous pricing, non-competitive equipment purchasing practices and a carte blanche Medicaid reimbursement policy despite dubious medical billing practices add up to big trouble.
If the medical industry is free to charge whatever it wants, and American citizens are footing the bill no matter what the costs, then free medicine could bankrupt America.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I want everyone to have access to adequate health care. But I want to make sure that any publicly-funded health care system is sustainable. Checks and balances must be instituted to stop reckless spending. Competitive bidding must take place to reduce medical equipment costs. Procedural protocols must be in place to ensure that every citizen is provided the best care available – hospitals and doctors must not be able to take short cuts with our treatment simply because they receive reimbursement. If due diligence in health care is not exercised, no reimbursement should be issued.
At the same time, we must not limit the ability of doctors and hospitals to provide high-quality care; medical equipment manufacturers to develop state-of-the-art technologies; and prescription drug companies to advance discovery. Certain spending segments must be prioritized – maternal care and cancer research, for example – and a governing body must be appointed to make decisions on such prioritization.
Blindly spending public funds no matter what the expense could yield tragic results, and so could limiting the ability of medical professionals to provide world-class care. There can be no 'you get what you pay for' mentality – there must be a 'you get everything you need' mentality for everyone across the board.
Before the American people enter into an agreement to fund the medical industry, policies must be put in place to ensure sustainability. This is the only way we can provide proper care for everyone in the nation.
Everyone Needs Medicaid
How much do you know about Medicaid? If you're like most people, you know that Medicaid is a program that assists low-income families with health care expenses. And, like most people, you might assume that Medicaid serves only as a vehicle for providing health care coverage to those who cannot afford it – but the stark reality is that Medicaid's economic influence is far-reaching and provides benefits to everyone from low-income families to seven-figure CEOs.
Many states are considering Medicaid budget cuts, failing to realize that doing so will set off a chain of events that will spiral the economy into an even more dismal state. Consider the findings of this FamilyUSA brief (http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/state-budget-cuts-2008.pdf), which demonstrates how Medicaid benefits keep the natural process of trade ticking. Cutting Medicaid budgets means states lose matching federal dollars, which are used throughout statewide spending cycles:
These new dollars pass from one person to another in successive rounds of spending. For example, health care employees spend part of their salaries on new cars, which adds to the income of auto dealership employees, enabling them to spend part of their salaries on washing machines, which enables appliance store employees to spend additional money on groceries, and so on. Economists call this the 'multiplier effect.'
Everyone benefits when Medicaid is available: the most vulnerable citizens are provided with life-giving care, companies make money and employees have money to spend. Without Medicare, everyone suffers.
Medicaid already plays a very large role in health care and economic issues, and the ability of the program to sustain or expand services will have an even larger impact over the next several years. More layoffs and increasing medical expenses, coupled with a 'less for more' mentality among health care insurance providers, means more people will need Medicaid at a time when families have fewer extra dollars to spend. If millions are without Medicare, and states are not pulling additional federal funding, entire economies face collapse.
In this Business Insurance article (http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=14045&pageNo=1), Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Atlman states: “... we may be seeing the tip of the iceberg of a trend toward less comprehensive, skimpier insurance for many working people with higher deductibles and higher out-of-pocket costs.”
While Altman is referring to employer-provided insurance policies, the same factors that are influencing private insurance carriers to offer less-appealing insurance are influencing state legislatures to consider Medicaid cuts. Medical care costs are rapidly increasing while fewer people are able to afford health care coverage.
Money will never negate the need for health care. Cutting Medicaid benefits will never make the population less dependent on health care. Medical procedures will not suddenly be deemed unnecessary because Medicare is cut. More people will not purchase their own insurance policies if Medicaid is unavailable.
Medicaid cuts are not the solution, and will do more harm than good to state budgets, companies, employees and all citizens nationwide.
Many states are considering Medicaid budget cuts, failing to realize that doing so will set off a chain of events that will spiral the economy into an even more dismal state. Consider the findings of this FamilyUSA brief (http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/state-budget-cuts-2008.pdf), which demonstrates how Medicaid benefits keep the natural process of trade ticking. Cutting Medicaid budgets means states lose matching federal dollars, which are used throughout statewide spending cycles:
These new dollars pass from one person to another in successive rounds of spending. For example, health care employees spend part of their salaries on new cars, which adds to the income of auto dealership employees, enabling them to spend part of their salaries on washing machines, which enables appliance store employees to spend additional money on groceries, and so on. Economists call this the 'multiplier effect.'
Everyone benefits when Medicaid is available: the most vulnerable citizens are provided with life-giving care, companies make money and employees have money to spend. Without Medicare, everyone suffers.
Medicaid already plays a very large role in health care and economic issues, and the ability of the program to sustain or expand services will have an even larger impact over the next several years. More layoffs and increasing medical expenses, coupled with a 'less for more' mentality among health care insurance providers, means more people will need Medicaid at a time when families have fewer extra dollars to spend. If millions are without Medicare, and states are not pulling additional federal funding, entire economies face collapse.
In this Business Insurance article (http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=14045&pageNo=1), Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Atlman states: “... we may be seeing the tip of the iceberg of a trend toward less comprehensive, skimpier insurance for many working people with higher deductibles and higher out-of-pocket costs.”
While Altman is referring to employer-provided insurance policies, the same factors that are influencing private insurance carriers to offer less-appealing insurance are influencing state legislatures to consider Medicaid cuts. Medical care costs are rapidly increasing while fewer people are able to afford health care coverage.
Money will never negate the need for health care. Cutting Medicaid benefits will never make the population less dependent on health care. Medical procedures will not suddenly be deemed unnecessary because Medicare is cut. More people will not purchase their own insurance policies if Medicaid is unavailable.
Medicaid cuts are not the solution, and will do more harm than good to state budgets, companies, employees and all citizens nationwide.
Women And Children First?
“Women and children first!” That's the stereotypical cry from the chivalrous men of literature and the silver screen. When the ship is sinking, you save the most vulnerable first. Unfortunately, this ideology seems to matter primarily in the annals of fiction – in the real world, the practice of saving the most vulnerable first is rarely implemented. Especially evident in today's economic climate, women and children are being allowed to drown, while the captains of their fate continue to prosper. No, America does not save women and children first, and captains do not go down with their ships.
When financial institutions are facing hardships due to the decisions the companies have made in the last decade or so, the government gives them hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. The captains of these industries then enjoy spa treatments and end-of-year bonuses presumably footed by hard-working Americans, while the citizens they employ are laid off, their positions are terminated, or pay and benefit cuts are sweeping.
And women and their children feel it the most. Take a look at this report from the National Women's Law Center: http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/WomenEconomicRecoveryJuly2008.pdf. It details how women are in need of targeted assistance, especially during recessionary times, because they're often the first to be tossed overboard. And because women are often the primary caregivers for American's children, the youth of America is likewise cast aside.
Some facts from the report:
Women earn 23% less than men
Women are 40% more likely to live in poverty than men, and one in every eight American women is poor
Women are 10% less likely to receive unemployment benefits after losing a job
Women are 30 to 40% more likely to have subprime mortgage loans, despite comparable credit scores to men
These factors, combined with a lower average compensation, make it more difficult for women to maintain and care for their families and households. Single women with children face the toughest times of all, especially when state legislatures are considering slashing Medicaid budgets (four out of every ten single mothers receives Medicaid assistance).
America, the ship is sinking and women and children are drowning. Our captains, those who have steered us in this direction, are not subject to the consequences of a sinking ship. Instead, the American people are struggling to keep the ship afloat, bucket by bucket, and their collective efforts ensure the livelihood of their captains – who no longer have fear of financial ruin because public funds are readily available to assist them.
Do the heads of industries need assistance more than the heads of households? Of course not. Our women and children need assistance now more than ever, yet these are the last to be attended to. Greed and corruption are in abundance, while millions of women and children nationwide suffer as martyrs for their cause.
When financial institutions are facing hardships due to the decisions the companies have made in the last decade or so, the government gives them hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. The captains of these industries then enjoy spa treatments and end-of-year bonuses presumably footed by hard-working Americans, while the citizens they employ are laid off, their positions are terminated, or pay and benefit cuts are sweeping.
And women and their children feel it the most. Take a look at this report from the National Women's Law Center: http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/WomenEconomicRecoveryJuly2008.pdf. It details how women are in need of targeted assistance, especially during recessionary times, because they're often the first to be tossed overboard. And because women are often the primary caregivers for American's children, the youth of America is likewise cast aside.
Some facts from the report:
Women earn 23% less than men
Women are 40% more likely to live in poverty than men, and one in every eight American women is poor
Women are 10% less likely to receive unemployment benefits after losing a job
Women are 30 to 40% more likely to have subprime mortgage loans, despite comparable credit scores to men
These factors, combined with a lower average compensation, make it more difficult for women to maintain and care for their families and households. Single women with children face the toughest times of all, especially when state legislatures are considering slashing Medicaid budgets (four out of every ten single mothers receives Medicaid assistance).
America, the ship is sinking and women and children are drowning. Our captains, those who have steered us in this direction, are not subject to the consequences of a sinking ship. Instead, the American people are struggling to keep the ship afloat, bucket by bucket, and their collective efforts ensure the livelihood of their captains – who no longer have fear of financial ruin because public funds are readily available to assist them.
Do the heads of industries need assistance more than the heads of households? Of course not. Our women and children need assistance now more than ever, yet these are the last to be attended to. Greed and corruption are in abundance, while millions of women and children nationwide suffer as martyrs for their cause.
Budgets Don't Make The Cut For Pregnant Women, Mothers And Children
A number of states are considering or enacting budget cuts that undermine the importance of social services for pregnant women, mothers and their children. In what will likely be proven to be a feeble attempt to stabilize their economies, these states are looking at massive budget cuts of up to 25% -- and in departments that dole out much-needed support services like health care and food stamps. They include:
Ohio, which has proposed a $67 million cut to the Department of Jobs and Family Services. Such a cut could cripple the state's Medicaid system, which provides health care coverage for pregnant women and children without medical insurance (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/01/28/daily50.html).
Utah, which is considering a 7% budget cut that will make it more difficult – yes, MORE DIFFICULT – for pregnant women to receive medical care (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11274672).
California, which is considering budget cuts that would jeopardize the reach of human services programs like WIC and Healthy Families, a program that provides medical coverage for children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid (http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/08_12_A_Time_of_Growing_Need.pdf).
So, to these states, the answer to increased poverty, unemployment and staggering economies is to cut funds from programs that support the victims of economic recession. Wow. When more and more women do not have access to prenatal care and more and more children do not have health insurance, the solution is to make these things even harder to get? This makes no sense, especially when you consider that states save $2 to $3 for every $1 spent on prenatal care. These are your elected officials, hard at work.
The fact that states are likely going to cut human services budgets is not only immoral, it is irresponsible. Consider the work of notable economists Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, who state that spending cuts are more harmful to an economy than carefully-planned tax increases (http://www.cbpp.org/1-8-08sfp.htm).
Comprehensive cuts will slow spending; while an increase in taxes only slows saving, allowing economic spending to continue.
The research is there, in black and white – the solution does not lie in cutting programs, it lies in affording programs. States seem to forget that many things become more expensive in time; instead of cutting services from those in need, perhaps states should cap the cost of, say, medical services – which would benefit nearly everyone and help to reduce state-funded health care spending. Dropping services now, only to re-institute them later, puts a state economy on a perpetual yo-yo and does nothing for long-term growth.
It's disturbing to think that states are more willing to drop services for their most disadvantaged citizens rather than find a way to balance their budgets with tactics developed by the world's top economists.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
Ohio, which has proposed a $67 million cut to the Department of Jobs and Family Services. Such a cut could cripple the state's Medicaid system, which provides health care coverage for pregnant women and children without medical insurance (http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/01/28/daily50.html).
Utah, which is considering a 7% budget cut that will make it more difficult – yes, MORE DIFFICULT – for pregnant women to receive medical care (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11274672).
California, which is considering budget cuts that would jeopardize the reach of human services programs like WIC and Healthy Families, a program that provides medical coverage for children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid (http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/08_12_A_Time_of_Growing_Need.pdf).
So, to these states, the answer to increased poverty, unemployment and staggering economies is to cut funds from programs that support the victims of economic recession. Wow. When more and more women do not have access to prenatal care and more and more children do not have health insurance, the solution is to make these things even harder to get? This makes no sense, especially when you consider that states save $2 to $3 for every $1 spent on prenatal care. These are your elected officials, hard at work.
The fact that states are likely going to cut human services budgets is not only immoral, it is irresponsible. Consider the work of notable economists Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, who state that spending cuts are more harmful to an economy than carefully-planned tax increases (http://www.cbpp.org/1-8-08sfp.htm).
Comprehensive cuts will slow spending; while an increase in taxes only slows saving, allowing economic spending to continue.
The research is there, in black and white – the solution does not lie in cutting programs, it lies in affording programs. States seem to forget that many things become more expensive in time; instead of cutting services from those in need, perhaps states should cap the cost of, say, medical services – which would benefit nearly everyone and help to reduce state-funded health care spending. Dropping services now, only to re-institute them later, puts a state economy on a perpetual yo-yo and does nothing for long-term growth.
It's disturbing to think that states are more willing to drop services for their most disadvantaged citizens rather than find a way to balance their budgets with tactics developed by the world's top economists.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
eReality
As the January 20th, 2009 changing of the guard draws nearer, the debate heats up on nationwide healthcare reform. President-Elect Barack Obama has called for a massive health care reform that mandates U.S. children are medically insured; while Montana Senator Max Baucus has already released a proposal of his own that mandates all U.S. citizens obtain health care coverage.
Who is going to pay for this insurance and what the measure of affordability is are two huge open-ended questions, as highlighted in this MarketWatch.com article (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/debating-whats-fair-affordable-health-reform/story.aspx?guid={A14D9D02-0C97-40B3-B9EC-CA0AB6D46450}).
In the article, eHealth Senior Vice President Sam Gibbs is quoted as saying self-paid health insurance policies are "extremely affordable." With an average monthly premium of $158 for individuals and $366 for families (according to a study by eHealthInsurance, owned by eHealth), he might be right -- after all, who couldn't afford to pay those monthly payments?
The answer: A lot of people. An extra $150/month can go a long way towards groceries, utilities, child care, education and other worthwhile bills. And for families already strapped, nearly $400 tacked on each month could spell bankruptcy.
We're not talking about people with an annual salary of over $182,500, which Mr. Gibbs is reputed to make by Forbes.com (total compensation exceeds $320,000) (http://people.forbes.com/profile/sam-c-gibbs/28585). In reality, we're talking about people making $30,000 or $40,000 a year.
What's more, the MarketWatch article notes that a National Women's Law Center (http://www.nwlc.org/) report recently found that women are charged, on average, 18% -- and in at least one case, as much as 140% -- more for health insurance coverage than men. The same report also found that: "Only 12% of plans found in the individual market covered pregnancy services... so these wide variations have nothing to do with actual maternity coverage. You can in many cases buy a rider for maternity coverage, but they, too, are very expensive and don't give you much return for your money."
If Congress is to provide oversight to the medical insurance industry through guaranteed coverage and affordability, they must include provisions that all policies for women must cover maternity-related health costs, including prenatal care, delivery and all potential complications. Moreover, deductibles must be manageable -- the average deductible of $2,610 as reported by eHealthInsurance and published in the referenced MarketWatch article is simply too much for many women if they have to pay the deductible all at once and up-front in order to receive proper medical care. Prescriptions and vitamins needed during pregnancy must also be covered to ensure that America's unborn children are given the best chance at life.
The debate will rage on, it will take years to implement any health care overhaul, and there's no guarantee that a satisfactory solution will be found. In the meantime, provisions should be put in place to provide for pregnant women who can't afford or retain health insurance and make too much to qualify for state-sponsored welfare. If America can afford to bail out bankers, can't we afford to give our children a healthy head start?
You can read Senator Baucus' proposal here: http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf. Take a look and let me know what you think.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
Who is going to pay for this insurance and what the measure of affordability is are two huge open-ended questions, as highlighted in this MarketWatch.com article (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/debating-whats-fair-affordable-health-reform/story.aspx?guid={A14D9D02-0C97-40B3-B9EC-CA0AB6D46450}).
In the article, eHealth Senior Vice President Sam Gibbs is quoted as saying self-paid health insurance policies are "extremely affordable." With an average monthly premium of $158 for individuals and $366 for families (according to a study by eHealthInsurance, owned by eHealth), he might be right -- after all, who couldn't afford to pay those monthly payments?
The answer: A lot of people. An extra $150/month can go a long way towards groceries, utilities, child care, education and other worthwhile bills. And for families already strapped, nearly $400 tacked on each month could spell bankruptcy.
We're not talking about people with an annual salary of over $182,500, which Mr. Gibbs is reputed to make by Forbes.com (total compensation exceeds $320,000) (http://people.forbes.com/profile/sam-c-gibbs/28585). In reality, we're talking about people making $30,000 or $40,000 a year.
What's more, the MarketWatch article notes that a National Women's Law Center (http://www.nwlc.org/) report recently found that women are charged, on average, 18% -- and in at least one case, as much as 140% -- more for health insurance coverage than men. The same report also found that: "Only 12% of plans found in the individual market covered pregnancy services... so these wide variations have nothing to do with actual maternity coverage. You can in many cases buy a rider for maternity coverage, but they, too, are very expensive and don't give you much return for your money."
If Congress is to provide oversight to the medical insurance industry through guaranteed coverage and affordability, they must include provisions that all policies for women must cover maternity-related health costs, including prenatal care, delivery and all potential complications. Moreover, deductibles must be manageable -- the average deductible of $2,610 as reported by eHealthInsurance and published in the referenced MarketWatch article is simply too much for many women if they have to pay the deductible all at once and up-front in order to receive proper medical care. Prescriptions and vitamins needed during pregnancy must also be covered to ensure that America's unborn children are given the best chance at life.
The debate will rage on, it will take years to implement any health care overhaul, and there's no guarantee that a satisfactory solution will be found. In the meantime, provisions should be put in place to provide for pregnant women who can't afford or retain health insurance and make too much to qualify for state-sponsored welfare. If America can afford to bail out bankers, can't we afford to give our children a healthy head start?
You can read Senator Baucus' proposal here: http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf. Take a look and let me know what you think.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
The Blues Project ( BlueCross/BlueShield)
Infant mortality due to lack of proper prenatal care is a disturbing occurrence in the United States. Pregnant women who do not receive prenatal care often find themselves in the disposition of being unable to afford or acquire maternity insurance and prenatal care; and some women do not even realize how important prenatal care is to the health of their unborn babies.
In many cases the absence of prenatal care has roots far deeper than financial instability. Other social factors such as education, location, ethnicity, race and age come in to play and dynamically force financial outcomes. The Blues Project, a Memphis-based study conducted by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center and UT Medical Group Inc., and funded by BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee, is working to uncover the reasons behind these social factors and has helped hundreds of pregnant women gain access to prenatal care and other maternity-related services in the process (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/oct/03/blues-project-helps-fight-infant/).
I laud the Blues Project for taking an initiative to understand why so many women are unable to attain prenatal care. It is my hope, and undoubtedly the hope of the project's coordinators, that the information the study yields will shed light on solutions that can be implemented to correct this issue and its tragic outcomes.
Many published studies are little more than “findings,” scientific discovery and fact confirmation. Too few actually suggest viable solutions to problematic findings. Too many organizations raise money to conduct studies without spending any of that money to help the disadvantaged and discriminated. In the case of the Blues Project, funds seem to be used to help pregnant women and their unborn children throughout the study – which should lend insight into what strategies are effective in fighting socioeconomic precognitions when seeking prenatal care. Let's hope that such strategies are part of the Blues Project's findings.
The Blue Project has helped hundreds, but tens of thousands more women need similar help. What happens to them? What happens to the women of Memphis, which has the worse infant mortality rate of all major U.S. Cities, when the Blue Project closes (http://www.bcbst.com/about/news/releases/default.asp?release=179)? The study is being conducted in Memphis, but the scope of this study (and its proposed solutions) is much bigger than one city. It's time to stop talking about our problems and start doing something about them.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
In many cases the absence of prenatal care has roots far deeper than financial instability. Other social factors such as education, location, ethnicity, race and age come in to play and dynamically force financial outcomes. The Blues Project, a Memphis-based study conducted by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center and UT Medical Group Inc., and funded by BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee, is working to uncover the reasons behind these social factors and has helped hundreds of pregnant women gain access to prenatal care and other maternity-related services in the process (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/oct/03/blues-project-helps-fight-infant/).
I laud the Blues Project for taking an initiative to understand why so many women are unable to attain prenatal care. It is my hope, and undoubtedly the hope of the project's coordinators, that the information the study yields will shed light on solutions that can be implemented to correct this issue and its tragic outcomes.
Many published studies are little more than “findings,” scientific discovery and fact confirmation. Too few actually suggest viable solutions to problematic findings. Too many organizations raise money to conduct studies without spending any of that money to help the disadvantaged and discriminated. In the case of the Blues Project, funds seem to be used to help pregnant women and their unborn children throughout the study – which should lend insight into what strategies are effective in fighting socioeconomic precognitions when seeking prenatal care. Let's hope that such strategies are part of the Blues Project's findings.
The Blue Project has helped hundreds, but tens of thousands more women need similar help. What happens to them? What happens to the women of Memphis, which has the worse infant mortality rate of all major U.S. Cities, when the Blue Project closes (http://www.bcbst.com/about/news/releases/default.asp?release=179)? The study is being conducted in Memphis, but the scope of this study (and its proposed solutions) is much bigger than one city. It's time to stop talking about our problems and start doing something about them.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
It CAN Happen To You
Most people would say they could live comfortably on a $150,000 annual household income. Nice house, nice cars, nice vacations, nice stuff. But even that income isn't enough to stave off the plague of economic downturn, evident in this WBUR article (http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/82079_20081218.asp). The couple in the article made 150K but, after two pregnancies and elevated mortgage payments, they fell behind – and are even unable to sell their house because it has lost so much market value.
In the article, writer Anthony Brooks explains that when this young couple purchased their home, every indication said that home values would increase and that 150K would certainly be enough to get by on. They found out too late, as many others have, that anything can happen. Even well-to-do families can be plunged into a financial nightmare that threatens their home, their jobs and their insurance coverage; and more and more we're seeing stories about pregnant women whose insurance was dropped because their employers shut the doors for the last time. Without employment during a housing crisis, these women are unable to afford maternity care – and cannot gain access to medical insurance because they have a “pre-existing condition”: they're pregnant.
Many sources cite HIPAA laws that state pregnancy can't be construed as a pre-existing condition, but in fact such doctrines only apply when one also has pre-existing insurance. I.E., if a pregnant woman leaves one job where she had insurance to work at another company with insurance, she is still covered – once she gets past the obligatory waiting period, of course.
Read the article and see how easy it is for a 150K household to falter. Consider this: how secure is your job? Could your mortgage increase? Or have you lost your job or gotten behind on bills already, as many Americans have?
What will you do if you're pregnant when it all comes crashing down?
Educate yourself. Learn your options and how to take advantage of the resources available to you. Consult with Maternity Health (www.maternityhealth.org), the American Pregnancy Association (www.americanpregnancy.org) and Maternity Advantage (www.maternityadvantage.com) to see what steps you need to take to receive the best and most affordable care for yourself and your baby.
You can't predict the future. It CAN happen to you. Be prepared.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
In the article, writer Anthony Brooks explains that when this young couple purchased their home, every indication said that home values would increase and that 150K would certainly be enough to get by on. They found out too late, as many others have, that anything can happen. Even well-to-do families can be plunged into a financial nightmare that threatens their home, their jobs and their insurance coverage; and more and more we're seeing stories about pregnant women whose insurance was dropped because their employers shut the doors for the last time. Without employment during a housing crisis, these women are unable to afford maternity care – and cannot gain access to medical insurance because they have a “pre-existing condition”: they're pregnant.
Many sources cite HIPAA laws that state pregnancy can't be construed as a pre-existing condition, but in fact such doctrines only apply when one also has pre-existing insurance. I.E., if a pregnant woman leaves one job where she had insurance to work at another company with insurance, she is still covered – once she gets past the obligatory waiting period, of course.
Read the article and see how easy it is for a 150K household to falter. Consider this: how secure is your job? Could your mortgage increase? Or have you lost your job or gotten behind on bills already, as many Americans have?
What will you do if you're pregnant when it all comes crashing down?
Educate yourself. Learn your options and how to take advantage of the resources available to you. Consult with Maternity Health (www.maternityhealth.org), the American Pregnancy Association (www.americanpregnancy.org) and Maternity Advantage (www.maternityadvantage.com) to see what steps you need to take to receive the best and most affordable care for yourself and your baby.
You can't predict the future. It CAN happen to you. Be prepared.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
When The Shoe Is On The Other Foot
Many uninsured pregnant women have had to tender large up-front fees before receiving prenatal care and other maternity-related services. Why is it then that insurance companies do not have to do the same? According to this Volunteer News article (http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/34827894.html), clinics that deliver babies are struggling due to late payments by insurance companies. In the article, a birthing center representative states that payments from one insurer are delayed as much as two years. Without payment, the center is forced to consider scaling back or shutting down altogether; a shame considering many of its patients are low-income women.
If you're late paying your insurance premium, your coverage is dropped. If you're unable to afford health care, you don't get medical treatment. If an insurance company is late paying a maternity clinic, they stay in business.
If it is the insurance companies' payments clinics have to worry about, rather than payments from uninsured pregnant women, why is it that the women are punished with demanding up-front fees? Shouldn't this burden be placed on the insurance companies rather than those who have a desire to pay and only seek fair terms?
Insurance companies would balk at paying up-front, but it's not fair to force uninsured women to wear a shoe that simply doesn't fit. The referenced article states that low-income women are not the problem when it comes to late payments; it's time the rest of the health care industry examine where their financial woes are truly rooted as well.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
If you're late paying your insurance premium, your coverage is dropped. If you're unable to afford health care, you don't get medical treatment. If an insurance company is late paying a maternity clinic, they stay in business.
If it is the insurance companies' payments clinics have to worry about, rather than payments from uninsured pregnant women, why is it that the women are punished with demanding up-front fees? Shouldn't this burden be placed on the insurance companies rather than those who have a desire to pay and only seek fair terms?
Insurance companies would balk at paying up-front, but it's not fair to force uninsured women to wear a shoe that simply doesn't fit. The referenced article states that low-income women are not the problem when it comes to late payments; it's time the rest of the health care industry examine where their financial woes are truly rooted as well.
I am PRO MOM!!!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
Happy New Year!
Wow! 2009 is here!! I just want to thank you all for your friendship, loyalty and belief in me and the United States of America. It's easy to get cynical and especially when you are fighting causes that just don't make sense. As I normally say, I can't wait for the day that I just get to blog for the sake of blogging because as a people and a country, we have decided collectively to get everyone's brain in the game and actually solve issues rather than sweep them under the rug. I am excited to see what new challenges 2009 brings. I love you all and you ain't see nothin' yet!
Come on world...bring it on!!
Willing to pick a fight in 2009 to stand up for what is right!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
Come on world...bring it on!!
Willing to pick a fight in 2009 to stand up for what is right!
Aaron Bouren
Advocate Aaron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
