All About the Children
Posted by on January 25, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Talking about family values, how about making sure kids don't get sick?
From ABC:
Children living in red states -- those in which a majority of the citizens voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election -- may be worse off in terms of health than those living in states that voted Democrat, according to a new book.
The book, "Homeland Insecurity . American Children at Risk," suggests kids in red states are more likely to lack health insurance, live in poverty and die early.
Michael Petit, president of the Every Child Matters Education Fund and author of the book, said politics is largely to blame for the discrepancy. And he adds that political decisions made at the state level have the most impact.
"Where it plays out for individual children and families is in the states -- nowhere more than in so-called red states where children are at significantly greater risk than children in blue states," said Petit in a press conference Wednesday.
Petit used U.S. census data and other government sources to compare states that voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election to those that voted Democratic. To rank the states, he used a set of 11 child-related statistics, several of which were measures of health, such as insurance coverage and prenatal care.
According to his findings, nine of the 10 top states with the best outcomes for children today were blue states. The top 10 states, in order, were Wisconsin, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa (the sole red state in the group) and New Hampshire.
All 10 of the bottom-rated states were red states -- Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.
According to Petit's research, a child in the bottom 10 states is twice as likely to die by the age of 14 than a child in the top 10 states.
Children in the bottom 10 states were also 1.8 times more likely to be uninsured than their top 10 counterparts, and expectant mothers were more than twice as likely to receive inadequate prenatal care.
The data show that "children fare much better today if they happen to live in some states instead of others," said Dr. Joel Alpert, past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, during Wednesday's press conference.
"Children who live in blue states do better. Children who live in red states do worse. It's there in the data," he said. "The data are convincing, and they are alarming."
Health policy experts said the findings establish a likely link between a state's politics and its efforts to safeguard children's health.
"The primary programs we have to insure kids -- namely Medicaid -- are basically federally funded state programs," said Timothy Jost, professor of health care law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
Jost said that individual states have a lot of sway when it comes to the health coverage that children receive.
"States that tend to be politically and economically conservative have less inclusive medical assistance programs," he said.
"So, it would make a great deal of sense that states that are Republican have conservative social and economic policies that lead to a decreased health status for poor children."
Healthcare for children is one of the issues which I have learned more and more about since coming to the DNC, because it is a passion of Governor Dean's. He often talks about it, deviating from prepared remarks, when he travels around the country.
When I worked for Ciro Rodriguez he often said that a society should be judged by how it cares for it's most vulnerable citizens - it's children and it's seniors. I think we could do a better job at both, and Democrats are committed to real solutions for health care - with policies that benefits the people and not the pharmaceutical industry.
Read more over here, or at the Speaker's site, here.
Comments (20) «
When I worked for Ciro Rodriguez he often said that a society should be judged by how it cares for it's most vulnerable citizens - it's children and it's seniors.
My understanding is that this basic concept passed down to all of us from Andrew Jackson as something that should be a fundamental principle for the Democratic Party. Of course, he may have stolen the idea from Jesus. (ya think?)
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. not HCA!
Our children can't open and maintain a Healthcare Account now can they?
They need Universal HC.
;p
I live in South Carolina, and I have been reading reports that say that South Carolina is in the top 10 of just about everything negative, (uninsured people, spousal abuse, low-education levels, meddleing laws (laws against gay marriage, etc.), higher incarceration rates, etc.) And, South Carolina ranks in the bottom 10 in almost everything positive, (good health care, equality of women and minorities, good jobs, etc.)
So, I am glad that someone has put together the information that was in this study that the post is based on. Of course, ultra-conservative Republicans will disagree with the conclusions of the study. They always like to try to keep southerners (and others) from growing, but when someone does a study like this that proves that the south (and other red regions) suffer from ultra-conservatism, the Republicans say that the studies are biased against them. I say biased nothing! Studies like this just tell the truth about the state of red states, and usually the state of the red states are not good.
But, I do have hope for South Carolina (and other red states in the south), because during the last mid-term elections (2006), South Carolinians voted 45% for the Democratic candidate for Governor, even though in the past, the Democratic candidate for Governor only got about 40% of the vote, at most. That means that South Carolina is changing a little bit, and within the next 10 years, South Carolina may be a swing state, (just like Florida is now). I sure hope so! South Carolinians are starting to see forest, and not just the trees!
health care should not be for profit.
It's immoral. I worked all day, did some housework and checked the news. lots of talk about Al Gore in 2008! I'm behind him! he's smarter and tougher than ever! he can take it!
GORE/OBAMA 2008!
have a nice night!
oh- one more thing! I think john kerry did the right thing by not running. he knows it would be an uphill battle and he can better serve the party and the people by trying to end the war and keep the party unified. GOOD LUCK JOHN!
Should we just ignore the fact that half of the Governors from these bottom ten states are Democrats?
This is a classic case of false causation and completely distracts from relevant issues. Besides if local and state decisions have more impact what diffence does it make which president the state as a whole votes for? If you dig into the data what you'll find is that most of the challenges in the south happen in urban areas (which are typically Democratic strongholds).
That doesn't mean that Democrats are at fault, but that it makes no difference whether a state is "red" or "blue".
The best example is Louisiana...Democrats have been in control of the majority of that state for YEARS and LA has been on the bottom of every important statistic imaginable.
Our time could be spent actually talking about relevant solutions to problems instead of sitting back making fun of rednecks to make ourselves feel better.
LavoniaW:
Gore, are you kidding me? C'mon...with all the options on the table why Gore. I'd rather Obama than Gore. What about Hillary, do you not like her, or just think she won't be able to win the primary?
if you are asking me- I don't like Hillary.
I don't like her at all. she voted for the war and has pretty much either kept quiet or stood by her vote. she is smart enough to know that bush came to D.C. with getting even with saddam at the top of his list. but she kept her mouth shut and let him do it at the expense of our country. then she kept her mouth shut about all the election irregulariites in 2004- AND THERE WERE PLENTY! Kerry got screwed and he pretty much laid down and took it. Hillary might win the primary but I don't think she could ever win the election. she doesn't have the personality that her husband has. plus all that clinton baggage and the right wing fanatics who HATE her with a passion. she can say now that bush has f$cked up the war but it's way too late. she's been along for the entire ride. some of her main supporters divide the party- like Carville. they have never given Howard Dean the respect and appreciation that he deserves. people like the Clintons and Carville helped to demonize Howard and replace him with Kerry in 2004. I have just had a real hard time getting past all that. I won't vote for her. not in the primary and not in the general election. out of all our prospects, GORE is the strongest. people know him. he already beat bush once and at least he had the balls to stand and fight in 2000.he is brilliant and he has come a long way in 8 years. I think he has learned that you don't mess with southern people's guns and he picked a looser in Leiberman. we can win with Gore and be proud of our vote.
GORE/ OBAMA 2008
OBAMA guys. We gotta get the word out and convince other democrats. I won't vote for anyone that voted for this war(Hillary) (Iraq that is, not Afghanistan which I agree with). They should have known better than to be hoodwinked by Cheney and his false intelligence about WMD's. If their that fricking stupid they shouldn't be in congress.
Cheers,
randy
Sadie:
I don't like Hillary either, for lots of reasons, but you can't blame '04 on her. Any regularities in '04 were not enough to give Kerry a victory. And Dean would have done MUCH WORSE. One could argue that Gore got shafted in '00, but there was no state big enough that was close enough in '04 to blame it on fraud. Truth is Edwards would have fared better against Bush than Kerry, who has simply been in the Senate too long.
But I agree with Randy on Obama. He's the best shot. He still speaks English and hasn't lapsed into this mind-numbing, cautious, let's-make-sure-I'm-appealing-to-everyonese. There is that small chance that he's just a calculating political genius who will "govern from the center." But Bill Clinton had many centrist policies and I don't hear a lot of complaints about him.
To be perfectly honest, there is a lot of evidence that it's best to have two different parties controlling the White House and Capital...(yeah I know not a popular thing to say on the Democratic site). As long as the Democratic party firmly controlled the Congress, I'd rather a McCain in the White House than Hillary Clinton...
And if they can't hang on to the Congress, then Obama would be my first choice.
This is why we need more Democratic Governors. This is the reason.
Democratic Governors are more likey to make sure that the children are looked after.
This is why.
VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
Posted by wdporter on January 26, 2007 at 12:15 AM
there was widespread VOTING FRAUD in 2004.
Ohio, Florida and more. I believe those voting machines made by bush's friend's were rigged and I do believe that Kerry won. I'm not saying Hillary had a part in that of course but her silence was to look out for herself in 2008. the main reason I don't like her is her support for the war. it's all about the war for me. GORE isn't even in and might not get in. as far as the ones who are OFFICIALLY IN- I would go with Kucinich (again because of the war) it's a longshot that he would ever win the nomination but he has stood up for what he believes in even when he stood alone. I like OBAMA alot. don't get me wrong. I will gladly go out and vote for him if he wins the nomination. I am DONE with "electibility". DONE WITH IT. I was so angry with Nader in 2004 but he was RIGHT. this 2 party system is corrupt and we need more choices. as for Howard, he was gang banged by the majority of the nominees in the debates, by the media and the gay haters. people like to say it was that one scream that killed his campaign but that's ridiculous. when it was time to actually VOTE- a lot of people wished that Howard was the nominee. but it was too late. we were stuck with the "electible" john kerry and you see where that got us. a lot can change in the next year. we will just ride the rollercoaster and hope the party doesn't destroy itself in the process. by the way, I do send Howard money and I post here but I consider myself an Independent. have a nice day!
I am proud to be a resident of CT, one of the top states in this area. Although we have a Republican Governor, we have a strong enough Democratic state congress to override any veto, thank goodness, before that old Republican urge to give Corporate welfare from the backs of the low and middle class take hold.
She has been trying her damnest to do away with the Property tax. Now who do you think that will benefit, while Property tax is against one's house,(the bigger, the more tax) cars (the more and fancier, the more tax), Boats, etc.
Then we lose the CREDIT of $500 on our State tax that we currently get for Property tax, plus the deduction on Schedule A for federal.
We have a Republican governor, but she is nothing more than a figurehead. Thank God!
THE CORPORATE MEDIA IS CONTROLLING THE NOMINATION.
In recect polls, MSM is showing Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Why not ALL the ANNOUNCED candidates, rather than someone who hasn't announced?
This is premeditated manipulation.
And who in the world would vote for Obama (21%) over Edwards (11%), as MSNBC claims? Half the people for Clinton?
What about Richardson? What about Vilsack? Kucinich?
The Media knows it's ALL NAME RECOGITION now, and they are intentionally not recognizing the REAL LEADERS with EXPERIENCE. This is a media hack job.
Democrats should SUE in a class action for truth and fairness.
WAKE UP! We must demand FAIRNESS NOW. If we don't get fairness now, the next thing you know our nominee will have some bogus story by partisans run across the county as prime time news, like the Swiftboaters.
I don't know 1 (ONE), NOT ONE Democrat who thinks Obama has a chance at being elected President, or has a chance against all the EXPERIENCED Democrats. He hasn't even ANNOUNCED.
Sure MSM, the Democrats are sooo desperate as to want a SENATOR with 2 years Senate experience, just out of the State Senate, NO LEADERSHIP experience, NO Business world experience, A LAWYER, A HUSSAIN, did coke, never won a real race... PLEASE! Democrats have many candidates much more experienced who have ANNOUNCED a bid.
All this poll stuff is smoke and mirrors. It's smoke to cloud the picture of experienced and proven leaders, and mirrors to focus attention on candidates who will NOT take to so-called middle America. This manipulation helps Republicans.
I'M MAD AS HELL... AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT!
DEMAND PUBLIC FINANCED CAMPAIGNS NOW!
Election staff convicted in recount rig
1/24/2007, 6:09 p.m. ET
By M.R. KROPKO The Associated Press
CLEVELAND (AP) — Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough review in Ohio's most populous county.
Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty.
Prosecutors accused Maiden and Dreamer of secretly reviewing preselected ballots before a public recount on Dec. 16, 2004. They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said.
Defense attorney Roger Synenberg has said the workers were following procedures as they understood them.
Ohio gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the close election and hold on to the White House in 2004.
Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter did not claim the workers' actions affected the outcome of the election — Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six in the county's recount.
Maiden and Dreamer, who still work for the elections board, face a possible sentence of six to 18 months for the felony conviction. Sentencing is on Feb. 26.
A message left for Elections Board Director Michael Vu was not immediately returned Wednesday. The board released a statement that said its goal is to restore confidence in the county's election progress and pursue reforms in addition to those made since 2004.
http://www.mlive. com/newsflash/ national/ index.ssf? /base/national- 79/1169676604153 160.xml&storylist=national
The Red States with all that Reaganism have failed the next generation miserably.
Reaganism is dead. It never worked. It passed the buck, and run up the defecit that further hurts the youth.
As Pres Ford said, Reagan didn't beat the Soviets. And look what he did for Afganistan and the area. Loose nukes is Reaganism.
Posted by Wdporter on January 25, 2007 at 08:54 PM
Wdporter,
Where did I say anything about supporting Gore, or anyone else that is running for President, on this thread? This thread is about the national health care statistics of children. So, I think that you are a little confused here!
In Switzerland - the only system which I would recommend for the United States - healt care insurance is mandatory as it is with registering in the community where people live.
It is affordable - less than 95 USD a month/head and kids get rebates and also families. Everything is covered with exception of tooth care, which can be insured for an 80% coverage for less than 25 USD a month/head.
In the United States and in some other countries in the EU f. e. Germany they have an incredible bureaucratic system and therefore it becomes unaffordable.
Why not learn from the Swiss People, which also have a smart pension system? Instead of lamenting, doing nothing and giving the "free" choice between having no health care or an unaffordable health care?
Posted by PragmaticAmerican on January 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM
You are right to say that although some of the southern states have Democratic Governors (and most have Republican Governors anyway), the state legislators of most of the southern states are ultra-conservative Republican. I live in South Carolina, and I had a political science teacher tell us that South Carolina, after the Civil War, made it where the State Legislature would have more power than the Governor. They did that in order to try to prevent northerners from coming down south and taking over the southern states through the Governorships. And, a lot of other southern states are probably set up that way too. So, the premise that Wdporter had that it was because of Democratic Governors that the southern states were the way that they were, is faulty. I also disagree with Wdporter's assumption that it is the urban parts of the southern states that have the most problems. The rural areas of the south have the same kinds and levels (if not more) problems that the urban areas have.
And, it is because of racism, sexism, etc. that the southern states are the way that they are. And, to try to soft pedal that, is not constructive.
Of course that doesn't mean that a lot of southerners cannot be reached by the Democratic Party, because once we get passed the wedge issues, I think that it is possible to get our message out to a lot of the people of the south.
The south has a younger generation, (under 30) just like every other region, and we can also do a better job of reaching out to minorites, women, and even some white men.
If we are fighting the Terrorist " over there," why do our CIA have to stop so many planned attacks on the USA. I would say fighting Iraq over there is just a distraction from the real fight "Over Here."
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
