Health of Children in Red States Suffers

[tandot]

Jan. 25, 2007 — 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.

More:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2820216&page=1

[Hobarticus]

1. Until (insert any typical life crisis) affects them, red voters don't care...

No sense of community or common good, unless it hits home.

So they'll never expect better of government and even join the cry to limit it's range, but the second they need it, they want it and can't understand why it's not there.

[aquart]

2. Voted "Democrat"? ABC really is a Republican enclave.

[Shipwack]

3. Actually, I think the word is correct in this instance...

Saying "...voted Democratic" doesn't sound right in my ears.

Now, if they had written ... "voted for the Democrat Party", I'd be all with you.

[athena]

16. I disagree; "voted Democratic" sounds more correct.

"Voted for the Democrat" would be OK, but "voted Democrat" really sounds like bad grammar to my ears.

If you do a Google search, "vote democratic" brings up mostly liberal sites, whereas "vote democrat" brings up mostly right-wing sites.

[KansDem]

38. I would have wrote, "Voted for the good guys."

Then there wouldn't have been any confusion...

[Judi Lynn]

5. You bet. It's an ugly, crude, belligerent decision to use the incorrect word. n/t

[depakid]

12. Of course it is. It's nothing but a propaganda outlet

This type of data has been available for quite some time. If corporate media had looked at the state of affairs in Texas during the 2000 campaign, and judged Bush by what they saw there, he'd never have been appointed.

Bottom line is that Red States have poor social capital and rate poorly on every social index. Health, education, violent crime, pollution- you name it.

[qwlauren35]

4. I Have VERY Mixed Feelings on This.

There is an issue of states rights here.

I think it's very important for all Americans to see this data. However, I have no doubt that states will find different ways to address it.

And some will not. Not every American believes in safety nets for the poor, not every American believes in safety nets for children.

However, one thing this does suggest to me is that making children's health a national issue will meet resistance, if it's not considered a priority in some parts of the US.

[Justitia]

6. And not every American believes in bombing the shit out of other countries

but I don't get a say in that either, do I?

So, before we spend billions and billions blowing shit up around the planet, I think every American child, NO MATTER WHAT ARTIFICIAL STATE BOUNDARY they reside inside, deserves to have their government engaged in matters affecting their health and welfare.

This is NOT a states right issue, this is a citizens issue.

[tandot]

8. I also have no say in subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, and pork barrel projects

given to big businesses and already wealthy corporations - from the taxes I pay.

Thanks, Justitia. The health care situation in America is a national crisis and needs a national solution.

[Telly Savalas]

32. A national solution can still have local implementation

That's how it works in Canada. The federal government has standards and guidelines which must be followed with regards to health care, but the provinces are the ones who actually run the programs. Typically, the more decentralized government is, the more responsive it is.

[tandot]

9. the blue states are already subsidizing the red states

From the tax money I pay. Red states pay less money to the federal government but get more in federal spending:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

"The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States."

or

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004

---------------------

So, since the blue states are fitting the bill anyway, we should give a sh*t about some red states whining about having to help the poor and needy. This is a national crisis and should not be left to individual states. As we can see, so far they have done NOTHING to solve that problem.

[jwirr]

23. When AFDC (welfare) was switched from the states to the feds,

this was the exact same issue. What we are now calling red states paid such little subsidies that no one could live on them. When the feds took over the new rules required that all states follow the same formula for figuring the money that the poor received. That did not mean that Mississippi paid the same as New york but they did pay the same percentage of the cost of living in their area.

Medical assistance should do the same thing. Children would be covered for the same things in all state. Too often a hateful pol like *ss decides that certain people are not worthy of help and they refuse as a state to do things like mammograms or birth control pills. Discrimination should not be a part of any states health care programs.

[tandot]

27. In essence, nothing changed.

It is amazing that a lot of those Republicans call themselves "pro-life" and do nothing to help poor and needy children.

[jwirr]

35. Yes. But back then the federalization of AFDC did help in poorer

states because they were subsidized by wealthier states and could then pay at least a "living" assistance to their people. I happened to live in one of the richer states so we did not see visible changes for ourselves but we knew that our brothers and sisters in other states could finally survive. It was a time when we still believed in being our siblings keeper. A time when we all worked together. We are definitely in a time of that kind of need now.

[pokercat999]

41. "Pro-life" actually translates to "pro-power" and/or

"anti-woman" when converted to English from fascist speak.

[PassingFair]

7. The blue states are catching up FAST.

Union busting has taken its toll.

Displaced workers are losing health care and
moving south.

We need strong leadership.

NOT corporate whoredom from Washington.

....and we need it NOW...like YESTERDAY!

[Yavin4]

10. The Poor in the Red States Don't See A Difference Bet. Dems and Repubs

on economic issues, and they're probably correct. For instance, the Dems have not clearly advocated a single-payer health insurance system. Instead, it's always a hodge-podge of proposals. Also, the Dems also support globalization trade agreements, and border-less illegal laborers. So, on the important issues of economic survival, the poor in the red states do not see a clear difference.

The only clear difference in their eyes is on the cultural issues like abortion and Gay marriage. Hence, in their opinion, they are voting in their interests because the Dems are not offering a clear alternative on the economic issues.

The same sad health care system will exist in the red states regardless of whether the Dems or the Repubs control the government.

[aggiesal]

14. I don't agree. ...

Historically, the Democratic Party would tend to distribute tax dollars (either throught tax deductions for the less wealth, or through social programs for the needy) to people at the lower end of the pay scale, while Republicans believe in the trickle down theory.

In theory, the trickle down is suppose to work when the wealth that don't need the money will allow the money to trickle down to the less wealthy by creating jobs with this money. Instead, they do 1 of
2 things. 1) They invest it in companies outside the US
2) They pocket it into their savings.
Neither help the poor because the money never goes down more then 1 or 2 levels.

If you give the money to the poor through social programs (food stamps, tax relief, ...) they do 1 thing with it. They spend it. And when they spend it, everyone benefits, because we are a spend based economy, and the money always goes up. But at least everyone benefits from this approach.

Look at all the programs instituted by FDR's New Deal and LBJ Great Society. These are the programs that the Republicans have been attacking the past 6 years, with great results.

Wait till the single payer health plan comes out of congress. The RW will start calling the Democrats communists.

[Yavin4]

15. Can you tell me, in one sentence, John Kerry's 2004 Healthcare Plan?

I know one sentence is extremely short, but we are talking about poor people workin 2 or 3 jobs without internet access and don't have the time to sort out convuluted policy.

If the Dems want to win the poor in the red states, they need to advocate clear, strong economic proposals to offset the cultural issues.

IOW, just say, the Democrats are for a single-payer, national health insurance social program.

[aggiesal]

17. Yes, Kerry's plan ...

would have extended the current Medicaid plan, by raising the maximum income so that both children and parents could qualify to use Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Pretty easy isn't it.
But the Bush campaign claimed that Big Government would be in charge of your medical services, and people bought it. When you qualify for Medicaid, the government doesn't tell which doctor to use, or what treatment you should get. Unfortunately, since our society has been dumb-down to 3-4 word slogans, like "Big Government", people didn't want to investigate any part of the healthcare plan he proposed.

They voted against their own best interests.

[Yavin4]

18. Okay, Re-Read Your Post

" would have extended the current Medicaid plan, by raising the maximum income so that both children and parents could qualify to use Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program."

Okay, I am a single mother in Georgia. I have a full time job as a WalMart cashier, and another part-time job working in a McDonald's. In order for me to understand Kerry's health plan, I would have to know the following:

(1) The maxmimum income for Medicaid.

(2) If I qualify, and because I have two jobs, I may not qualify.

(3) I have to understand how my state, Georgia, would combine with the Medicaid program.

IOW, I have to be a policy wonk to understand his plan.

Whereas, if Kerry said the following: "I will fight for one single, simple national health insurance program for all Americans."


Now, if you cannot see the difference between the two statements, then that's why the Dems are struggling to win some of the red states.

[aggiesal]

19. You said state Kerry's health plan in 1 sentence, which I believe I did ...

Your right, a statement like "I will fight for one single, simple national health insurance program for all Americans." would get you hooked. And if you think it would have been implemented this easily, I have some property to sell you west of the Golden Gate Bridge.

It would have taken Kerry's full presidency to get it implemented. And with a republican congress, which he would have had in his first 2 years, they probably would have never let it come up for a vote!

On the off chance that it actually would get through Congress, then you'd have to read all the caveats once it gets implemented (and believe me, the book would be about 6 inches thick with all kinds of exemptions, and the like).
You'd get pi$$ed because it was not as simple as stated, and you'd start complaining
that Kerry was not up front with you on the details.

Again, this country wants campaign slogans.

In the mean time, you keep telling your state to continue to vote against their best interest.

[Yavin4]

22. You're Confusing Actual Policy with Principle

If you're running for office, you set down a set of principles. You tell the people what you are for in clear and concise terms.

Then, once elected you set about the policy which may include compromise, but you don't start with the compromise.

The Republicans win office by saying we're going to cut everyone's taxes, but when they get the power, do they? Heck no. They only cut taxes for the wealthy.

But, at least they have a principle that they can run again and again.

[NobleCynic]

26. You've got it

Campaign extreme and govern moderate. That should be standard operating procedure. By not campaigning on a strong ideological position, you weaken the cause long term. Most people don't follow politics closely and foolishly assume that the center lies between the two parties. When one party campaigns in the middle, all it does is move the middle farther from what they believe. When you campaign on the fringe, you pull the center toward your beliefs.

Governance doesn't have to and shouldn't be on the extreme, but the campaigning should be.

[Yavin4]

30. Exactly. Moreover, It Helps To Accomplish Your Goal

If you stake the position that EVERYONE needs health insurance, AND you get a sizeable vote count, then that alone sways the compromise to your position.

Also, that may force the WalMarts and McD's to offer some form of health insurance.

[jwirr]

36. Yeah, "I do not intend to go to war." GWB I want substance.

[jwirr]

24. Because of my severely disabled daughter I have been on welfare

programs since 1958, Soc Sec and Medicare now. I can tell you loud and clear that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and the pugs. The south has no one to blame about their poor programs but themselves. They have voted for pugs for years now and let them do what they wanted. As to health care plans that the Dems have offered I think you are forgetting that they have been out of power since God only knows when. Give them a chance.

[skipos]

25. Well they need to go look at who voted for the minimum wage increase (Ds)

and who voted against it (Rs).

[superconnected]

11. Somone set me straight please

before the chimp, was "red state"/"blue state" common verbiage?

And as for the article, yeah, no duh.

[aggiesal]

13. These parents will always vote against their own best interests ...

I feel sorry for the kids that are affected, because they didn't have an opportunity to vote. But, I'm willing to bet that their parents will raise them like good little brown shirts, and continue to vote against their own best interests.

[tanyev]

20. It would be nice if all the money the pro-lifers give to fight the abortion issue

could be used to improve the lives of children that are already here.

[tandot]

21. Thanks. That is so true.

but these people give a sh*t once the children are born. Apparently, only unborn children deserve to be protected.

[Bigmack]

28. More than just kids' health....

This map of heart disease deaths is from the February National Geographic.

Poor people... no medical care... bad diet...

[tandot]

31. Wow, that looks really bad.

I am surprised that some areas of California are dark red.

[happyslug]

34. I suspect something else is wrong here.

Look at the high heart Attack rate in the Ohio and Lower Mississippi Valleys. This tends to be older communities, thus with much high percentage of people over 60 than the country as a whole. Thus the high rates may be attributed to the AVERAGE AGE of the people in those areas as compared to any other factor.

Look at the Austin Texas aa of the map, very light, but Austin has a much higher percentage of YOUNG people then the country as a whole (The same comment can be made of Florida, which except for Miami has a young population). The Mountains of the West is also an area of young people AND many people who live in these areas when they health goes bad move east or west for medical care (i.e. The deeper Red in Regards to Denver compare to the rest of the Mountainous West may be the result of people going and dieing in Denver Hospitals as opposed to where they live.

Just a point on this map, it is NOT a good indicator given the difference is ages we have throughout the US from region to region.

[NuttyFluffers]

29. will i soon be able to say voting conservative republican is child abuse?

pretty please! can i? can i? can i? O8)

[tandot]

33. I already consider being raised by conservative Publicans child abuse

:evilgrin:

[yardwork]

37. This has been true forever

The history of the South, the West, and, for that matter, the entire United States explains why this is so. Our country was founded on imperialism, invasion, genocide, slavery, and more imperialism. For five hundred years or more people have tramped around this country beating up on anyone weaker than them, and ensuring that everybody else would stay weaker. It's no different today.

Those who have the most (Bush's base - "the haves and the have-mores" as he said) don't want to share with anyone else. In fact, they want more and more and more! And they're getting it.

[Psephos]

39. Could you please name some countries that weren't founded on these evils?

From my view, that's a short list indeed.

[JNelson6563]

40. And we spend billions on war

Oy.