HHS Press Release
January 31, 2002
“Would Allow Use of Existing Resources to Expand Prenatal Care Immediately”
“HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced today that he plans to issue a proposed regulation soon allowing states to provide health care insurance coverage under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to pregnant women for their children who are not yet born.”
“The new regulation would clarify that states may include coverage for children from conception to age 19. This would mean that pregnant women can receive prenatal and delivery care.”
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson:
“Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle. Prenatal services can be a vital, life-long determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women. It is one of the most important investments we can make for the long-term good health of our nation.”
Comment: You cannot be exposed to any news source this morning without hearing about the controversial nature of this benign-appearing announcement. Changing the legal status of a fetus, with its controversial implications, is cloaked by this program that would expand prenatal coverage, obviously a desirable goal.
But there is an even more ominous feature of this proposal. The flurry of activity by the media demonstrates the concern. Efforts to seriously address the number one health care problem today, the uninsured and under-insured, have been almost completely left off of the radar screens of the media. Instead, attention has been directed to much less important issues such as the patient bill of rights, or disputes over tax credits or defined contribution approaches. It is not that these issues aren’t important, but by directing attention to these issues, the politicians and the insurance industry have managed to dodge the real issue that must be addressed immediately – the plight of the uninsured. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has elected to throw this new bone out to the media to occupy them with this issue that will sell their information products, but with the great advantage of continuing the deception that these are the real issues, while the uninsured are left on the back burner.
On this one, the media must carry much of the blame. The public does not understand the scale of the terrible health care injustices taking place today. They do not understand the degree of waste of their health care resources. They do not understand that policy decisions can be made that could provide equity in access and coverage for comprehensive services for everyone, paid for merely by introducing administrative efficiencies, while returning to patients free choice of health care providers. The media have a moral responsibility to inform the public of the severity of the problems with our health care system, and the real options for reform. But then, covering a hissing cat fight over whether a fetus has rights sells better. And, like the private health plans, the media is placing profit over patients.
Beth Capell, Ph.D., of Health Access, responds to the message on insurers creating multi-tiered access to hospitals:
“If poor people needed health care, they would have it. It is plainly a luxury afforded only to the wealthy and healthy.
“California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton once introduced legislation to make it a crime to be poor. We probably need to amend this to include needing health care.”
Uwe Reinhardt, Ph.D., of Princeton University, responds to Dr. Capell’s comments on health care being a luxury afforded to the wealthy:
Well, we do ration justice by ability to pay, and education as well. It is only natural that we shall do the same in health care.
In fact, health care could be viewed the odd-one out in our scheme of things, but only for a few decades after WWII. The post WWII decades were, in the main, an aberration from our nation’s ingrained, class-based approach to the distribution of human services. After having gone through the Depression and WWII, our grandparents probably began to appreciate the virtues of a Rawlsian society–a so-called socialist market economy. The Baby Boomers and their issue, the GenXers, have few such sentiments (unless they themselves are in a pickle). Close your eyes and ask yourself this question:
A year ago, when Enron was still sailing high, would its proud employees not have spat at people who shill for universal national health insurance? Now they cry into the TV set every night, ruining my supper. As I have said before, I have zero compassion for them.
We are inexorably marching toward a society in which the best advice one can give young people is this: Forget serving the nation. Before you do that, first get rich. Then you have the leisure of serving the nation, if you still wish it.
Of course, our youngest thumbed his nose at his Dad’s sage advice. He is in the Marines. I admire his guts, but I did warn him loudly that this nation will never thank him for the sacrifices and risks he is taking on his shoulders. He will be respected only if he gets well to do. Still, he went. You go figure.
Best
Uwe