According to a recent NPR article, schools are now dishing up dinner to kids in need because their parents, already struggling to feed them breakfast and lunch, cannot pull in enough to feed them dinner either. Some members of the public, including the millionaire, drug-abusing, loud-mouth Rush Limbaugh simply don’t see this as a necessary addition to school programs.
From the article:
Not long after the start of the school year, Monique Sanders, a teacher at Nathan Hale Elementary School in Manchester, Conn., realized many of her students were going to bed hungry.
[...]
In class, says Sanders, that meant stressed-out kids with stomachaches, unable to concentrate, and lots of acting out.
“They have anger issues,” she says. “They don’t know what’s really going on sometimes at home, so that comes into the school.”
So last February, Nathan Hale Elementary began a dinner program for children enrolled in after-school activities. Most evenings, Sanders shepherds a few dozen children, ages 6 through 11, from the old renovated fire station that houses the after-school program to the school cafeteria across the street.
With some parents out of work, basic bills become stressful to pay off. One couple quoted in the article as utilizing the program for their child notes that after the husband lost his job in a niche industry easily affected by the economic downturn, it became an incredible struggle to pay for their exorbitant rent, car, and utilities. They rely on the school to feed their child because they appear to have little time or money of their own to properly provide for their families.
And while some are relying on this dinner service, there are some in the community who believe that some others have taken advantage of the system simply because they chose to have too many children and are out of work. Rush Limbaugh threw his two cents in and noted that children utilizing this dinner service should simply live 24-7 at the school being that the only point of sending them home is to sleep.
What do you think about schools providing three squares a day to children now? Do you think that it’s really the responsibility of the taxpayer to support family’s who cannot support their families? Is this simply poor decision-making on the part of the parents because they have high rents and low incomes with too many children or is this something that the collective should be working to support through tax dollars? Are there other options available which may be better than school’s providing the service? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
April 12th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Why are kids with out of work parents in after school programs? It would seem if there is a parent at home, the kids should be sent home after school. Why is the tax payer paying for daycare for parents who are not working? I find it much less problematic in cases of underemployemnt where the parents are working after school hours because they can not find an ideal permanent job, but if they are home, they have responsibilities to raise their children. Spending time with your children does not require income.
April 12th, 2012 at 7:46 am
At the risk of sounding like Ebeneezer Scrooge: Are there not food banks? Heck, are there not food stamps?
Also, think about the schools. They already struggle under the burden of teaching kids not only how to read, write, do math, and learn some things about science and history, they also have to save the planet, promote social peace, and now, feed children every meal of the day.
April 12th, 2012 at 8:10 am
My kids do the afterschool program in district 196 that is run by the YMCA. They are there because we both work. The YMCA does not feed the kids nor provide them with snacks.
I’m with Sui on this one…if the parents aren’t working the kids should be at home.
April 12th, 2012 at 8:13 am
J, the linked article addresses that by noting food banks only allow twice a month visits which, in these particular instances, aren’t enough to feed the families. They also note that food stamps run out, etc.
Now, the real question for me is why are they going through the food at the banks and using up all their food stamps so quickly? Are these families not making smart food buying choices and spend their money on items which really aren’t necessary or are the allotments of either really that low?
April 12th, 2012 at 8:34 am
Stories like this, where teachers take it upon themselves to care for the children in their schools, are not uncommon. Ask most teachers to comment on some the dire circumstances of their kids and you’ll get story after story of hungry, tired kids struggling to live. In my mind the real story here is the compassionate teachers who take it upon themselves to help kids in need. A BIG THANK YOU to those teachers is in order.
It’s easy to bitch about deadbeats and their drain on society, it won’t help the situation very much, but some will feel better after venting. At least some folks are tangibly doing something help the kids. I don’t want to complain about that.
April 12th, 2012 at 9:05 am
There are ineffective parents, dead beat and lazy parents and people who should have NEVER become parents. The children trapped by these circumstances need all of the help our society can provide for them.
There is no benefit to society in punishing children for the short comings of their parents. People make shitty, stupid choices and innocent victims often end up paying the price.
If a child receives a kindness, even a small one, it can give them hope and help to move them forward. So hurray for the teachers, caregivers, grandparents and all the others who are helping where they can.
April 12th, 2012 at 11:20 am
Most of my thoughts have already been noted above, however I would stand a little to the right of C&V and note that continuing to save people from themselves at some point becomes enabling.
We continue to enable the sort of behavior that causes these kids to come to school hungry.
I have been to a food bank, and seen the amount of food provided. Perhaps its not always as plentiful as it was the day I was there. Thankfully I dontk now. I am sure others here (MSPD?) could better comment on the amount and quality of food provided. I was shocked to see all the fixings for strawberry shortcake. Dog food. Cat food. Etc. I really dont think that anyone in this country who is making the use of their resources, getting food stamps and going to food banks would need to be hungry, esp if the kids are already getting 10 meals per week at school.
I am not against the school feeding the kids, and I dont want anyone to go hungry, but I think that “think of the children” is overused and should be replaced by some hard questions designed to get more to the root of the problem. I would also not be opposed to the school having the kids work for the food. Picking up around the school yard. Painting. General cleaning or chores. Picking up ditches, parks, etc.
At some point there has to be a limit to the entitlements and the lack of accountablity.
Just my two cents.
April 12th, 2012 at 11:23 am
I don’t think any child in America should go hungry. That being said – having the schools feed the children is not the appropriate solution. Schools are there to educate. There obviously is another problem if other social programs aren’t resolving this. Perhaps instead of giving out food stamps – set up a community cafeteria plan. People can go there to eat and it probably would be cheaper and more nutritious.
April 12th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Or drug test for public assistance. Require community service for unemployment benefits. Etc.
April 12th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
They tried the drug testing as a requirement of receiving welfare idea in Florida, and found that 96% of the recipients passed (2% didn’t pass, and 2% didn’t complete the process for unclear reasons; this is well below both the state and national average percent of people who use illegal drugs). Because the state reimburses the cost of the test, this is costing Florida money rather than saving it.
Source: http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
On the subject of schools providing the meals, I agree that it is not part of their mission and thus they shouldn’t have to do it. But on the other hand it doesn’t solve the problem caused by a recession, strapped food banks (due to the recession), and cuts to aid and social services in both the private and public spheres (yep, there’s that pesky recession again). Simply not doing anything about it isn’t an option, so I understand why they are stepping in.
April 12th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Tim,
These appear to be new applicants only and the public were warned of the testing. Depending on their drug(s) of choice, it is entirely possible that the particular applicants were able to stay clean for three or four days to get it out of their systems and piss clear. I am not impressed by this particular source’s preliminary findings based on 1000 applicants in the first month of the program.
Let me know when all members of a household, over the age of 18, are tested for drugs randomly and unannounced, and the data are collected over a much longer time frame. I’d be willing to bed that a longitudinal analysis of these data (using random tests of all those receiving benefits, not just new applicants–one time) would show a much higher rate, likely in excess of the national average.
Broken studies give broken results but great headlines.
April 12th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Bills response was much better than anything I could have typed.
Again, I am all for feeding the children, and for that matter feeding everyone. There is no reason people should go hungry. But I also think for every kid who feels hope and uses that to move themselves forward, several kids will see it as the way the world works and in 5 to 10 years it will be their little kids that are sitting down for dinner at the after school program.
The cycle has to break someplace. Afterschool program providing dinner? Great, show us that you completed your homework from 3:00 until 5:00 and then we will serve you some a healthy meal including fresh veggies, fruit, milk, water, and some protein/carbs. No homework today? Help pick up trash in the school yard. Etc.
April 12th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
The simple fact that the numbers were LOWER than the national average should have raised a BIG RED FLAG on the study. There should never be that big of dips against averages like that and if there are, explanations need to be given why.
In this case it’s just a random article on the web and it was a very preliminary dataset so I have no confidence in the data and certainly not in the journalists’ analysis.
April 12th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Chad, wouldn’t this be in violation of child labor laws? We’re not a 3rd world country… yet.
April 12th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
C&V,
We are providing handouts to kids whose parents aren’t working and cannot afford to feed their children. Seems like a third world country to me.
April 12th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Heh – nice. Typical Rush Limbaugh: doesn’t want to pay for birth control, AND doesn’t want to pay for the children of irresponsible parents, either. What reality does that dude live in?
I think that this is a really complicated issue, particularly given our current economy, and the level of entitlement that weirdly accompanies it. Probably some of these parents could afford children when they had them, but can’t anymore due to job loss, etc. That’s the times we live in. Some of them are definitely mismanaging resources. Some of them are mismanaging resources at a level where they shouldn’t be allowed to keep their children at all. But is that the kids’ fault?
Bottom Line: There is no excuse for anyone starving in this country (I mean, people buy designer clothing for their DOGS, for god sakes!) and it’s a community responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen (I know, I’m such a commie, right?!). However, I don’t think that it’s necessarily right for the responsibility to fall on the schools. Our public schools are totally overwhelmed as it is.
April 12th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I am at a loss for when it became a burden we as taxpayers should bear to pay for anyones contraception. I think Rush Limbaugh is a crazy loon, hate monger, bigot, hypocrite, and giant tub of crap, but seriously people, there has to be some baseline level of personal responsiblity.
C & V, while I respect your posts and opinion a great deal, I really hope you are joking. Kids picking up the school yard, helping clean up around the school, picking up parks or ditches, etc has nothing in the world to do with child labor laws. Its called community service. Volunteerism. I guess that not so many years ago, probably when you were young, your parents would have called it developing a solid work ethic.
April 12th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I’m guessing people will fall into three categories with regard to their feelings about this issue: 1) Appalled – these people got themselves into this mess. It’s not my job to bail them out. 2) Sympathetic – we can’t punish the children who are in these circumstances, so there’s no alternative but to bail the kids out and feed them. 3) Action oriented – this situation is real, but it is NOT OK, so what can we collectively do to make the systemic changes necessary to eliminate this problem.
There is a small part of me screaming inside, “What else will the schools need to take responsibility for in the future. A much larger part of me screams, “We have to help these children, not only because it’s the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective, but also from a selfish perspective – I do not want my future and the future of coming generations to be run by adults who grew up as malnourished kids, unable to learn the skills and develop the judgement necessary to lead a vibrant, healthy society because they grew up in a home and in a school district that did not assure they were adequately nourished.
The adult part of me and the citizen activist part of me screams, “What can we do to change the situation?” I participated last night in a group that is dedicated to making systemic changes when we feel something like kids not getting a dinner at home is just not OK. There is a process to doing this work. We know it’s not easy. The issues need to be clearly defined, research about the real causes needs to be done. A plan needs to be put in place and then action needs to be taken.
If you’d like to be part of this type of the movement, please let me know via email at jeanneschwartz.raac@gmail.com.
What is not OK is to simply be judgmental about people who are in desperate situations, whether or not the current situation is of their making or not. Who among us has not made a bad decision? More often than not, bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. It’s easy to throw darts when we haven’t walked in their shoes. We have created a society that is literally forcing more and more people into the arms of unemployment, homelessness, poverty and inability to be healthy due to lack of health insurance coverage. This is a very real trend. If everyone just stepped away, this trend will accelerate at a rapid rate, exacerbating the situation even more. At some point, we just have to say, NO! This is NOT OK, and take action to improve things. As a citizen of a democracy, it’s my job to make things better in order that I might be better.
Again, if you would like to be involved in learning to be powerful in making change happen in our society, please email jeanneschwartz.raac@gmail.com.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Chad – I think that contraception is a personal responsibility, too. Trust me, as a woman I used to have to think about it every day! People have sex, and it doesn’t make sense to deny it. We’re hardwired to do it. Stupid people, poor people, and teenagers (who are usually both stupid and poor!) have sex. Contraception is less expensive than children. I think that it is a much bigger burden for taxpayers to pay to raise a child than it is to pay for contraception.
But, that is my opinion. My point is that you can’t have it both ways. Mr. Limbaugh (and many others) seem to think that the best way of dealing with it is to deny that people are going to have sex. I bet that would go over like a bag of bricks in your average overpopulated third-world country: “Everyone! Just stop having sex! O.K.?!!!” I just think that it is one of many political paradoxes when it comes to dealing with poverty.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Community service shouldn’t be about child labor for food. It should be about helping the community. It’s filthy that we’re more concerned who’s paying for meals than we are concerned that people are starving in the richest country on Earth and asking what actions need to be taken to change rampant unemployment and poverty. We want a productive society.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It’s not government’s role to pay for X, Y, or Z. It’s not government’s role to dump money and tax cuts on one person hoping it’ll just trickle down or up. It’s not government’s role to make everyone completely equal in pay and abilities.
It’s government’s role to lift all boats as efficiently as possible by providing the infrastructure that makes our lives and work possible. Think government is useless? Where would you be today with no snowplows? What about no paved roads? It was Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the most famous fiscal conservative, who both argued that public education was necessary to the functioning of a Republic.
The best thing we can do is to make sure that all our children learn useful skills which will make sure that THEIR children do not starve. Our nation’s future depends upon the skills and success of poor minority children who are quickly becoming the majority. The achievement gap in Minnesota is about the future fate of our economy.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Alissa,
Thank you for the response, however your reasoning screams of appeasement. They are going to have sex anyway, and we cant depend on them to have the personal responsiblity to use contraception, so its now our responsiblity to provide it. I am sorry, the logic does not flow. Sadly, you can give out all the free or cheap condoms you want, and you can pay for women to be on the pill or not to be on the pill, and I would be willing to bet anything that it would have little to do with the birth rate among the poor people, stupid people, and teenagers in our society. These people are not having babies because they cant find a condom. They are having babies because it benefits them, or because, as you noted they are stupid and not thinking about responsiblity and consequences, and sadly, we are becoming more and more a nation that encourages this by stepping in and providing them with financial motivation to act this way.
Ms Fluke was not a person in the category you describe above. I would not say she is a stupid person, a poor person, or a teenager. She is a college educated woman with intelligence and motivation. The idea that I need to pay for her birth control is just silly. The idea that our govt should be able to tell a business or a church that they need to pay for her birth control is not the least bit logical or reasonable, and it does not have any basis in our constitution.
Jeanne, I applaud your action, and that you are trying to be a force for positive change.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Chad – if we don’t pay for their contraception, we’ll be paying for their children. One is a lot cheaper.
Hungry kids need to be fed. Should it be the school’s responsibility? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is, ever since the first lunch lady rolled into work, it became acceptable for us to pawn it off on the schools.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Again, back to Colin, I am not sure how having kids do homework, or pick up trash in the school yard, or help clean up a classroom, or even go pick up trash from a park or a mile of interstate has anything to do with child labor.
Cleaning up your community, learning work ethic, doing homework, and teaching that its better to work for what you get that to take handouts are not “filthy” ideas. Its “filthy” to me that we have come to a point in time that the idea that a child or teenager do chores of some kind would cause reasonable adults to bring up child labor laws or say that it is somehow “filthy.”
If you want a vibrant and productive society, teach people to work. Teach them the value of an honest days work. Teach them to depend more on themselves and less on our govt for handouts. And then help them get there.
April 12th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
One thing that may come into play is that some parents DON’T know how to shop properly. That may be one reason Food Stamps or the twice-a-month trip to the Food Shelf isn’t adequate.
When ABC showed Jamie Oliver’s show last year about the school lunch program, and he went out to a couple of families, it was evident they didn’t how how to shop or how to cook. They could buy & microwave stuff, but not shop for basic ingredients & make multiple meals out of those groceries.
April 12th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Dammit Bill, you should tweet me when topics of welfare come up on here. Now I feel it is way too late to wade in.
That said, they are fucking children. They aren’t feeding the parents. Get them food if they need food. Let’s do everything we can to give kids a chance. And if that means feeding them at school, let’s do it. And let’s support things like this, where food is sent home with kids on Fridays. http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/child-hunger/backpack-program.aspx
April 12th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
“I am at a loss for when it became a burden we as taxpayers should bear to pay for anyones contraception. I think Rush Limbaugh is a crazy loon, hate monger, bigot, hypocrite, and giant tub of crap, but seriously people, there has to be some baseline level of personal responsiblity.”
I’m not sure where taxpayers fall into the argument that private insurers should cover contraception and basic women’s health services. Forget about the fact that birth control pills aren’t just used to prevent pregnancy, nor are they only used by “dirty sluts” living it up on the taxpayers’s dime. Most of those same insurers already cover Viagra and Cialis, but I don’t hear any hand wringing and pearl clutching from the male talking heads on Faux News about some dude’s personal responsibility over his own erection. My insurance plan will also cover bariatric surgery, but it’s darned near imposible to get it to cover nutrition visits. It seems to me that everyone seems to be overly concerned about taxpayers and personal responsibility when it comes to female sexual health issues, but could give a rip about the fact that a portion of the premiums I pay for health insurance covers dick pills. Hmmm….I wonder why that is?
April 12th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Oh, and to the topic at hand, I absolutely believe that it’s a tragedy that any child in this country goes to bed hungry. No child should go hungry because we’re trying to prove a point to their parents.
April 13th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Kassie, I don’t think it’s too late. I’m sure people will be interested in your thoughts being that you’re on the front lines of it all.
April 13th, 2012 at 7:10 am
We’re already off topic, so here goes: Viagra _restores_ a normal bodily function. The pill _prevents_ a normal body function from occurring.
April 13th, 2012 at 7:11 am
Alie! We likely can’t agree as its clear this is nothing but a political and/or gender argument in your opinion.
I don’t think private insurance companies should be forced to pay for any of the things you mention. I think the should be allowed to choose what they cover, and price your premiums accordingly. They are PRIVATE companies. It’s amazing how many places that communism and socialism have failed, or are failing, and yet otherwise reasonable people jump right on board when they see something in it for themselves, or feel themselves slighted.
Kassie, you seem pretty fired up, but having just retread all the posts in this thread, we’re did anyone say that the children should not be fed?
April 13th, 2012 at 7:12 am
Sorry for the errors in the above post, autocorrect on the iPad had a mind of its own this morning.
April 13th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Chad, it’s all good. I try to avoid typing on my phone because of that issue. But I get to make edits after the fact ;-)
If you’d like edits made just shoot me an e-mail and I’ll fix them when I get around to it.
April 13th, 2012 at 8:10 am
J, what’s your point? That it’s somehow more morally palatable to restore a man’s erection than it is to allow a woman to control her reproductive future?
Chad, I don’t doubt that I’ll not be able to convince you as to why there should be gender parity in insurance coverage, even if that parity has to be mandated by the government. It’s a conversation I’ve had before, and I’m not really interested in clogging up Bill’s page with it. I’m willing to conceed that we’ll agree to disagree on this point.
Bill, sorry if you get this comment twice, I tried commenting with my iPhone, but it seems to not be working.
April 13th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Alie,
I dont disagree with you at all. There should be gender parity. None of it should be paid for if there is not a medical need. It should something the insurance companies decides if they want to offer (and price accordingly), and not something that is mandated by the govt. For either men or women.
You, and most everyone it seems, also miss the fact that insurance companies are businesses. I dont know what the pill costs, as its been more than 5 years since my wife and I had a need for that particular expense, however if you expect that your insurance company will happily pay out 50 or 80 bucks or whatever it is per month for your pills, you should also expect that your premiums will go up slightly more than that, as it is a for profit business. Or everyones premiums would go up a percentage of that, maybe 10 to 20 %, depending on the percentage of the population that the private insurance companies were mandated to begin covering.
In my opinion, this has nothing at all to do with gender inequality. Its a simple case of socialism at work. You want something, but you think someone else should pay for it.
Beyond that, I suppose we can just agree to disagree.
April 13th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Chad, you seem to have an either/or definition of our economy. In truth the U.S. and may other countries operate in a “mixed economy.” The U.S. is not a true capitalistic system, it’s a mixture of socialism and capitalism – not to the degree of some European countries, but a mix nonetheless. It’s a both/and condition, not an either/or economy.
A good tutorial for those who are curious can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Interesting discussion, this.
April 13th, 2012 at 10:41 am
I have an honest question that is probably going to sound sarcastic, but I seriously don’t know the answer.
If you work for the government, is your insurance company still a private company?
Also, J. Your comment is pretty stupid. Say what you want about birth control, but 90% of the people who take Viagra do not have a medical problem. They have ugly and/or fat partners that they can’t get it up for anymore. This is the primary cause of ED.
April 13th, 2012 at 11:33 am
“In my opinion, this has nothing at all to do with gender inequality. Its a simple case of socialism at work. You want something, but you think someone else should pay for it.”
But I am paying for it, in the form of premiums. I’m also paying for someone’s bariatric surgery, as well as another person’s delivery, as well as someone’s lung transplant. These are services I’ll probably never use, but my premiums still pay for them. And if you think your premiums are rising because insurers are covering more procedures, you’re really naive about the multi-billion dollar health insurance business.
April 13th, 2012 at 11:35 am
Lefty — I work for a local branch of gummint, and our health insurance is through HealthPartners. I think the federal government may act as its own insurance company, but state and local governments buy their insurance from private companies just like any other Big Employer.
April 13th, 2012 at 11:51 am
Lefty, it’s a good question. I’d argue that a company that gets a significant portion of revenue from taxpayers ceases to be a true private company at some point, and becomes quasi-private. I’d even say that a company that gets all or most of its revenue from taxpayers basically becomes an extension of government itself. Which would apply to a lot of industries besides insurance too, really. But I’m not sure where that point is.
Chad, socialism is a specific economic model, and as C&V said, the U.S. is a mixed economy, the same as Canada, Germany, the UK, and other nations.
April 13th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Alie, I dont want to come off as rude, but I have a fairly clear understanding of the the multi-billion dollar health insurance business. I have worked in different facets of insurance for the better part of the last decade, including compliance and claims. For what its worth I also understand how our economy works, and have a fairly clear understanding of how capitalism and free markets work, as well as the limitations and risks involved.
C&V and Tim, are you saying that because we already have a mixed economy, its cool for us to move to a more socialist model? Even while other countries, and possibly the entire EU are going bankrupt using this model? Shall we look to California and model the rest of the country around it?
There is no reason our govt should be able to legislate what a private insurance company is required to provide. In fact, if the policy has already been written, and was legal when written, its a legally binding contract. Others can certainly speak to this more clearly than me, but the govt cant just pass a law and say you have to change how you adminster an in force, legal contract.
Alie, speaking to your points, first I want to reiterate that I dont think the insurance companies should pay for Viagra, Ciallis, condoms, birth control, etc. For men or women. Bariatric surgery may be a different discussion because you are veering sharply into an area where if they say no, you are actually allowing the insurance company to dictate treatment which may be medically necessary, with possibly life threatening results. I would guess you can go out today and buy insurance that will pay for your Birth Control. As far as paying for someones lung transplant, and the things our premiums go toward, I have no issues, and feel that these are the reasons we all have insurance. Insurance is to protect us in times of medical emergency and provide coverage for those things that would otherwise likely financially ruin us. Sadly this now includes almost any type of hospital stay, but that, again, is due to the astronomical cost of health care. Insurance is not to pay for day to day things that are in no way medically necessary.
April 13th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
I don’t see Canada going bankrupt. Or Norway. Or Germany (their issues are external and not caused by their own spending). Or Japan. I’m sure I could find others if I did the research, but those are all off the top of my head. Not all countries are as poorly run as Greece. There are many other reasons why countries’ economies succeed or fail.
April 13th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“Bariatric surgery may be a different discussion because you are veering sharply into an area where if they say no, you are actually allowing the insurance company to dictate treatment which may be medically necessary, with possibly life threatening results.”
I’m sorry, but insurance companies pretty much do this already. I’ve worked with insurance companies from the provider side for 12 years now, and they pretty much do dictate the treatment you get based on what they’ve decided is or is not medically necessary and what procedures are categorically denied. If they deny payment for treatment and you decide if you want to pay out of pocket or you go without. Insurance companies absolutely dictate treatment.
April 13th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
“Insurance is not to pay for day to day things that are in no way medically necessary.”
Maybe. Depends on what your employer and the contracted insurance provider have worked out as covered benefits. Also, I’m pretty sure birth control is medically necessary for a lot of women who take it for other reasons than getting thier swerve on.
April 13th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Alie,
While my opinion means nothing, I would be all for an insurance company paying for a prescription for birth control pills if they were needed for some viable medical reason. I was under the impression this was already the case, as for several years my wife took them for both birth control and to help with migraine headaches, and she has indicated she remembers insurance covering them, but that was years ago.
Tim, Greece is certainly not the only country in a dire financial situation. Of the countries you named, Japan was probably the most interesting, and the most debatable in terms of how they are doing economically, as the last twenty years are referred to as the lost decades, and they are often pointed to as what we are trying to avoid (4 years into our own recession). But, they have an interesting health care system and some people say they are actually far more prosperous than reported.
That said, nothing is free. I am all for socialism if you figure out how to pay for it. We are broke as a country. We are actually far beyond broke. We are borrowing a large percentage of every dollar we spend. We have already raided the trust funds that support Social Security, effectivly putting in motion the biggest ponzi scheme in history. The well is dry. To give out more entitlents, you have to find more money, and I really dont think you can tax your way there.
April 13th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
“Insurance is to protect us in times of medical emergency and provide coverage for those things that would otherwise likely financially ruin us. Sadly this now includes almost any type of hospital stay, but that, again, is due to the astronomical cost of health care. Insurance is not to pay for day to day things that are in no way medically necessary.”
Not to get all grumbly, but catastrophic coverage does nothing to save people money on health care, IMO. The high cost of health care, if you ask me, is due to the broken HMO model of fee for service payment to providers. It’s a model that isn’t necessarily interested in investing money in keeping people healthy and out of the hospital. Extended hospital stays due to either preventable or unavoidable chronic illness is a big drain on insurance companies. It has been shown in studies done by my own employer that it’s far more financially advantageous to insurers to pay for services that keep people well, educate people about healthy choices, and prevent catastrophic illness requiring hospitalization.
Don’t even get me started on the legion of uninsured who’s only care plan is to utilize emergency room services (the cost of which is astounding) because they hold off on expensive preventative care until it’s too late. The cost of their care is either passed on to the taxpayer through County/State Services or to the average commercially insured patient (most hospitals absorb the cost of indigent patients through charity care, which in turn, drives up the unit cost of fee-for-service services).
Anyway, I’m going to shut up now, because this is what I pretty much do for a living and it’s the weekend and I have couch beers waiting for me.
April 26th, 2012 at 11:27 am
http://sunthisweek.com/2012/04/26/free-summer-meals-available-for-children-at-district-191-schools/