I normally don't comment on issues related to welfare and Medicare. But whenever I read that parents can't be expected to pay the smallest amounts, or make the smallest efforts, to ensure their health, or the health of their children, I am just stunned:
Many Washington residents easily part with $5 a day at their local coffee shop. For others, $5 means they'll be able to buy groceries, pay the electricity bill, or get school supplies for their children. In the next 10 days, legislators will decide whether poor families can afford $5 a month in Medicaid premiums for their kids. Both sides of the debate agree it's a question of responsibility.
Republicans say poor families should take responsibility for paying at least something for their children's health care. But Democrats say premiums will force families to drop out of Medicaid. They argue the state should take responsibility for making sure poor kids get health care.
Annette Hensley, 43, says that if the Legislature imposes premiums she will do whatever it takes to pay them and keep her 14-year-old on Medicaid. "It would put a big strain on us," said Hensley, whose family income is about $25,000 a year. "Something would have to go. I don't have cable, so probably the Internet. Maybe my cellphone."
I assume the reporter, limited by space, thought this one quote was the one that would generate the most sympathy from readers. But I'm just left wondering why someone who has a computer and an Internet connection and a cellphone considers it a "big strain" to pay $5.00 a month for Medicaid for her child. Does she consider the need to surf the web more important than medication?
Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, the Senate's chief budget writer, says taxpayers can't afford to give Medicaid families a free ride. He noted that premiums wouldn't cost more than 1 percent of Medicaid families' income. He and other Republicans said they believe parents will be able to pay.
"Just because people are poor does not mean they are stupid," Sen. Linda Parlette, R-Wenatchee, said on the Senate floor. "I am sure they will choose to have their children covered by health care and pay that premium rather than having a Big Mac at McDonald's."
Her comments prompted an "oooh" of disapproval from the Democratic side of the Senate.
"Disapproval" because someone said that poor parents aren't stupid and would be willing to spend the five bucks on something this crucial? Are we to assume that the Democrats really do think poor parents are stupid?
The problem with premiums isn't just the expense, it's the hassle, said Jon Gould, deputy director of the Children's Alliance, a statewide child-advocacy organization. The state Department of Social and Health Service does most business by mail. Many poor families lack checking accounts and would have to pay by money order each month. There are no credit-card payments, online bill-paying or direct-withdrawal plans.
Money orders cost 85 cents at the post office, which even poor people have in their towns. And if most poor people don't have checking accounts, then it makes sense that the system is not set up for online bill paying or credit card payments. The system is set up to accomodate people who can mail in money orders. That's 85 cents plus a stamp. Is the assumption that poor parents are by definition too lazy or stupid to do that? Or is the assumption that poor parents cannot be expected to endure any sort of hassle whatsoever, even for something as crucial as health insurance?
Must be something in the water of the Northwest; last year I posted about how people in Oregon aren't expected to be able to mail in six bucks for their own health coverage. And now parents in Washington are not expected to give up their cellphones in order to afford a $5 Medicaid premium.
To me, this isn't about money. It's about removing entirely the responsibility that parents have to ensure the health of their children, and removing entirely the assumption that even the poor must get their act together in order to safeguard their health. And that seems to me to be very similar to the "soft bigotry of low expectations," where poor kids are considered to be entirely a product of their income, and can't be expected to perform up to the same level as other children in school.
(Via Best of the Web and their "World's Smallest Violin" feature.)
Update: Sharkblog has more:
Would spending $5 a month on health coverage prevent a lower income family from buying food for their children? The most recent USDA survey of American food intake reveals that the average child (6-11) in a family with income below 130% of the poverty level consumes each month 13.5 cans of carbonated beverages, 2 pounds of "cakes, cookies pastries, pies" and 12 oz. of "crackers, popcorn, pretzels, corn chips". [look at the numbers for average daily intake in grams and do the math] At my local Safeway that costs $8.12 assuming store brand cookies and a 2-for-1 special on Doritos. I imagine that even most poor families can afford $5 a month for their children's health care if they manage their budget responsibly.
Posted by kswygert at March 1, 2004 05:21 PM