Living in red states bad for kids' health
Categories: Health & safety
The Every Child Matters Fund recently released a report in which they ranked the childrens' health of all 50 states. They found that kids living in the bottom ten states -- all states that voted for George W. Bush in 2004 -- were "twice as likely to die by age 14" than children in the top 10 states.
States were ranked based on their rate of death before the teen years, lack of adequate prenatal care, low birth weight, lack of insurance, and seven other factors -- combining the measures to create an overall child health ranking.
So why do Republican states score lower? According Michael Petit, head of the ECMF, "In red states, children have been hit hardest by an antitax, antigovernment ideology. And that ideology translates into less money available to spend to child health." Rhode Island spends $160 per capita on child welfare programs, while Mississippi spends only $20.
Petit proposes universal health insurance to solve the problem, but Republicans aren't so sure. "The solutions are not more government, but more power for the individual," says Nina Owcharenko, a policy analyst at a conservative Washington D.C. think tank.
What do you think? Is the government meeting your child's healthcare needs?
Recent Posts
- Cellphones and children - What age is appropriate? (9/05/2008)
- Bedtime routines - What's yours? (9/05/2008)
- Chicago students skip school in protest (9/05/2008)
- A convention is NO place for a baby! (9/05/2008)
- What women want (9/05/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ann Adams 1-26-2007 @ 11:47AM
I just wrote a comment on a post about pediatricians that tied in with this.
The girls are technically "wards of the court". I'm their legal guardian and have been for most of their lives. All their medical expense is paid by the state. We couldn't have done it otherwise.
They receive good medical care. I almost never have to wait for an appointment, the clinic is connected to our only hospital and well run.
We usually see a nurse practioner who has known the girls forever. I have nothing to complain about.
Elcie, who has had ongoing medical problems due to her cerebral palsy, has received everything she needs. We have a host of agencies involved and they do good work.
I also live in one of the bluest of the "blue" states - California.
Reply
Anna V. 1-26-2007 @ 12:17PM
Wow. You know, being a military family, we get free health care, provided by the government, via the Navy. It's crap. We seriously get what we pay for. I busted my knee a few weeks back, and had to wait over a week to see a doctor about it. Of course, we use it because it's there; we're cheap like that.
It's not the government's job, however, to pay for the average citizen's healthcare. Their job to run the country, not coddle it.
For the record, we live in Virginia. All this red state/blue state stuff is crap. I mean, look at Mass... that's a blue state with a Republican governer. I know you're quite liberal, but seriously, do you have to interject politics into everything? It would have sufficed to say that states with a lower per-capita income suffer from higher childhood mortality rate than states with a higher per-capita income. After all, who knows if the families affected are even 'red' to begin with.
Reply
Dana 1-26-2007 @ 12:49PM
Yep I agree with Anna, I find that extremely petty that you've compaired health to red or blue states. It's almost funny !
Reply
Jonathon 1-26-2007 @ 1:04PM
For the record, I didn't make that comparison, the Every Child Matters Fund did.
Reply
Ethel 1-26-2007 @ 1:32PM
I do think that it is the government's business to provide health care for children. It is all of our business that all children are well cared for, when our children (and the countries children are all our children) are not cared for it costs much more in the long run. To be fiscally responsible we need to make sure kids are as healthy as can be, because there is a strong link with health neglect and future criminal activity as well as decreases in adult productivity.
What do you want? To pay for more and more prisons as well as adults who are not as healthy as they could be had they had the proper health care as children or to pay for health care for kids now? A big bill vs. chump change, and that is why "Rhode Island spends $160 per capita on child welfare programs, while Mississippi spends only $20." IS a blue vs. red state issue. It isn't a simple issue, but J.C., this highlights an obvious answer!
Reply
Jenny 1-26-2007 @ 1:58PM
I find comparisons like "a red state" kind of useless. Indicting a state for voting for GWB doesn't really help find solutions for the children of that state (and I didn't vote for him, though I do live in a "red" state). 8 of the 10 worst states are southern states, and my bet is that they have been in the bottom states since long before the last election. States like Mississippi (the bottom) have been poor a long time.
I'd find it more useful to look at the states that have changed ranking in order to determine what kind of programs help children, and perhaps to look at channeling more federal money to poorer states.
In the meantime, if anyone wants to help existing programs, look for "Community Health Services" in your town. Many of these are small 501c3 organizations which get a little government money but rely on donations for many of the services they provide to children. I know, my sister works for one.
Reply
SKL 1-26-2007 @ 2:47PM
You fail to point out that over two-thirds of the states are red states. That kind of skews the results.
We should be paying attention to local politics, not national politics, in this kind of discussion. Don't make the assumption that it's the same thing. The home states of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are consistently among the worst performers; the ultra-liberal home state of Barack Obama isn't much better on many measures. Those folks got their start in state politics, so let's not assume that democratic / liberal lawmakers are the cure-all to child health issues.
I found it most interesting to look at how the states fared on the individual items, rather than overall. There is a great inconsistency across different indicators. Alaska, for example, was near the top for some measures and near the bottom for others. Therefore, study of each factor would be more useful than an overall comparison. Especially since one could argue the relevance of some of the factors included in the study.
Reply
Jason 1-26-2007 @ 4:39PM
Even though other people have already said it in the comments, I'll say it again. The government is not obligated to provide anyone, anywhere health care at any time. Your are responsible for your own health.
http://www.trommetter.com/log/archives/2005/12/16/libertarian-health-care/
Reply
Sharon 1-29-2007 @ 3:34PM
Amen, Ethel!
Reply