When my daughter was three weeks old she was admitted to the hospital with a potentially life-threatening infection.  Thanks to the kindness and dedication of an amazing pediatric staff she recovered, and our family was able to breathe again. And then the bills came. And came.  And came.


Sitting at my kitchen table gasping as I opened one after the other, I thanked god for each cent I had to pay just to still have her here, but I wondered how I would find the money. It was only then that I truly grasped the truism “You can’t put a price on your child’s health.”


As health care reform has become a hot button issue, it is apparent to me that one of the problems with America’s ongoing debate is that an investment in healthy kids is discounted. Literally. All of the financial projections by lawmakers and the non-partisan and hugely influential Government Accounting Office calculate the costs of health care and the returns on preventive medicine over a nine-year period. Thus, we do not get an accurate accounting for a lifetime of good, comprehensive health care for a child born today –who will live about seventy years on average.


There is no denying the health care bills being debated in Congress are expensive, and I can’t say that I know if the methods for funding them are equitable and sage. But there is little debate that a life-long investment in children’s health is not represented by the current analysis. I think if it were, we might find that the high costs of universal care would be returned in the long run - beyond the nine-years projected by policy makers. And even more then the financial savings, the returns on individual and family happiness that come with long, healthy lives are incalculable. 


Policy makers need to calculate our kids so we can make a clear decision on what kind of reform will be best for us. Beyond nine year projections, we need to see analysis that will show us the costs and returns on a whole generation of children with timely and complete vaccinations, routine physicals, dental and vision care, behavioral health therapy, healthy diets, and equal access to emergency care like the care that saved my daughter’s life.


Do you agree that our leaders in Washington should calculate our kids so we can see a full portrait of what health care reform can offer us?



Jaime Morrison Curtis blogs at Prudent Advice for My Baby Daughter.




Showing the Latest of 2 Comments

US Senator Kirs...
2 yearss ago
To CMorhaim: Thank you. I am very excited to be participating. The proposals being discussed are complex, which has caused some confusion. Some, however, support the status quo and many oppose reform - some are purposely distorting the debate to mislead the public. The public option proposes a not-for-profit, quality, affordable alternative to private insurance companies. It is intended to create competition and offers an affordable option for those who want to buy in. The formulation I like the best is simply opening up Medicare for anyone to buy into at a percentage of one's income that's affordable - something like 5% of income. The not-for-profit public option is just that—an option without a profit motive. Americans should have several options to choose from, to find the best fit for their families. It is not, and never has been, a mandate. President Obama and supporters of the public option agree that if you are happy with your family’s current coverage, it is yours to keep. There is no proposal whatsoever for government to interfere with private coverage choices and personal or family health decisions. The point to remember during this debate, however, is that there are 2 primary goals for health reform: First, to lower costs for everyone because the rate of health care has increased nearly 4 times the rate of people's income over the last few years. Second, every American should have the right to access to affordable, quality healthcare. I think a Medicare for all type approach that people can buy into at 5% of income does both - it creates the needed competition to drive down costs, focuses our healthcare system on prevention not emergency room care, which also provides stuctural savings, and provides the much needed affordable access.
 
DenverMom
2 yearss ago
Can you please explain to me how private insurance agencies will be able to compete with a government agency that does not need to make a profit to survive? That will be able to print money in order to stay in business? On page 16 of the house bill it essentially makes it illegal for insurance companies to enroll new customers on the day that this bill goes into effect. The point is that they won't be able to stay in business. Which, if we are being honest, seems to be the goal of the current administration. Despite recent denials, Obama has stated many times that his goal is to have a single payer system. Barney Frank, Pelosi and many other leaders in the government have said the same. A single payer system would reduce the quality and quantity of care for EVERYONE. Also, many have estimated that up to 100 million people would lose their private insurance if this bill passes. What company wouldn't want to offload their health care expenses to the government? Especially when they are going to taxes and penalized for not doing so. The other issue is that our country cannot afford this right now. You say that many just oppose reform. I don't think that is it. Many support reform, but support it in the private sector. Why not start out with reforms that will not increase the deficit? Torte reform, opening up insurance companies to competing across state lines, eliminate pre-existing conditions, educating the uninsured about HSA accounts. HSA accounts are great, but Obama wants to shut them down completely. He also doesn't believe in tort reform. And while we are at it, there are many items in this bill that seem to have more to do with control than healthcare. In the bill it states that government agents will be able to come into my home to educate me about how to parent my children. It is ridiculous. I am praying this bill does not pass. And no, that does not mean I am opposed to reform. Just this kind of reform.