And it’s not just Florida women, though the following article from the Florida Sun Sentinel focuses on them.
Florida women dying from preventable causes New scorecard assesses health, reproductive care across nation By Cindy Krischer Goodman South Florida Sun Sentinel
Emergency rooms refused to treat pregnant women, leaving one to miscarry in a lobby restroom as front desk staff refused to admit her. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.
Florida women are dying from causes that are preventable, including breast and cervical cancer, pregnancy complications, and mental health conditions, according to a new national scorecard of women’s health released Wednesday.
The Commonwealth Fund’s scorecard assessed women’s health and reproductive care in the United States over the last two years to measure the consequences of state policy choices and judicial decisions that limit women’s access to health services and reproductive care.
The 2024 Scorecard on Women’s Health and Reproductive Care comes amid a March 2024 National Center for Health Statistics finding that women’s life expectancy is at its lowest since 2006.
Using 32 measures, The Commonwealth Fund, a private healthcare research foundation, ranks Florida in the bottom third of the country (39th) for how well the state’s healthcare system works for women ages 15 to 44.
Overall, Florida has a higher than the U.S. average rate of women who lack insurance, die while pregnant, give birth without prenatal care, and succumb to breast and cervical cancer.
“Our hope is that state policymakers can use this scorecard to identify and address gaps in care to guarantee that all women across the United States can live healthy lives with access to quality, affordable care, no matter where they live or what their background is,” said Joseph Betancourt, Commonwealth Fund president.
One of the biggest concerns highlighted in Florida’s low ranking is its high rate of uninsured women ages 19-64. It is one of 10 states that have not expanded eligibility for Medicaid and has had a problematic unwinding of pandemic-era Medicaid coverage that has left thousands of women either newly uninsured or with significant gaps in their coverage.
These ten states have not expanded Medicaid eligibility: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. All are “red” states, with the exception of Wisconsin, which is teetering on the edge.
The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid coverage to nearly all adults with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level. (In 2023, that equals $20,120 for an individual or $41,400 for a family of four.)
Not only would these states’ womenbenefit from the health care, but the state taxpayers would benefit financially from the federal matching funds.
It costs those states’ taxpayers money to deprive their poor of healthcare.
Why do they do it? Medicaid was originally established under Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as part of the Social Security Amendments. However, the significant expansion of Medicaid occurred under President Barack Obama with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka “Obamacare”) in 2010.
Since its enactment in 2010, there have been at least 70 Republican-led attemptsto repeal, modify, or otherwise curb the ACA.
The ACA extends health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
It expands Medicaid eligibility, creates a Health Insurance Marketplace, prevents insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions, and requires insurers to cover a list of these essential health benefits:
Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care you get without being admitted to a hospital)
Emergency services
Hospitalization (such as surgery and overnight stays)
Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth)
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy)
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (services and devices to help people with injuries, disabilities, or chronic conditions gain or recover mental and physical skills)
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care/
But, Donald Trump hates Barack Obama. So, today’s Republicans would rather cost their taxpayers money and see their poor people, especially women, sicken and die than disobey Trump.
Women in states like Florida that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility report skipping health care at higher rates than in states with expanded eligibility.
The scorecard shows 22% of women ages 18-44 reported a time in the past 12 months when they needed to see a doctor but could not because of cost.
“One out of six women in Florida lacks health insurance,” said David Radley, senior scientist, Tracking Health System Performance, The Commonwealth Fund.
He notes the state also has a high percentage of women who don’t have a primary care doctor. A regular provider can help manage chronic medical conditions, conduct screenings and test for diseases.
“To me. the takeaway is if you can get access into the health care delivery system in Florida, you can probably get pretty good care.
“But if you can’t get access, you are going to feel it in your health and life expectancy.
“If you dont have that doctor to go to who understands your circumstances, you are not as likely to get the things you need to help you live a long life,” Radley said.
Overall, the scorecard’s findings raise concerns over the ripple effects of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the access to reproductive health care services.
The six Republicans on the Supreme Court all voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite its being “settled law” for 50 years.
All but Clarence Thomas emphasized their belief in the importance of “settled law” when specifically asked about Roe during their confirmation hearings. They lied.
A recent South Florida Sun Sentinel series, Born to Die, found expecting mothers in Florida, particularly those without insurance, are foregoing prenatal care leading to high rates of infant deaths and premature births.
The high rates of already-born infant deaths plus women’s deaths demonstrate the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion politicians.
Now, some states have proposed or enacted legislation aimed at restricting access to specific types of contraception, such as emergency contraceptives (e.g., Plan B) and intrauterine devices (IUDs).
(“We won’t let you prevent pregnancy. We won’t let you get health care during pregnancy. We won’t let you abort. And we won’t support you afteryou give birth. Gotcha!”)
It’s all politics. They care nothing for taxpayers’ money. They care nothing for life.
The people, including pregnant women and already-born babies, are expendable.
Highlights from the Scorecard include various health trends that affect women’s care in Florida: States like Florida with abortion restrictions tend to have fewer maternity care providers. Several dozen hospitals in Florida already have closed their labor and delivery units.
Women of reproductive age in states like Florida that had not expanded Medicaid eligibility were most at risk of going without coverage, as well as skipping needed care because of cost.
Nearly all states have witnessed an upward trend in syphilis among women of reproductive age since 2019. Florida’s rate is higher than the national average.
Rates of maternal deaths are highest in the Mississippi Delta region, which includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
All four states had abortion restrictions prior to the Supreme Court overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, and they all now have full abortion bans.
Florida’s strict six-week abortion ban went into effect on May 1.
Deaths among women ages 15 to 44 were highest in southeastern states (which includes Florida). Top causes of death included preventable factors such as pregnancy complications, substance use, COVID-19, and breast or cervical cancer.
Death rates from all causes per 100,000 women of reproductive age ranged from a low of 70.5 in Hawaii to 203.6 in West Virginia.
Florida’s death rate is 114.
Southeastern states tend to be Republican. Hawaii is Democrat; West Virginia is Republican.
“Overall, there are mounting disparities in women’s health and reproductive care across the United States,” Radley said.
“Some states have built the policies up in ways to enable access to health care and some haven’t.
If you can’t afford to have healthcare, and especially if you are a woman, pray that you live in a blue state. Otherwise, there is an increased probability you and your children will die sooner than you should.
Florida is a state that has a large low-income population and a lot of people with no health insurance. And, they are less likely to get the care they want or need going forward.
We are finding that the state of heathcare for women is in a fragile place.”
Bottom line: The Republican-controlled Supreme Court voted to end Roe v. Wade. Republican-controlled states ban abortion. Republican-controlled states try to ban contraceptives. Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid.
Women receive worse health care, sicken earlier, and die younger in Republican-controlled states.
South Florida Sun Sentinel health reporter Cindy Goodman can be reached at cgoodman@sunsentinel.com.
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressedand the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Primum non nocere
It means, “First, do no harm,” and it is the primary principle of bioethics. It means, “Given any medical situation, it is better to do nothing than to do something that causes more harm than good.”
That concept is the key element of the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath. It is the fundamental of medicine.
And it is what the Republicans have ignored in their efforts to erase everything “Obama.”
For the Republicans, the motto seems to have been, “Pass anything that eliminates ‘Obama,’ anything the rich like, and anything that won’t get the voters too angry — and to hell with the lower income people the program was designed to help.”
‘What other explanation can you offer for the 7-years-in-the-making plan the Republicans have put forward?
Here are some excerpts:
“What’s in the House Republicans’ replacement plan?” 3/8/17, Chicago Tribune, By Noam N. Levey
Washington Bureau, WASHINGTON — House Republicans have finally unveiled legislation to repeal and — just as important — replace the Affordable Care Act.
Here’s a short guide to what’s in the Republican plan and what it could mean for Americans’ health coverage:
Obamacare required Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The penalty is assessed annually when people file their taxes.
How it would change: The tax penalty is eliminated. But the Republican bill still penalizes people who don’t get insurance. If consumers allow coverage to lapse for as long as two months, insurers would be required to charge them a 30 percent penalty when they buy a health plan.
That penalty could discourage many people from getting new coverage if they lose their plan.
As you regular readers know, the Obamacare penalty and the “Trumpcare” penalty, both are based on the “Big Lie” — the lie that ourMonetarily Sovereign federal government cannot afford to pay for healthcare, so the people must pay.
(The federal government never can run short of dollars. Can you?)
The Republican plan is more onerous for the poorest among us; it will prevent them from receiving any insurance, and thus, from receiving healthcare. The Republican plan will make America sicker.
Poor adults without children were barred from Medicaid coverage in most states. Obamacare tried to change that by offering states billions of dollars to expand Medicaid to childless adults. Thirty-one states have done so.
That has helped millions of low-income Americans get health coverage over the last several years.
The House GOP plan would phase out the additional federal money that has helped states expand their Medicaid programs.
The GOP plan would give each state a fixed amount of money every year for every person who qualifies for Medicaid. Many advocates and medical groups fear that change would force states to scale back coverage.
The sole purpose of the Republican change is towiden the Gapbetween the rich and the rest, by helping the Monetarily Sovereign federal government save money (which doesn’t need saving), and by charging poorer people more money.
(In the Republican plan), insurers would now be able to charge older consumers five times more than younger consumers.
If you are poor and old — the very people who most need healthcare support — what are you supposed to do about unaffordable insurance and unaffordable healthcare charges? This is yet another Gap-wideningeffort by the “party of the rich.”
One of the most important features of the current law are insurance subsidies that are available to low- and moderate-income people who use the marketplaces to get coverage.
Subsidies are linked to consumers’ incomes, so people who earn less get bigger subsidies.
Subsidies also are pegged to how much insurance plans cost. That means that if health plans are very expensive in one market, the subsidies in that market are larger. There are huge variations in how much health care costs around the country. So people who live in higher-cost areas are protected.
Subsidies are automatically applied to consumers’ monthly insurance bills, so low-income people don’t have to pay a large premium every month and then wait for a rebate, something that can be difficult for consumers.
The House plan completely scraps Obamacare’s subsidy system. Instead, Americans who don’t get coverage through an employer would qualify for a tax credit based on how old they are.
Older consumers would get larger credit, as much as $4,000 annually for people over 60. And younger consumers would get a smaller credit, as little as $2,000 for people younger than 30.
Linking the credit to consumers’ age risks leaving lower-income consumers without enough financial aid to buy a health plan.
And because the subsidies would increase annually at a rate slightly above inflation, they risk not keeping up with rising health insurance premiums.
In total, the above subsidy cuts reduce federal government payments by reducing support for the lower-income consumers.
Ultimately, all consumers would pay more for medical insurance than they now pay, but the poor are punished most.
Obamacare’s architects cobbled together a mix of taxes to offset the cost of subsidizing insurance for tens of millions of low- and moderate-income Americans. –
The House Republican plan scraps all Obamacare taxes. That’s a big tax cut for the medical device and insurance industry.
It’s also a large tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers, who would no longer be subject to the Medicare payroll surtax.
Obamacare was based on the fiction (“The Big Lie”) that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government cannot afford to pay for healthcare. (Fact: Even if all federal taxes were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.)
As with virtually all facets of the Republican plan, the purpose is threefold:
To save money, unnecessarily, for the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.
To save money for the insurance and medical device industries.
To widen the Gap between the rich and the rest by costing the lower income groups more and/or by eliminating healthcare coverage for these groups.
Other than the above, the plan is “change-for-the-sake-of-change,” to eliminate anything related to Obama, despite the damage caused to America.
Obamacare is not a good plan. It is based on “The Big Lie” of federal unaffordability. But the Republican plan is horrible. Ironically, it will hurt most those lower income people who formed the basis for Trump’s following.
But perhaps the ultimate irony is that the party-of-the-rich tries to reduce federal spending, not seeming to get the fact that federal spending is economically stimulative, thus helping business.
See Step 2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below):
The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity: 1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA ) Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons: *FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and *The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare. 2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All ) This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:
Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap. 8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.
The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
The Republican plan is more onerous for the poorest among us; it will prevent them from receiving any insurance, and thus, from receiving healthcare. The Republican plan will make America sicker.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 