California's Poor Children Can Only Dream of Octuplets' Care
Nadya Suleman is lucky. The health care and treatment of her octuplets will be paid for almost exclusively through state programs. That is through a mix of disability, welfare payments, and Medi-Cal. That's just the start. She's even put up a website soliciting private donations for the kid's care. If her luck holds she may get a fat payoff from a TV reality show or book deal. No such luck for California's nearly 1 million uninsured children. There's no multi-million dollar TV reality show or book deal bailout on tap to pay for their health care.
The overwhelming majority of them are low income, black and Hispanic, and they live in a single parent household. Their numbers could grow bigger, and their health needs greater.
In a comprehensive study in 2006 of children's health care needs, the Children's Defense Fund found massive disparities between the health care and treatment minority low income and white middle class children receive in single parent homes. Poor children in single parent homes are more likely than white children to have an unmet medical need, have a regular place to receive medical care, and have a serious disability that needs specialized treatment.
They must rely solely on understaffed, underserved, county hospitals, clinics, and health facilities for their pediatric, neonatal, and ongoing care. In addition, more than 150,000 children exclusively depend on California's Healthy Families Program to cover the costs of their health care. And that program is in trouble. Last year it came close to running out of money. It got an eleventh hour reprieve when First 5 California pumped in a cash infusion of nearly $17 million. First 5 California was created a decade ago with a portion of the tobacco tax money California gets to improve health care for poor working families. The stop gap money from California First 5 was earmarked to continued to enroll children under age 6 in the Healthy families Program.
The program is not out of the funding woods. The cash it pumped in was an emergency infusion. The Healthy Families Program as other state funded programs is held hostage to California's budget deadlock.
When California eventually enacts a budget it still may not help thousands of poor children. A GOP plan to cut state spending would take $6 billion from funds voters approved to boost healthcare for children and the mentally ill to pay other state bills. This includes cutting more than $2 billion from California First 5. Program officials have already said that if that happens they'd have to slash the number of families that they could enroll in the program.
The recent Congressional passage of the State Children's Heath Insurance Program will help thousands of working parents who can't afford private health insurance but are ineligible for Medicaid Children's Health Care to meet health care costs. With budget belt tightening, escalating health care costs, and shrinkage in the number of public health facilities, poor children will continue to be grave risk to fall victim to diminished funding and access to timely health care coverage.
Suleman is a single mother with no income. In theory anyway, she could easily be one of the thousands of poor working mothers who are totally dependent on state programs for her children's health care. And as with many of them, this would also put her at grave risk of falling victim to ongoing funding cuts and lack of access to health care facilities as other low income and working mothers. She racked up a tab that could run to near a million dollars in hospital bills for the children. Medi-Cal almost certainly will be required to pay the more than $9,000 per day to reimburse the hospital for their care. The total bill for their care could soar much higher. As long as the funding dollars are there, Suleman's eight will continue to get paid care by state health programs. Thousands of other poor kids may not be so lucky.
She says she's not a welfare case, and neither will her children be. But the hard reality is that without taxpayer dollars the top quality care they got would not have been there.
The massive press attention, public controversy, her compelling and even shocking story, insures that she and her children aren't likely to get shut out of access to ongoing health care for her children as many other poor children. Suleman's octuplets will have the type of health care and coverage that thousands of other poor children only dream of.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Could it be that this whole Suleman thing is a media scam to turn us against the "welfare queens" (while the REAL welfare recipients rob us blind)?
The more I look at it the more everything just seems REALLY fishy. Follow the money. Who is her "publicist"???
Think about it...
You have to take Earl for who he is. Obviously, like most who take this Liberal approach, he is not facing ALL the reality.Let's put this thing in it's proper perspective. Earl seems to believe WHITE folks have some kind of advantage in our society. While this view may have had some merit many years ago, truth is that nowadays WHITES are becoming the MINORITY! That being the case, although the positions have reversed themselves, the benefits, rewards, quotas, tax breaks, availability to welfare, food stamps etc. have not! The NEW minority did not gain anything but LOSS in this reversal of roles. What was fine and well when one group was the minority is no longer acceptable to that group when they find themselves as the PAYOR as oppossed to the PAYEE. We should ALL share in the benefits, privileges and rights as Americans and not simply live out our time on this earth expecting and demanding that one class of folks owes the others for past indecretions, whether real or perceived.
Assistance for children is necessary when parents are not able to care for them in our society. This is an unfortunate fact that some may use the system rather then take responsibility for their decisions (i.e. Shulman). A child does not choose to be born to a particular family and shouldn't be penalized for their parents' misjudgment. I believe government was created to ensure a just society and as a Christian taking care of those who may be less fortunate than ourselves is our obligation. As Michelle Obama said yesterday in visiting with teenagers 'we must give back what we've been given.' Personally I'd rather have my tax dollars helping those who need it than the rich banks who've been rewarded for being greedy.
"Those who need it" are the California Department of Social Services, not a mom who can afford 6 expensive IVF treatments in a Beverly Hills clinic, plastic surgery, and schooling for a master's degree.
She said she's done having kids, but she also said she doesn't take any taxpayer money. Uhm, what about her disability payments, her 3 children's disability payments, food stamps, whatever low income aid or grants she received to go to school (not counting the school loans she used to support her family), and the million dollar plus hospital bill that Medicaid will soon pay?
Whether it's calculated or an illness, this woman is not putting the needs of her children before her own, financial or emotional. Seriously, send your donations to CSS. And then plea with CSS to Free the Whittier 8 and take them away from this crazy mom.
Earl, for the most part I agree with your posts and while I agree with this one, you made what I hopefully consider to be a mistake when you said; "Poor children in single parent homes are more likely than WHITE children to have an unmet medical need, have a regular place to receive medical care, and have a serious disability that needs specialized treatment." Poverty is not racist; it is an equal opportunity disaster. You should be speaking out for ALL children who must live in poverty.
I agree with you can poverty is an equal opportunity disaster. But I think he was referring to the "comprehensive study in 2006 of children's health care needs by the Children's Defense Fund ".
SCHIP provides coverage to children of parents making up to four times the poverty level.
How much more of my money do liberals want to take to pay for the care of other people's children?
They had the children, let them care for them.
Just curious...Do you consider yourself a Christian? Because if you do, I think you need to examine either your faith or your selfishness.
"Are there no workhouses, no orphanages.....If they are to die, then let them die, and reduce the surplus population"
-Paraphrase of Ebeneezer Scrooge's screed from "A Christmas Carol".
Why don't you keep your judgements to yourself?
Taking from me and funding programs isn't charity.
Too many girls and boys rationalize their irresponsible baby making. When I was a girl I remember another very young woman saying that she was going to have a baby and get welfare. Kids deserve two loving parents who under normal circumstances don't have to depend on the gov for a hand out. The gov is for a hand up at times not a hand out.
Thank you for this info on the what appears to be unfairness in Cal's assistance programs. The minority children you mention in your article need just as much care as Suleman's 14 children and should be provided with proper health treatment even when their parents can't afford it.
My question about this Suleman case regards the doctors who did all the in-vitro procedures for her. Did public assistance pay for this too? If so, Cal needs to look into this seriously.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
