Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Children Deserve Veterinary Care Too

By Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbaraehrenreich.com. Posted August 11, 2007.


If Bush vetoes the SCHIP bill that would expand state health insurance coverage for children, the fallback demand should be: Open up pet health insurance to all American children now!
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This year, Americans will spend about $9.8 billion on health care for their pets, up from $7.2 billion five years ago. According to the New York Times, New York's leading pet hospitals offer CT scans, MRI's, dialysis units, and even a rehab clinic featuring an underwater treadmill, perhaps for the amphibians in one's household. A professor who consults to pet health facilities on communication issues justified these huge investments in pet health to me by pointing out that pets are, after all, "part of the family."

Well, there's another category that might reasonably be considered "part of the family." True, they are not the ideal companions for the busy young professional: It can take two to three years to housebreak them; their standards of personal hygiene are lamentably low, at least compared to cats; and large numbers of them cannot learn to "sit" without the aid of Ritalin.

I'm talking about children, of course, and while I can understand why many people would not one of these hairless and often incontinent bipeds in their homes, it is important to point out that they can provide considerable gratification. There's a three-year-old in my life, for example, who gives me many hours a week of playful distraction from the pressures of work. No matter how stressed I am, she can brighten my mood with her quavering renditions of the ABC song or "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star."

She has health insurance, as it turns out, and generally high quality care. But you can never be too sure. So I went to the website of VPI Pet Insurance, one of the nation's largest animal companion health insurers, to see what kind of a policy I could get for her. In the application form, I listed her as a three-year-old mixed breed dog -- a description made somewhat plausible by the fact that her first words, spoken at the remarkable age of 10 months, were "ruf ruf" and "doggie outside." When I completed the form and clicked to get a quote I was amazed to see that I get her a "premium" policy for a mere $33 a month.

But, you may be wondering, could a veterinarian handle common children's ills? On the hopeful side, let me cite the case, reported in June by Bob Herbert of the New York Times, of Diamonte Driver, a 12-year old boy who died recently from an abscessed tooth because he had no insurance and his mother could not afford $80 to have the tooth pulled. Could a vet have handled this problem? Yes, absolutely.

Or there's the case of 14-year old Devante Johnson, also reported by Herbert, who died when his health insurance ran out in the middle of treatment for kidney cancer. I don't know exactly what kind of treatment he was getting, but I suspect that the $1.25 million linear accelerator for radiation therapy available at one of New York's leading pet hospitals might have helped. The Times article also mentions a mixed breed named Bullwinkle who consumed $7,000 worth of chemotherapy before passing on to his reward. Surely Devante could have benefited from the same kind of high quality pet care, delivered at a local upscale animal hospital.

It may seem callous to focus on children when so many pets go uninsured and without access to CT-scans or underwater treadmills. But in many ways, children stack up well compared to common pets. They can shed real tears, like Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs. They can talk as well as many of the larger birds, or at least mimic human speech. And if you invest enough time in their care and feeding, they will jump all over you when you arrive at the door, yipping and covering your face with drool.

The Senate Finance Committee has approved a bill that would expand state health insurance coverage for children (S-CHIP) to include 3.2 million kids who are not now covered (but leaving about 6 million still uncovered.) Bush has promised to veto this bill, on the grounds that government should not be involved in health coverage. If Bush does veto the bill, the fallback demand should be: Open up pet health insurance to all American children now! Though even as I say this, I worry that the president will counter by proposing to extend euthanasia services to children who happen to fall ill.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, schip, child health care

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of thirteen books, including the New York Times bestseller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harpers, and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Apples and Oranges?
Posted by: aethr on Aug 12, 2007 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you really think $33 a month covers the use of that 1.25 million dollar linear accelerator? Does it even cover $7000 in chemotherapy? I bet it doesn't. You might find out what that $33 actually covers before you sign your child up. One thing to keep in mind - animals are good at hiding pain and generally don't get pain killers after surgery. If your child needs surgery (and the surgery is covered) do you want to listen to your child scream in pain without the uncovered pain killers for the days until the pain subsides?

Seriously, your position here makes no sense without a detailed analysis of what that $33 covers. Without that it's just propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Apples and Oranges? Posted by: luzmejor
» Rough Rough Posted by: logansafi
More crap from a poor author
Posted by: supercrisp on Aug 12, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want nationalized healthcare. But this article is plain silly. There are, I am sure, actuarial reasons that pet insurance cost what it does. Can't we get a little better coverage of a serious issue than this lazy and smart-assed fluff?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ehrenreich is a great author Posted by: drcyflowers
» More great writing from Ehrenreich Posted by: drcyflowers
1
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Aug 13, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comparison between health care for companion animals and health care for children has been done before. Besides being unoriginal, it is a red herring. Let's take a chunk out of the budget for the Department of War (calling it the Department of Defense is absurd these days) and pay for medical care for pets and kids. Or how about we increase the gas tax since air pollution contributes to respiratory problems?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is WRONG to allow the pet vs children divide !
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 13, 2007 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She should stop worrying about pets receiving better healthcare and focus on going on the offensive to push for better people's healthcare. As an earlier poster pointed out, it's long time to NATIONALIZE healthcare, not to mention quit burdening employers. The politicians and the business elitists are the ones holding up the loot, NOT the pets !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i like my dogs
Posted by: SekhmetsatRa on Aug 13, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i like my dogs better than my kids at the moment, but my kids have insurance and the dogs don't. of course, i have insurance because i have a union crap retail grocery job. if you realllly looked at the pet insurance, it doesn't cover ANYTHING. you pay, then, if they feel like it, reimburse you. no thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Humor is accepted
Posted by: DrSuess on Aug 13, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the Middle Ages- when no one was allowed to speak the truth- the only one who could speak was the court jester. We have reached that point. I catch the humor in this article- even as it makes me sad. It is a kind of cruel humor about something that is so tragic that nothing but cruel humor can capture it. We have bridges that are falling down- and the President says that we don't need to fix them. He hasn't figured out how to sell them to Corporations yet- so he has no policy yet on how to fix Americas infrastructure. He doen't want health care for children- because the insurance companies disapprove. It cuts into their profits. It is a tragic state of affairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

olliesmom
Posted by: olliesmom on Aug 13, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't anybody get this? I think it is right on target and pretty darn funny in such a sad way.

I do wish that people would start talking about health insurance for young adults as well as children. I have been confronted with the dilemma of my children (and now my grandchildren) being uninsured while in college and early in their careers. Twenty-somethings deserve and need the same medical care as anyone and may be the least covered group in the country. In fact, if I were not lucky enough to be working fulltime at a good job, at 60 I would fall into the unable to afford private insurance and too young for Medicare group. It is not just children being neglected. People are dying. Our system is a shambles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush and Euthanasia
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Aug 13, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Though even as I say this, I worry that the president will counter by proposing to extend euthanasia services to children who happen to fall ill."

Interestingly, Barbara, he already did. But only if the parents can't afford to pay for the treatment. As Governor, Bush signed into law a Texas bill (sponsored oddly enough by the National Right to Life committee), allowing hospitals to discontinue life-sustaining treatment from children without their parents consent.

According to HealthLawProf Blog, "this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient over the objections of the child's parent."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thanks for this link Posted by: porgygirl
vet drugs the same as people drugs--but 3/4 cheaper
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 13, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a farmer with livestock, I would like let people know about how much cheaper medicines are when bought for animals then for humans---even though they are exactly the same and made by the same company.

As an example: the antibiotic Amoxicillan. Recently I had an infection in my tonsils. Went to the doctor who looked down my throat for about 30 seconds (billed me $148 for that). Then prescribed Amoxicillan. I went to the pharmacy and got a bottle of 40 tablets costing to me $168. When I got home, I noticed something familiar about the bottle. I am a dairy farmer who sometimes has to treat baby calves for various things. I looked at the bottle of pills I use for this and sure enough it was the exact same bottle, label, mg strength, and antibiotic that I use for my calves. It was even made by the same company (Glaxo). I buy this from vet supply stores for $35.

Another example is the diuretic lasix. It is sometimes given to dairy cattle to reduce udder swelling. About 1/4 the price if purchased "for veterinary use" even though it is all made by the same company.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Folks, this is irony--get it?
Posted by: Mogio on Aug 13, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some bloggers are totally misreading Ehrenreich's piece and missing her point because of their misreading. Remember in high school when you learned all about mood and tone? Well, she is being ironic. Don't read irony literally, people. This discussion reminds me of Oscar Wilde's definition of irony: "Irony is what people don't get."

The main idea (you will have learned about that, too), which is indisputable here, is that many pets in the US receive better care that many kids do--in fact, better care than the 50 million folks with no health insurance. Politicians are hypocrits: they can find the money to blow up Iraq, but not to care for kids with cancer. So don't get 'blogged down' in petty sniping; keep your eyes on the big problem. And this is a big problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But of course....... Posted by: gellero
OMFG
Posted by: BobbieT on Aug 13, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have I accidentally stepped into a room of mentally challenged teenagers, or dour Republican spinsters who have no sense of humor?

Barbara Ehrenreich is a writer of humourous satirical political commentary. She is brilliant at what she does.

Anyone ever read Jonathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

Go find that, read it, then come back and read this again.

SHEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OMFG Posted by: Lady_L
I accept on one condition
Posted by: BlueTigress on Aug 13, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If she is suggesting that children be covered by pet health insurance, I want to be able to list our cats on our health insurance.

One is young and healthy and the other is an insulin-dependent diabetic senior citizen.

It cost us over $3000 in care for the cat we lost to kidney disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Martyrdom
Posted by: zyxwvut on Aug 13, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a 12-year old boy who died recently from an abscessed tooth because he had no insurance and his mother could not afford $80 to have the tooth pulled. . . .

Or there's the case of 14-year old Devante Johnson, also reported by Herbert, who died when his health insurance ran out in the middle of treatment for kidney cancer.


The callousness of Americans is incredible. These children died needlessly, worthlessly, rejected by a society that would not prioritize their lives, which could have been saved by relatively small amounts of money, above other priorities like buying new SUVs and yachts. The money we as a society spend on garbage could allay most of the suffering in the United States. But on the whole, we don't care about goals like that. Our goals are about personal aggrandizement, keeping up with the Joneses, all to prop up an unsustainable economic system (which will crash with global peak oil) and thereby appease the short-sighted whims of our ruling class.

I am sure many Americans don't give a damn about the needless deaths of these two very young people. Asked about it face to face, they would say they care. But there are millions who will regurgitate the GOP line that healthcare reform will put us on a slippery slope to communism and collapse.

Let me counter by saying the rage of the poor is growing exponentially. We are already on a slippery slope to revolution, especially because energy depletion will wreck our economy within a few short years. Our current course is pushing us toward collapse.

But in a society as callous as ours, collapse is a good thing. Our economy is driven by the basest human instinct: greed. We are all less human for living in it.

What the deaths of these two young people teach us is life in America is valuable insofar as it has an economic value. You are the number in your bank account. That's all that matters to society at large. Children are the most worthless people among us, therefore, because they have little money. They are even more worthless when their parents are poor.

To parents out there who are not afraid of catastrophe because their children have nice health insurance, know this. If your kid dies needlessly from a disease, society won't give a damn. You have the money in your family. The value of your child's life was only a reflection of the size of your bank account. And surely you won't stop participating in our consumer economy on account of your kid's death. Companies will get your money anyway, since it wasn't you who died.

You may think that since you have money, society smiles upon you. But they only approve of your money and could give a damn about you and your family. You are no exception to American callousness. If you someday lose your money, even by no fault of your own, you will be as worthless as any other sucker.

Profound changes to our society are coming in only a few years, ten at the most. They will disrupt our economy and thereby influence the whole social fabric. The primary dividing line in the ensuing conflicts will be socioeconomic class. Let these two boys, who were murdered by society's disregard, be martyrs for the struggle of the poor. Let the suffering the poor inflicts on the rich be callously disregarded - their lives mean nothing because they do not serve the poor's purpose.

The outcome is unknown. Maybe the poor will be subjugated even worse than they are now. Maybe there will be many phases of change, with power shifts at each stage. But fighting back is necessary. It can give meaning to the otherwise unvalued lives of the lowest members of American society, by ushering in a new value system based on the pursuit of capitalism's overthrow. Money is not to be valued in this struggle, but instead the sweat and blood sacrifices of revolutionaries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actuarial reasons?
Posted by: logansafi on Aug 13, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pet coverage is less because the hospitals are smaller for pets. This is a favorable factor in favor of having your child get covered as a pet IMO. I'll start feeding her tuna cat food today!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I get it... Satire... but the reality of it hurts!
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 13, 2007 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...When I completed the form and clicked to get a quote I was amazed to see that I get her a "premium" policy for a mere $33 a month.

In Canada 30$ per month is what you pay for people coverage...
Hubby and Wife doubles it to 60$, kids (1-100) is only 1$ more total not each... Also... most companies pick up half that cost leaving your monthly medical costs between 15-31$ which is also tax deductible!
extended healthcare up here is about 20-40$ per month which covers everything else not covered by medicare!

Look at the existing world models out there and you will see that YOUR Insurance and Pharma corportists and lobbists have to be reined mainly because...
PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE OF THEIR POLICIES... YES POLICIES...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get real... Posted by: gellero
» Reality check Posted by: Lady_L
» and where do you live again?... Posted by: Bearzerker
a little ridiculous
Posted by: nal on Aug 13, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure of the intent in this article... the lines drawn between pets and kids is kind of silly. Granted, it's written with that lilt to acknowledge it's ridiculous nature...... but, other than that - what's the point again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what's the whole story??
Posted by: gellero on Aug 13, 2007 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a kid's family can't afford the fee to get a tooth pulled, then the kid qualifies for FREE medical care in the USA. There's some part of this story that's missing. The foreigners who post here about how 'callous' our society is really don't know what they are talking about. Medical care is provided FREE to the lowest income levels of our country, ESPECIALLY children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And your planet is...? Posted by: Lady_L
Animals and Children Both Deserve Health Care
Posted by: normphelps on Aug 14, 2007 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am usually a fan of Barbara Ehrenreich's work, but I am afraid that she does belong to that large band of narrow minded, biased progressives who would exclude all sentient beings except human beings from the protections of our society. She once wrote a review defending hunting as a way for women to empower themselves, as if shooting harmless and helpless animals from ambush could legitimately empower anyone, male or female. Animals and children are equally susceptible to falling ill, sustaining injuries, and suffering pain and fear, and both are dependent on mercy of adult human beings. They are equally deserving of compassionate and comprehensive health care. Henry Bergh, who founded the first animal protection society in the United States (the ASPCA, in 1866) also founded the first child protection society (the American Society for the Protection of Children), and along with his lawyer, Elbridge Gerry, brought the first successful court action on behalf of an abused child, Mary Ellen Wilson, in 1874. Henry Bergh was a true progressive. He did not play one victim group against another, as Ms. Ehrenreich does, and he defended every deprived and abused being who needed his voice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Going out on a limb....
Posted by: aphrodite on Aug 16, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed the satire in this article, but agree it addresses a very serious problem facing this nation. I do have a problem with the examples used (mostly the first example of the child who died as a result of a tooth malady).

That being said, and with the risk of being censured by everyone who reads this, I dare to ask the question that no one dares ask: If a mother cannot afford an $80 life-saving medical treatment, what business does she have having children? While this may come of as incredibly harsh, I believe this would go along well with the author's comparison of children and pets. Many people would agree that if somebody does not have the financial means to upkeep an animal, they should not own a pet. Why are the rules different for children?

On the other hand, I question the doctor who diagnosed the malady, only to stand by and let the child die. Certainly this would go against the Hypocratic Oath every doctor must swear to, and it is even more shocking the doctor did not do the work pro-bono (or even eat the cost).

Also, there are organizations and charities available to help those who find themselves financially unable to cover the medical costs brought upon by a life-threatening illness (especially in the case of children). I am again surprised that medical professionals did not give referrals to these patients about such opportunities.

Lastly, as wonderful as a universal healthcare system may sound, it is worrisome that people are so willing to give away their healthcare to a bunch of politicians who are fed by drug companies! Make no mistake, even in Canada people pay for their prescriptions. Logically, it only makes sense for those who have chronic illnesses to want a universal healthcare system, as it would keep them for amounting an insurmountabe debt. For those who are healthy and visit the doctor once or twice a year, the tax burden would be more costly than private insurance. I could even imagine the drug companies lobbying for legislation to alter patent laws, making it less likely to have cheaper generics alternatives.

The two solutions I offer are as follows:

1) Voters demand their representatives rework the system so drug company subsidies no longer exist and a true free market is allowed to flourish, thus allowing insurance companies to compete equally for business (and driving the cost of coverage down) OR

2) We allow the government to devise a universal healthcare plan, but with pressure from citizens to not allow drug companies or bureaucrats interfere. The final plan would have to be then voted upon by citizens (and NOT other politicians).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement