… And Health Care for All: Immigrants in the Shadow of the Promise of Universal Health Care

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrianne Ortega

President Obama’s ambitious universal health care plan aims to provide affordable and accessible health care for all. The plan to cover the estimated 46.5 million uninsured, however, ignores the over thirty million non-citizens living in the United States. If the United States passes universal health care coverage, Congress should repeal the prohibitions of the Welfare Reform Act, extend Medicaid coverage to non-citizens, and allow non-citizens to purchase employer-based insurance coverage.President Obama’s plan follows the lead of state universal health care legislation by retaining private, employer-sponsored insurance coverage and expanding the eligibility requirements of the Medicaid program. This strategy will not aid uninsured immigrants or overburdened states and hospitals, though, because current law excludes most non-citizens from nonemergency health care services.

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Barstow

More than 60 years after President Truman wrote those words and nearly 100 years since health insurance was proposed by Teddy Roosevelt, the United States has joined the rest of the developed nations in initiating a health care system aimed at establishing universal insurance coverage. President Barack Obama and his colleagues in the House and Senate succeeded where many, many others failed, but just barely. The legislation, described as "similar in scope to Great Society and New Deal programs," was enacted "without the benefit of the congressional majorities of those eras" (Oberlander, 2010). For some health care advocates, the law was a disappointment, as it missed opportunity to establish a "public option" for health insurance, a publicly financed and operated program similar to Medicare to provide broad coverage. For others, the legislation constituted the transformation of the United States into a socialist state, somehow endangering America's "freedoms." The reality is that the new law keeps the predominant role of private insurance coverage and welds it to a new framework of rules, investments in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of care, and a strengthened public health sector to establish a more rational system. The law will have a significant impact oi:i counselors as both consumers and providers of health care services, and its enactment has implications for counselor advocacy.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Barstow

More than 60 years after President Truman wrote those words and nearly 100 years since health insurance was proposed by Teddy Roosevelt, the United States has joined the rest of the developed nations in initiating a health care system aimed at establishing universal insurance coverage. President Barack Obama and his colleagues in the House and Senate succeeded where many, many others failed, but just barely. The legislation, described as "similar in scope to Great Society and New Deal programs," was enacted "without the benefit of the congressional majorities of those eras" (Oberlander, 2010). For some health care advocates, the law was a disappointment, as it missed opportunity to establish a "public option" for health insurance, a publicly financed and operated program similar to Medicare to provide broad coverage. For others, the legislation constituted the transformation of the United States into a socialist state, somehow endangering America's "freedoms." The reality is that the new law keeps the predominant role of private insurance coverage and welds it to a new framework of rules, investments in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of care, and a strengthened public health sector to establish a more rational system. The law will have a significant impact oi:i counselors as both consumers and providers of health care services, and its enactment has implications for counselor advocacy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
John F. Brehany ◽  

Since their inception in 1948, The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) have guided Catholic health care ministries in the United States, aiding in the application of Catholic moral tradition to modern health care delivery. The ERDs have undergone two major revisions in that time, with about twenty years separating each revision. The first came in 1971 and the second came twenty-six years ago, in 1995. As such, a third major revision is due and will likely be undertaken soon.


Author(s):  
Jeanine Kraybill

The American Catholic Church has a long history in health care. At the turn of 19th century, Catholic nuns began developing the United States’ first hospital and health care systems, amassing a high level of professionalization and expertise in the field. The bishops also have a well-established record advocating for healthcare, stemming back to 1919 with the Bishops’ Program for Social Reconstruction, which called for affordable and comprehensive care, particularly for the poor and vulnerable. Moving into the latter part of the 20th century, the bishops continued to push for health care reform. However, in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade (1973), the American bishops insisted that any reform or form of universal health care be consistent with the Church’s teaching against abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. The bishops were also adamant that health care policy respect religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In 1993, these concerns caused the bishops to pull their support for the Clinton Administration’s Health Security Act, since the bill covered abortion as a medical and pregnancy-related service. The debate over health care in the 1990s served as a precursor for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) opposition to the Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) contraception mandate. The ACA also highlighted a divide within the Church on health care among religious leaders. For example, progressive female religious leadership organizations, such as the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) and their affiliate NETWORK (a Catholic social justice lobby), took a different position than the bishops and supported the ACA, believing it had enough protections against federally funded abortion. Though some argue this divide lead to institutional scrutiny of the sisters affiliated with the LCWR and NETWORK, both the bishops and the nuns have held common ground on lobbying the government for affordable, comprehensive, and universal health care.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-414
Author(s):  
Tiffany Henley ◽  
Maureen Boshier

AbstractThe passage of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has opened a policy window for the establishment of an independent Medicaid agency for the Navajo Nation. This article explores several policy options to improve health care services for Native Americans. Although there is a lack of scholarly research on the impact of healthcare reform and the effectiveness of current health care programs for American Indians, policymakers should utilize evidence-based research to inform policy decisions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 173 (2) ◽  
pp. 142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minal S. Kale ◽  
Tara F. Bishop ◽  
Alex D. Federman ◽  
Salomeh Keyhani

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document