Each Day Already is a Challenge

Fartoost and farfufket

Yes, I'm fartoost and farfuflet. Fartoost = bewildered, discombobulated (don't you love that word??!!??), seriously confused. Farfufket = befuddled, stunned, taken aback. And...I finally found a source of Yiddish words and phrases, so I could get fartoost spelled correctly. Yippee.

But, yes, I am discombobulated. Fartoost. Farfufket. Why, you ask? Well, let me tell you.

There was a poll on the front page of my other stomping grounds that asked, "Do you support national healthcare for children?" I was surprised at the results, at least when I wrote about them. And I was even more suprised at the comments that came afterwards. I don't want to influence your comments, but really, I was surprised at how many adults don't give a darn whether kids have coverage or not. Period. At least at that other site. What about you?

I also wanted to share this because there are details of some of what I went through as a single mom that I have only mentioned in passing here.

Here's what I wrote. (By the way, I made the featured/front page with this one.)

Healthcare for Kids?
by Marilyn Mackenzie


The past few days, there has been a poll on the front page, inquiring about our thoughts about healthcare for kids.

The question is: Do you support national healthcare for children?

As I write, there have been 205 responses. 71% favor national healthcare for children. 16% said no. 9% said maybe. And 4% said I don't know.

Based on those numbers, 146 people were in agreement with having national healthcare for kids. This is for the 59 others, especially those 32 people who said, "No! No national healthcare for kids."

Even if you do not favor national healthcare for everyone, why would you oppose healthcare for every child? Have you ever had a sick child? Have you ever been without healthcare and had a sick child? Have you ever been without healthcare and had a sick child and had to figure out where to get the gas money to get to the doctor, how to pay the doctor and how to pay for the prescription? Just wondering.

Whether we like it not, whether we admit it or not, we have almost reduced our society (in the U.S.) to two distinct classes - the haves and have nots.

The haves have good jobs with somewhere between adequate and excellent healthcare benefits. They have equity in a home that they could borrow against if something major happened in their lives. They have some kind of savings, and probably some kind of investments that they could also tap if something major happened in their lives.

The have nots are the rest of our society.

1) The homeless, some who have chosen that lifestyle and some who have been surprised to find themselves there.

2) The persons unable to work because of physical or mental disorders.

3) The elderly who were not among the haves before they retired and now live on Social Security benefits only.

4) The working poor. They could be making minimum wage and trying to support themselves and their families. They could be making much more than minimum wage, but have an employer who reduced their hours to 29-32 per week, allowing said employer to drop any/all benefits usually given to full time employees. They could be contract workers who were once employed by the very company now contracting their time and abilities, but who now do not have to provide any benefits. The list of working poor is long. They have little equity in their homes, if they own homes. They could be renters. They most likely have huge credit card debts, huge car payments, and live pay check to pay check.

A "have" cannot understand what a "have not" experiences. We found that out when the first President Bush suddenly realized that bar codes were scanned at the cashier stand in the grocery. Out of touch? Absolutely. That was probably the first time that man had shopped in years.

And so it is with the "haves". Many have not ever had to think about how to feed the kids or how to put gas in the car to get to a doctor's appointment.

When I worked at the newspaper back in 2001, I wrote a guest column at Thanksgiving, called "Thanks Living." I had submitted one to the editor called, "Giving Thanks - Not" but he changed the title and took out a bit of my verboseness.

Here's one paragraph from that column: "Living in the United States, we are generally thankful for the level of prosperity our land of opportunity offers. And we truly believe that those who have not succeeded or reached our own level of worth have done something wrong or have chosen poverty over wealth. How wrong we are to feel that way."

Repeating: "And we truly believe that those who have not succeeded or reached our own level of worth have done something wrong or have chosen poverty over wealth."

Unfortunately, that is the level of thinking in many of today's "haves." They think the have nots have done something wrong, even if it's just not knowing how to get the services that they need. We - Americans - think that because we have worked hard and paid taxes that if something happens to change that, the government will step in and help us.

We don't realize that in most states, if one does not have minor children that the amount of serives available are limited. That's why there are people living on the streets who never intended to do so.

The "haves" think that there are ways for the "have nots" to get medical attention for their children now. In a way, they are correct. But I wonder if the "haves" understand how much the "have nots" have to jump through government hoops and how much red tape has to be traversed before those benefits begin?

Here's a personal experience as an example:

In the county where I lived, if one was without a job and had a minor child and needed healthcare for either the child or the child's parent/provider, one had to go to the county offices. There, one had to fill out forms, provide proof of residence, proof of identity, etc. Not a problem.

The office that took care of these things was only open for new applications about four hours a week. Now that could be a problem. First, it has to be a time when the "poor" folks can get there, can find a babysitter or know that he/she will have to drag the kid(s) along and entertain them in the waiting room. Second, taking applications for so few hours means a line of people waiting.

Once the paperwork was filled out, and an initial interview conducted with one person, the application had to be approved by another person. That person might or might not have time to do that on the same day. In my case, she did.

That meant a second interview, which, of course, included multiple lectures about the importance of finding a job, how to take care of my child, and on and on and on. By the end of our discussion, this woman almost had me convinced that I was a horrible mom, although I really did know otherwise.

After the approval, I had to wait another five days before my healthcare cards were ready. They could not be mailed. I had to visit the office again - this time during different hours, set aside for those picking up their healthcare cards.

It took about 30 minutes for the social worker to explain the "system" to me. As she finished, I asked, "Did I understand this properly? If my child or I have what would be considered a minor medical issue - like a sore throat - they we'll see a tele-doctor? We will come to this office - which means we need to get sick during YOUR office hours - sit in front of a computer screen and say, "Ahhhhhhh" in front of a web cam?"

"That's right, Marilyn. Minor medical problems are handled by the tele-doctor."

Who ever heard of such a thing??? I had hemroids. Woud that be considered a minor problem? Would I have to drop my drawers and point my derriere at the web cam? I didn't ask.

"And am I correct in understanding that anything that is more serious than a cold or sore throat, or once the tele-doctor has determined that we need to be seen by a real doctor, then we have to drive 45 miles to the medical center in another county?"

"That's right. We have a contract with that medical center."

"But we have a hospital and doctors here."

"But our contract is with that other medical center in that other county."

"Does that make sense?"

"That's the way it works."

"What about emergencies?"

"Oh you can go to the emergency room here in the middle of the night if you have to. But, really, if you have an emergency during the day, we prefer that you go to the medical center in the other county."

"45 miles away for an emergency?"

"That's what we prefer during the day."

Okay then. I made an appointment to see a doctor 45 miles away - because I already had the recommendation from the doctor I used to see when I had money. I was informed that I might or might not get to see a doctor on my first visit. First I had to see about three different people as they determined that I qualified for assistance there, that I had a medical problem, and that they could have me seen that day or schedule me for another day.

Perfect. I was going to drive 45 miles away and maybe not see a doctor. Back then, the gas prices weren't as bad as today. But when you're not working...I suddenly understood why, when I worked as a church secretary, so many people came in looking for gas money to get to the doctor's office. They were probably signed up for the county coverage.

I arrived at the medical center, found my way to the office where my appointment was scheduled, and checked in. I had a ten minute interview with the woman at the front desk, in clear view and ear shot of everyone in the waiting room. They all got to hear my personal stuff. I whispered my answers, and the woman behind the counter repeated them loudly. I figured it was another test. How much can we make a poor person wiggle and squirm before she breaks?

Even though I had my county's brandy new medical card, and even though they contacted that county office to verify that I did have the coverage, I did not see a doctor that day. You know why? Because NO ONE HAD TOLD ME that I needed a code number from my county for every visit to the other county's medical center. They couldn't get it over the phone that day. It had to be done at least 24 hours in advance. One had to call the county office, and ask for a code number for a specific appointment - already made - more than 24 hours in advance. Then you had to write the code number down and remember to take it with you to the medical center 45 miles away.

I was not pleased to be turned away that day because I didn't have the proper code number that NO ONE TOLD ME I had to have before driving all that distance.

As I was dejectedly heading out of the office, past all those people waiting who had heard all my personal business, the woman at the front desk said, loudly, "Next time you come, try to look poor. Poor people don't iron their clothes. I think if you had looked more poor, they would have let you get the code number over the phone today."

Seriously. That's what the woman said. Poor people don't iron their clothes. As I looked back at the group of folks waiting for medical care, I wondered. I wondered if such comments bothered them as much as they bothered me. I wondered if they tuned out such comments, of if they had acquired thicker skins because of such prejudices.

As I stepped out into the hallway, a man about ten years older than me followed. He said, "Play their game. I go to the Goodwill and get some wrinkled clothes to wear before I come in. Just put on a wrinkled jacket or a holey sweater over your regular clothes."

Amazing, isn't? But this is exactly what any mom will tolerate - and sometimes worse than this - to make sure that her child has medical coverage. Or that the mother has coverage so she can continue taking care of her child.

Should this happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? I don't think so! I believe that if we're going to have a slogan that says "No child left behind" it should cover more than education. Even if one is against national healthcare for everyone, can you truly be against healthcare for kids? I believe we should have such a thing for our kids and grandkids. We should and we must!

********
What about you? Do you think healthcare for kids makes sense?

Did you see the recent Oprah show, with Michael Moore and some folks from the medical community? (Well, a lobbyist for the medical community anyway...) I applaud Oprah for getting it. I applaud her for understanding that there are persons in the U.S. of A. who have no coverage. And that those who have coverage - what Michael Moore was addressing in his movie, "Sicko" and what Oprah's show was about - have to beg sometimes for the coverage they supposedly already have.

Let's talk!

So, what do you WDC folks think? Should we at least be providing healthcare to all of our children? Maybe someone could do a poll about this here. (I've never done a poll. Hmmm.) I'm curious to see how we compare here to there.