Home | About | Donate

Take it From a New Mom: Universal Health Care Would Mean Freedom, Especially for Women


Take it From a New Mom: Universal Health Care Would Mean Freedom, Especially for Women

Sarah Seltzer

Since my baby was born a year and a half ago, my husband and I have watched the majority of our recent employers in the media industry either shut down, get sold, or drastically decrease their staff. We have switched back and forth to each others’ health insurance a few times, trying to maintain stability for our family.

Still, I go to bed every night worrying about insurance, especially that I am now a C-section mom, which means I have a pre-existing condition.


Thank you for writing the article. Just a few suggestion for those writing articles in support of universal healthcare.

Before writing an article in support of universal health care the author needs to get and understand the facts. To begin, one needs to intimately know the difference between S1804 (the bill that Sanders sponsored – currently 16 co-sponsors) and HR676 (the bill that Conyers sponsored in the House – currently 120 co-sponsors).

Physicians for a National Healthcare Program (http://www.pnhp.org/) and Health Over Profit (http://healthoverprofit.org/) both provide excellent analysis of both bills as well as providing a side-by-side comparison. There are commonalities but significant differences between the two bills that will have major impact on the healthcare security that you, from your article, seem to be anxious about.

We should caution against attributing the the movement to anyone person. Attributing the movement for universal healthcare to anyone person is setting the movement up to be co-oped. Sanders can be recognized and honored as the sponsor of the S1804 without making him central to the movement. He is not the originator of the movement and he alone will not bring us universal healthcare. This is a peoples’ movement and it will come to us only when enough of us stand together to demand it.

The third point is that when referring to what we want, it should be referred to as Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, which is how HR676 is entitled. When referring to it only as Medicare for All we run the risk of leaving many people with the idea that we are referring to Medicare as it is, which in its current form, is not the solution. We need to make it crystal clear that the solution that we must have goes well beyond the limitations of the current Medicare system.

Just one last tidbit. NPR and PBS are NOT going to give you the actual facts in support of a truly universal healthcare system. While appearing to support they will be using selected talking points to convolute, confuse, and divide. They are an integral part of the Trojan Horse that is already being put together to head off the movement for universal healthcare.

As mentioned above, pnhp.org and healthoverprofit.org both have an abundance of resources.


Although Murka fashions itself as a mecca for enterpreneurship and upward mobility, statistics prove otherwise. Unless you are prepared to go all in with venture capital and a large scale enterprise, the lack of single payer universal health care prevents millions of Murkins from starting small businesses each year and makes it difficult for existing small businesses to be competitive.

A majority of acquaintances who have started small businesses in Murka during the past four decades have been women, so women are being dis proportionately impacted by the failed employer based medical insurance model that corporations, their media, and their politicians perpetuate.

Every survey conducted during the 21st century confirms that Murka lags behind most other industrialized nations when comparing upward mobility of its citizens. With more and more Murkins losing the jobs that provided their medical insurance and unable to start small businesses to make up the lost wages, these statistics will continue to diminish enterprenurial activity in the US.


Thank you, Sarah, for a glimpse into the realities of having/not having health care that one doesn’t have to worry about. This, in a more rational society, would not be a political football. In nearly all the other industrialized countries it is a given that it is a fundamental factor in the stability of a society.

Unfortunately, the majority of our Congress can’t seem to evolve much past the Victorian era where certain things are concerned. Things such as white male patriarchy, for example. A health care system giving women greater freedom over their lives isn’t something that they are real keen about.

It’s a question of priorities as well. A nation that is able to carry on sustained warfare in several nations simultaneously, for 16 years, and counting, can do whatever it considers important. It is obvious, therefore, that militarism and permanent war are more important than the health and welfare of its citizens.


A key point rarely mentioned! Thanks, ray.


The push for single payer would have been easier if it had the support of the latter day feminist movement. Unfortunately, the last couple of decades has shown feminism to be largely focused on breaking the corporate and academic “glass ceiling”, a worthy cause no doubt but just as with the democratic party elites largely left the working class behind. This was no accident. As women rose in the corporate and academic spheres (and as the academy became more corporatized), there was no way mainstream feminists were going to advocate for socialized medicine. The result was that the corporate “feminists” waged class war on the bottom eighty percent of their own sisters. Single payer would have been the best single way to ease the burdens on working and middle class women (and men).
Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as class war.



Tying both healthcare and pensions to employment forces people to work for low wages at jobs they hate. Seldom mentioned in the healthcare debate is the unhealthy society the stress of having to work at a job you hate just for insurance creates. The corporations love it though as it guarantees an oversupply of labor; people needing to work for access to the health care will work for lower wages that people who can afford to look for a better opportunity.


This article is pure and simple feel good propaganda for people that don’t understand how healthcare works in this country HR 676 is a thinly veiled attempt to bait and switch medicare. Developed by the Rand corporation and put it place by special interest health care organizations. And it is NOT UNIVERSAL health care. it is Medicare for All which is vastly different. The addition of a presidential advisory board. The only thing left now is to convince you to like it.

Hum. have you received your National Medical Identification Number yet, look for it in the mail. It is coming.


Major problem: “The National Social Darwinist Rich People’s Party” aka The Republican Party now presently controlled by the rich and corporate America.


Also known as: “The Most Dangerous Organization in the World Today”-----Noam Chomsky