HEALTH

Katrina Kids: Sickest Ever

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Even before the storm, they were some of the country's neediest kids. Now, the children of Katrina who stayed longest in ramshackle government trailer parks in Baton Rouge are "the sickest I have ever seen in the U.S.," says Irwin Redlener, president of the Children's Health Fund and a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. According to a new report by CHF and Mailman focusing on 261 displaced children, the well-being of the poorest Katrina kids has "declined to an alarming level" since the hurricane. Forty-one percent are anemic—twice the rate found in children in New York City homeless shelters, and more than twice the CDC's record rate for high-risk minorities. More than half the kids have mental-health problems. And 42 percent have respiratory infections and disorders that may be linked to formaldehyde and crowding in the trailers, the last of which FEMA finally closed in May. The "unending bureaucratic haggling" at federal and state levels over how to provide services and rebuild health centers for the Gulf's poor has made a bad situation much worse, says Redlener: "As awful as the initial response to Katrina looked on television, it's been dwarfed by the ineptitude and disorganization of the recovery."

My Take
Follow your favorite NEWSWEEK columnists

Customize the Newsweek homepage to feature the latest word from your favorite columnists.

Some kids may end up with permanent developmental and cognitive delays, but many can still be helped. The first step will be finding them. FEMA was supposed to provide Louisiana with contact information for the families that moved out of the trailers; it has not done so. The agency's case-management program also "has yet to provide any services for thousands of families," according to the report, and funding for the program expires in March. Redlener is optimistic that funds will be extended at least through mid-2010, since all that will require is "a stroke of the pen" from the new administration. But, he adds, he's "not Pollyanna-ish about how rapidly" the disaster-planning system will get its act together and come up with long-term plans for the impoverished families—or whether that will be accomplished in time "to make sure this doesn't happen again" with the next storm.

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Ezgis @ 12/02/2008 5:16:11 PM

    Yes, it was the Federal government's responsibility to build the levees. This legal obligation was passed by Congress in 1965. The Corps of Engineers had 40 years to fulfilled their obligations and they failed. During this same period, they actually added to the flood risk for New Orleans by constructed a number of canals through the coastal wetlands, which only helped the surge propagate inland.

    What amazes me so much about this ordeal is how much people are intent on letting the government get a pass, when they so clearly failed. People died, people lost their homes, their businesses, and their communities. People are still suffering because the Federal government failed to comply with their own laws. Yet, people like yourself seem to think that this is ok.

  • Posted By: cflare @ 11/26/2008 2:17:19 PM

    There are different forms of mercy.
    One form of mercy is on the person that did nothing to deserve their circumstances and does everything to make life better for themselves. That kind of mercy is the pity and grace and weeping form.

    Another form of mercy is on those that will not do anything to help themselves. Mercy still allows people to point out and condone the laziness or ignorance of these people. However, that kind of mercy also looks to help these people out of denial and to get them back on their feet (even using forceful means, such as imprisonment for crimes).

    Yes some people are truly being hateful. However, some are saying that these people should first admit they have problems before any help given or sympathy shown, won't be wasted.

    There's a difference between mercy and sympathy.

    I ache for those who only hurt themselves by staying in the poverty trap. I truly feel sorry for them, but at the same time I won't condone that lifestyle. I won't waste sympathy or money. I will do what I think will spark these people to be self-motivated, because that's what they need.

    Jesus did show mercy to the religious elite, he did care for them, and it did hurt him how prideful they were. However, he didn't waste sympathy. He didn't heal the lame and tell them to keep asking for money. He healed the lame and told them to get up, pack their stuff, and walk. In my mind that means go find a job and live productively.

  • Posted By: cflare @ 11/26/2008 2:10:25 PM

    There isn't really enough information on whether this situation is bad or worse.
    I don't agree with your direct attack on the poster.

    We have to know a few things:

    1. Is the back injury so bad he cannot sit at a computer for 8 hours.
    If he can, then there's no excuse for staying at home. It's time to pick up another job. He'll probably be easily hired because he's a vet (which shows good work ethic), he's disabled (which gets him a good quota and good support for the company that hires him), and he has a good resume.

    A very large percentage of people on welfare are on it because of disability. However, a large percentage of people on disability can easily perform a different job, but because they cannot perform their original job, they are allowed to stay on welfare.

    I can only assume since you MUST stay home to care for him, he cannot perform a deskjob, otherwise he could watch the kids and you could work full-time and have a great career with support from your husband. You'd pratically be an American hero yourself.

    2. If you were near family, there's absolutely no one who could help watch your family while you work. If this is true then you're still cool with me.

    3. I don't care if your husband 'settled' for service... at least he got a job rather than being a drop out. However I do wonder how you faired with 5 kids on military pay. If you were just making it, then this bothers me. I know someone else that continues to have kids and just make it. The problem is whenever either parent becomes injured they'd be just as much in the hole as yourself. I personally think this is not ethical.... but hey, your family, you decide. Fair enough with me. At this point your still cool with me.

    4. Where you are not cool with me lies in this: You are in the very small minority of people that actually deserve to have government aid. The MAJORITY of people on welfare could get a different job. Injured from construction, be a clerk, etc. I know there are some people with back issues that doesn't allow them to stay in one position over an hour... that's cool. But don't be naive enough to think that your case is common. You are the rare person that deserves the aid.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now