Combrehensive Abstinence: The other sex education

Bearman Bruckner, author of two articles, one in the Journal of Sociology and another in the Journal of Adolescent health, talk about sexual relations in teens and young adults, while the Columbia University researcher discusses how ineffective abstinence and the purity pledge really is. He found that 88% of pledge-takers in his study had initiated sex prior to marriage though some delayed sex for a while, they were still found to have broken the pledge. 1 Rates of STIs and STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar. More surprising was the fact that pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they eventually did have sex. So really Abstinence only programs aren't effective at all according to Bruckner. Abstinence only programs are only effective for delaying the inevitable.




In 2004 a Special Investigations Division, sponsored by the U.S. House of Representatives, (Committe on Government Reform: The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs), analyzed federally funded abstinence-only curriculum. This committee found that over 80%, is basically all of the information most students retain from the program. This type of curriculum was supported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services which ended up being false, misleading, or contained distorted information about reproductive health. 1 Specifically, they conveyed:

• "False information about the effectiveness of contraceptives

• False information about the risks of abortion

• Religious beliefs as scientific fact

• Stereotypes about boys and girls as scientific fact; and

• Medical and scientific errors of fact." 1
  

This means that our tax dollars and the governments money has gone into programs that teach our students false information and advocate for religious beliefs into a state run insitution. When our students are supposed to be well informed and given the best knowledge available, our government denies them and supplies them with falsehood. A public opinion research program found that "89% believed that it is important for young people to have information about contraception and prevention of STIs and that sex education should focus on how to avoid unintended pregnancy and STIs, including HIV." 1 Only about 15% of American parents wanted an abstinence only program when asked.

The times have changed. No longer are we back in the days when life use to follow a certain path of our birth, then school, job, marriage, kids, death. We now change things up a bit, with the birth of us, then school, kids, job, marriage, death. However we choose or cut out parts of the follow it doesn't really matter. There is no set rules, maybe societies want social norms of the surrounding population to seems like they have faultered from that "nuclear" family.

According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, advocated by the Center for Chronic Disease prevention and Health Promotion, 46% of girls in high school have had sex, 50% of boys in high school have had some kind of sexual encounter. They even report that 11% of those girls and 18% of those guys who have already have had sex have had 4 or more sexual partners. And about 86% of them didn't use a condom in there last sexual encoutner. Reread those numbers....they are INSANE!!!

In 2007, 4% of girls and 10% of boys had sex before they were 13. Think about about for a moment, 14% of teenagers in 2007 had sex when they were children, not even considered teenagers. So out of that 14% some will go into programs that focus on abstinence, where they can't even take the purity pledge anymore because of their decisions. Instead of putting emotional stress on those individuals why not help them? Teach them the proper ways to protect themselves if they are so inclined to have sex. I am sure at 12 or 13 they barely new what sex was. But educating our young population about sex, with an emphasis on abstinence, will help more than "just saying No."

1. Advocates for youth
2. Youth Risk Behavior Survey
3. Morin, Stephin, Ph. D

What the heck is sex education??

Sex education is when students gain information about sex, forming attitudes about sex, myths about sex, finding sexual identity, and how to understand relationships. This teaching is used to inform our upcoming generation about how to make the right decisons and develope them so they can make the right decision on their own.

Sex education aims to reduce the risk of disease, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. The goal is also to inform students on how to have a healthy relationship with others.

Here are a couple of points that are the biggest topics to be covered in sex education: 1

• Sexual development and reporduction


• Contraceptions and birth control


• Healthy Sexual Relationships
  
  Other information that may be covered is information on abortion, and sexuality as well as sources that are avaliable in their area if they have questions or need assistance.

Robert Rector, writer for the Heritage foundation, believes that policymakers should understand certain things about early sexual behavior:

• Sexually transmitted diseases, which includes incurable viral infections, have increased to unimaginable proportions in the past years. Annually, 3 million teenagers contract STDs; that means that STDs afflict one in four teens who are sexually active.
  
• Studies done on sexually active teens show that they "are not only vulnerable to STDs, but also likely to experience emotional and psychological injuries, subsequent marital difficulties, and involvement in other high-risk behaviors." 2
  
  

1. http://www.avert.org/sex-education.htm
2. Heritage.org

How young is too young??

How young is too young for kids to be learning about sex education??

(Look at the newspaper headline)

VH1 Virginity: Abstinence only in a sexual urban world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzE6kqQdmSw

This video is a clip of VH1's special called The New Virginity. This talks about how there is this trendy pop culture movement leaning towards teaching abstinence to teens. VH1.com

Airings for this news special:

Tuesday, January 19th 5:00 pm

Saturday, January 23rd 12:30 am

Monday, January 25th 3:00 pm

Sex Education: Abstinence Only

Over the past few years there has been discussion and debate about what form of sex education should be taught to our public school students. Should there be an Abstinence only program that only talks about abstinence and nothing else is an option or a Comprehensive Abstinence program that encourages abstinence but also teaches students about protection? In the 70's and 80's the media started to show "sex education" as abstinence only and saving yourself for marriage. The thought of saving yourself for marriage was never really discussed before this. The Abstinence only programs really came of age in the 1990's. It began with the Welfare reform act 1996, which dedicated $50 million in grants to the abstinence only programs annually. 2 The programs could only be based on abstinence until marriage, with no other options. During Bush's term in office the program funding jumped from $50 million to $200 million in 2007 (Congress Budget Office). And people were ok with that, after all the U.S. did have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. 2

Abstinence only programs focus on teaching students that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best choice to ensure protection against HIV, STDs, STIs, and teen pregnancy. Abstinence is taught as being the best option for greater sexual health. Supporters of this program believe that it is morally wrong for sex before marriage, so morals come into play greatly with this program and are pushed upon by the teachers to relay that message to the students. 1 What is taught in this program? Well here is a closer look into it:

• Abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage (this is the expected standard for all school-age children)


• Abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
  
  
• A mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
  
  
• Sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
  
  
• Bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
  
  
• How to reject sexual advances and that alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances
  
  
• The importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity
  
  
  (these were given by the Federal Law of the United States) 1
  

Though recent studies have shown that abstinence only programs and comprehensive abstinence programs have shown no really effect on sexual relationships between teens proponents for abstinence only have looked towards teen pregancies. According the National Survey of Family Growth, "have fallen from 117 births per 1,000 females in 1990 to 76 per 1,000 in 2002." 3

Abstinence only programs are more for a faith based curriculum. The morals of society and what this country was founded on was religion and in almost all religions being represented in the United States promote abstinence until marriage. So ofcourse republicans and conservatives a like will vote and advocate towards abstinence only, even though stats have proven to us that either way teenagers will still have sex (no matter what you tell them, they choose to do what they want with their bodies). The importance of abstinence only programs have grown attention from AIDS/HIV and STD out breaks, the more and more teen parents out there, and how vulgar teenage television has become. Policy makers towards abstince programs try to reduce these numbers of teen outbreaks and provide personal responsibility and enduring marital commitment.

A study done by Pediatrics magazine found that boys, between the ages 12 through 16, that are sexually active are 4 times more likely to smoke and 6 times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Girls in this same age group, who are sexually active are 7 times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins. That means that not only is sex a risky behavior before marriage but it also can lead into even riskier health behavior. Abstince is the only way to prevent this behavior from forming. 4

more to come...

1. Advert.com
2. Cliff, Sara, "The Future of Abstinence" Newsweek.com
3. Guttmacher Institute
4. Heritage.org

Stem Cell Research: Politics and Ethics

http://yoursocialburden.dontkeepsearching.com/images/stem-cell.gif

Pro Cures: Stem cell research

The big excitement about stem cell research are all the benefits in the field of regenerative medicine and theraputic cloning. Adult stem cells have already shown really encouraging signs showing that they can be used to replace blood-forming cells that are killed during chemotherapy to be used in bone marrow transplant patients. 1 The other possible uses for stem cells could be used to aid in helping thoses with Parkinson's, Alzheimers, or even burn victims, people with MS (muscle disorder), and much much more. They are possible cures through stem cell therapy and ways to figure out reasons why diseases happen and what could be used to treat or cure those diseases. 2

But wait a minute, what about all of those fetuses that have to be killed just for the sake of science. Well, lets get one thing straight, though numerous sources of information have said somewhere in their articles about stem cell research dealing with aborted fetuses that simply is not true. The stem cells, for one, need to be alive and abortion kills the stem cells. Also the best stem cells come from embryos about 5 days old. How do they get these fertilized eggs? They recieve these eggs from in vitro fertilization clinics. They take the left over embryos that are going to be discarded. Right now there are approximately 400,000 embryos in the fertilization clinics, 2 many of whom are destined to be discarded to die. So scientists of stem cell research take those unwanted fertilized, those that are donated by the parents of the embryos, and use them for life altering and life saving research. This is kind of like a life for a life. But those lives being used for research were going to be trash, killed, worthless. Now they are being used for the betterment of humanity.

There are other means of getting stem cells. As previously stated in past posts, stems cells can come from adult cells and umblical cord blood. They are both types of stem cells, they just aren't as effective as embryonic stem cells. But a Japanese scientist has figured out a way to turn adult stem cells into embryonic-like stem cells which allows for a greater range of study without all the ethical red tape. Adult skin cells have most recently been used for this type of reconfiguration. This great because now so much more can be studied on a greater playing feild and possibly a faster way to find cures.

There are also guidlines set in place by scientist, ethicists, lawyers, and patient advocates to ensure stem cell research proceeds in well defined limits so that careful ethical oversight of all research using human eggs, embryos, or cell lines derived from these tissues (California adopted this in 2005). 2 No money is paid for these embryos and all of the proposed researched must be reviewed by a board knowledgable in stem cells, stem cell research, and ethics before anything can happen. This is a great way to ease the feelings of people about extracting crazy scientists from using discarded embroys for human cloning or something that is ethically similar.

Here is a video of beating heart muscles cells that were derived from human embryonic stem cells. http://www.isscr.org/video/beatingMyocytes.mpg 3

1. About.com
2. USNEWS.com
3. International Society for Stem cell research

House versus Senate

What's the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate?? Well here is the load down...More info can also be found here.

House of Rep. Bill on Health Reform

· House bill reduces the deficit by $139 billion in the first 10 years, and by as much as $650 billion in the second 10 years. 1
· The House bill covers 36 million currently uninsured Americans. 2
· Under the House bill, major coverage provisions go into effect in 2013. 3
· The House bill fully closes the prescription drug donut hole for seniors. 4
· The House bill lowers premiums and cost sharing for the middle class through 25 percent more generous affordability credits for the average person going into the Exchange. 5
· The House bill offers a public health insurance option nationwide to promote competition.
· The House bill eliminates the health insurance company anti-trust exemption. 6
· The House bill increases enrollment in private employer-provided coverage by 6 million Americans. 7
· The House and Senate bills take different approaches on paying for reform. The House bill includes a surcharge on income above $500,000 for an individual and $1 million for couples. Payfors in the House bill are strongly supported by the American people–a new AP poll found 57 percent support a surcharge on those earning more than $250,000 per year to help pay for health care. 8

Senate Bill on Health Care Reform

· Senate bill reduces the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and by about $650 billion in the second 10 years.

· The Senate bill covers 31 million currently uninsured Americans.

· Under the Senate bill, major coverage provisions go into effect in 2014.

· The Senate bill does not fully close the prescription drug donut hole for seniors.

· The Senate bill also contains a public option but allows states to opt-out.

· The Senate bill does not eliminate the health insurance company anti-trust exemption.

· The Senate bill reduces employer-sponsored coverage by 5 million Americans. (These individuals will go into the Exchange because their employers dropped coverage.)

Works Cited:

1.http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2093

2. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_CBOscore.pdf

3. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-IMPLEMENTATIONTIMELINE-102909.pdf

4. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-DONUTHOLE-102909.pdf

5. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-AFFORDABILITY-102909.pdf

6. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-PUBLICOPTION-102909.pdf

7. http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_CBOscore.pdf

8. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AHCAA-PAYINGFORREFORM-102909.pdf

YAY for Stem Cell Treatments... Boo for possible side-effects

"Compared to conventional chemotherapy, autologous [coming from the patient] stem cell transplantation can extend "event-free survival" [This refers to the period of time from allocation of patients to one of the treatment groups until recurrence of the disease, progression of the disease or death. They found proof of this in patients with breast cancer both with and without distant metastases.]for breast cancer patients. Clinical trials provide proof of this for breast cancer with and without distant metastases. However, there are indications that this type of stem cell transplantation can more frequently give rise to severe complications affecting almost all organ systems. This is the conclusion of the final report of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) published on 16 December 2009." 1


This benefit comes with side-effects and severe complications that will affect almost all of the organ systems, mainly blood and gastrointestinal tract. They found that the survival rate for chemotherapy was much higher than stem cell treatment. So treatments tried as early as a month ago have been found to improve life substantially...but with complications. In another study done by EPLF studied what stem cells would do in a mouse with Parkinson's. They found out that in 20% of the cases the stem cells caused deadly brain tumors to form and within 2 months those mice died. So there is still reason to be researching this before we start heavily into the treatments. Stem cells are cells that are possible for any type of cell to develop. They are there to develop the cells we program them to be. But no one can tell which ones will do what they are supposed to and which ones will go rampant and start causing people to have worse problems then when they started. Why put our population through this horrific treatment options when there is a great chance of death? We have great treatments (though sometimes not as effective for some as it is most) but they work most of the time, right?

If that doesn't disuade you from stem cell research, opposers will go the ethics route dealing with the embryonic stem cell research. Just like in abortion, there is the debate of when does life begin? Most orthodox will say that life begins at the moment of contraception, while others say that it begins when there is self-awarness. 2 Here, an embryo (human potential) is used, or killed, for research purposes. Though what many people don't know that the embryo is 5 days old from moment of contraception and known as a blastyocyte. This means that it is just beginning to seperate into multiple cells. So basically it is a bunch of cells. These embryos come from in-vitro fertilization clinics and are the discarded embryos after parents deside that they don't want to have chilren anymore or can not pay for the keeping of them. So one can make the argument that they were going to be thrown away anyways so why not make them useful? The ethics still remains. When does life begin? There is also the fact that people who believe in this argument believe that these potential humans have rights too. 3 Even though they can not speak for themselves they are humans, just like we all once were embryos. Are we killing human potential or saving suffering souls? It really is implausable to believe that embryos have rights for that would mean every scientist who does this research would thus be called a murder. Also if this is the common belief, that life begins at contraception and no life should be distroyed, then in-vitro clinics should be shut down becuase life is thrown away when not needed anymore. 3 I believe looking at it in that persepective sheds some light onto the situation.

Another setback to those who are for the research are forced with this other dilema to fight. Along with stem cell research, if it is legalized it will open the way to dehumanizing practices, such as embryo farms, cloned babies, the use of fetuses for spare parts, and the commodification of human life. 3 When does it stop? When does the search for the fountain of youth and immortality stop and just living begins? When do we stop going against the natural order of things and start accepting it? Many people (including I) just want suffering to stop, so is there a need for cloning, embryo farms, and fetus mutilation?

1. Medical News Today
2. TIME magazine
3. New England Journal of Medicine

What if we eliminate embryonic stem cell research?

Obama supports fully stem cell research and has granted federal tax dollars to pay for the research when previously the scientists had to get private funding. Though this took years to get the funding they needed it has come at a time when advancement in technology and medicines have been made with a varietyof stem cells. In 2007 Shinya Yamanaka, Japanese biologist, found that Adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to an almost embryonic state with little difficulty. This technology will allow for a removal of need for embryonic stem cell research, which takes most opposers out of the debate and into the side lobbying for the research. "For researchers, reprogramming an adult cell can be much more convenient, and therefore having never been any restrictions on working with adult stem cells." 1 For therapy and treatment factors, treating patients with their own cells would avoid the problem of immune rejection.

Since embryonic stem cells have many disadvantages to them, more than the adult stem cells, such as the possibility of causing tumors, or rejection by the patient's immune system, the disease the patient has could possibly kill those embronic cells. This makes it even better to use adult cells and turn into an embryonic-like cell (seeing that they are easier to convert into the necessary tissue) without all the side effects.

1. New York Times

Adult Stem Cells

Adult stem cells naturally exist in our bodies and provide a repair system fro many tissues in our bodies. Most importantly, adult stem cells have already been successfully used in human therapies for many years. Right now there are no therapies in humans that have ever been tested out using embryonic stem cells. New therapies using adult type stem cells, however, are being developed all the time and have been used on patients. There have been studies done on the effects of stem cell therapy on patients with different diseases. St. Jude's Children Hospital sponsored such research on patients wtih sickle cell disease, the study was called: Haploidentical Stem Cell Transplant for Patients With Sickle Cell Disease and Prior Stroke or Abnormal Transcranial Ultrasound. This is a type of transplant that has been used and found to be successful in some patients, mostly those with cancers of the blood.

Here is a site to go to about paitent stories dealing with umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells>>>http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.org/leukemia/

There is not much debate coming from adult stem cells because they come, not from the destruction of potential life, but life that has already become that potential:

• Umbilical Cords, Placentas and Amniotic Fluid—Adult type stem cells can be derived from various pregnancy-related tissues.
• Body Tissues—In adults and children, from the moment we're born, stem cells are present within virtually all tissues and organ systems.
• Cadavers—Neural stem cells have been removed from specific areas in post-mortem human brains as late as 20 hours following death.

As you can see stem cells can come from multiple different sources and do not have to "kill" any human potential. Because of the technological advancements happening have rapidly the need for embryonic stem cell research grows less necessary. For right now, however, there still is a need but alternatives like adult stem cells are being used. Thanks to this we can now try to find ways to cure such ailments as, Parkinsons, MS, and certain types of cancers and also find ways to create new skin for burn victims and new cardiac muscle tissue for heart patients.

Stem Cell Background

Stem Cell research has produced a lot of controversy, but why? To fully understand where both sides of the argument come from, we must look at what stem cell research is and what is causing this big uproar. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells that are able to grow into an estimate 220 different organs, nerves, or muscle tissues depending on what is needed for the body.

To put it plainly and simply they are cells that can be formed into any other cells. This is great for being able to treat numerous disease like, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and even could possibly cure cancer. 1 These cells could be used to replace the damaged or mutated cells or even used to clone cells for lukemia patients or reproduce skin cells for burn patients.

Those in the medical and scientific community agree that stem cell research grants a promising future for treatment options with terminal or uncomfortable diseases. "Stem cell research and treatments represent perhaps mankind's greatest opportunity to fulfill that ancient call to "heal the sick," relieve suffering and improve the quality of life for untold millions of people." 2

There are two types of stem cells: Adult stem cells, which can be found in the body (i.e. fat cells) and embryonic stem cells which are cultures of cells derived from four- or five-day-old embryos, and fertilized cells. Those who oppose the notion of embryonic stem cell research, (which often uses embryos discarded by fertility clinics) want it to be severely restricted or banned because they believe it is outright inhumane to be doing. 1 The big debate on stem cell research is really dealing with ethics more than the actual nature of science. When does "life" begin?

For those against embryonic stem cell research life begins at conception. The point when a sperm and an egg combine to make an embryo. That means that we are killing human potential in the name of science. But those who believe in stem cell research believe that life begins at self-awarness. That means that there is no harm, ethically, being done but research into finding ways to aid in life-altering treatment options. In the next few posts I will be elaborating more on both sides, giving you more facts and setting straight any myths that might have arised through this debate.

Politics:

The first ban on stem cell research was in 1996 where an admendment was passed that tax dollars would not go towards the funding of embryonic stem cell reasearch and for short time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer who financed embryonic stem cell research. The reason was the embryos are being destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them and the ethics that went with it was a controversy in itself. However, a few years later, in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President George W. Bush ordered that "tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, of stem cells already extracted from embryos -- so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves." 1

Throughout the years following Congress were recieving numerous calls from suffering from diseases that stem cells research might be the only hope. On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order rescinding the limits set by former President Bush and making clear that the government supported stem-cell research. The order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded. So they are not destroying human potential that wasn't already going to be thrown away in the first place. The order was issued just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama's economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies.


TIME Magazine had it right though: "Stem cell research, of course, will continue on some level no matter what the President decides; private foundations, clinics, and drug companies are unaffected by government funding" 3

1. New York Times
2. Stem Cell Research.org
3. TIME Magazine

Present v.s. Possible Future

http://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cuba-health-care.jpg

Always divided

According to a poll done by www.Gallup.com many people are divided and will always be divided against what is the right option to go.

People believe that there needs to be a change, but how to go about doing it is another option.

The Bad, The Ugly, The Health Care Reform Bill

Inside the Health Care Reform Bill 1 the government doesn't want people to know:

On the Health Care Reform website, posted by the government, all it talks about are benefits. Well ofcourse it would only want to talk about benefits. If they talk about the down side of the bill then there us a chance more people might not like it. They want to get this Bill passed without any more debate and controversy than it already has. So lets talk about what else will come out of this supposed wonderful Bill.

Washington Times reports on how the Democrats are pushing for the IRS to deal with all the Health Care issues because of the millions if not billions of dollars need to jumpstart this bill. 2 The house and senate health care bills are both a staggering 2,000 pages long and full of new regulations that all for the IRS to gain more power over the new system. 2 A shocking statement found out by the Washington Times on January 12, 2010 sheds some light how the IRS is goingto deal with this new found power:

"A new report on the poor quality of service Americans receive from the IRS doesn't augur well for the agency's central role in government health care. With the April 15 tax day just three months away, the IRS already is warning tax filers that about three of every 10 taxpayers who phone the tax office 'will likely be ignored this year.' " 2

With all of the confusion and now more tax questions to the already complicated system, how will the American people understand this new system, when they barely understand the one now? And the questions asked of the IRS are never fully answered or, in some cases, answered incorrectly. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, can get an answer from the IRS about this mess. "Are they capable of doing it? How much more is it going to cost to do it? Do they know what the law requires?" the senator asked. "And we never got a concrete answer from the IRS." 2

The Wall Street Journal also did some investigating into the new Health Care Reform Bill. The Wall Street Journal reports that as the Obama adminstration said they will bend the cost curve but what they didn't elaborate on is that the cost curve won't be going down. Nope, thanks to the $222 billion dollar tax increase over the next ten years this curve will only continue to soar. 3

Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, did a research study and found that the $222 billion dollars talked about, only about 6 of the 10 years were really accounted for. That sum is really a net figure. Foster figures that the 18 million newly insured people will be put into medicaid were provider coverage rates are well below average. These Medicaid and even Medicare costs, according to Foster, will only hurt doctors and hospitals instead of the promise of helping them. "He says many providers will be forced to stop accepting patients who are insured by the government, as opposed to those who have private coverage 'with relatively attractive payment rates.' " With all of this Foster estimates we will go bankrupt by 2025. 3

For some reason this makes me re-think about those benefits talked about by government ran websites and Micheal Moores movie Sicko. It seems like the American people are going to hurt from this. Even if there is a shed of light somewhere, there will still be economic trouble. American sure will be getting health care, but only the rich will be able to afford the health care needed for whole protection. Seems fair? Seems like the same system only with flashy lights to make people go ew and ah!

Sure there are benefits, but the cost of those benefits are great, can we really use this bill to help us, and improve our economy and more importantly our health?

1. Conservatives for Patient Rights



2. Washington Times



3. Wall Street Journal

Complications

Health Care Reform Bill: Good

Health Care Reform Website

The site posted is a great source of information about each individual state's benefits from this Health Care Reform Bill. It talks about what are the problems now in each state and how this Bill will try and fix them. Please take a look. It also gives information on how each individual group and person will benefit from the bill. For all of those who are against this bill, take a look, something in here might shed some light on something thought to be so evil.

One statement in the Bill states that $744 million dollars that is spent on uncompensated care in Virginia, alone, will most likely get passed to families as a "hidden tax." This Bill promises to eliminate this so that the uninsured will be covered and there will be no need for this hidden tax.

In Iowa alone 3 million residents will benifit from this health care reform bill. In Iowa 7% of the population has diabetes, and 27% have high blood pressure, which are two of many prexisting conditions that insurance companies can use to deny converage. This new Bill states that it will establish a high-risk pool to enable people who cannot get insurance to be able to find an affordable health insurance plan. It will end insurance company discriminating against certain groups, age, gender, culture, and medical conditions. This is not just for the state of Iowa, Iowa is just being used here as an example as to how the bill will affect the people in the United States.

Because of this reform insurance companies will no longer be able to place a lifetime limit on the coverage that they provide and annual limits will be resitricted, along with the fact that they will not be able to drop coverage.

Currently the health care system works on only fixing the current health problem of the patient without worrying about what else could be done to prevent any other such occurances from happening. Sure, maybe this preventative care should be put on we, the people, but what about those who can barley take care of themselves with the problems they already have, let alone trying to worry about how to prevent from something else happening to them.

For those patients using medicare, according to Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program, nearly 20% of those patients in the hospital recental discharged, end back up in the hosptial being readmitted within 30 days of discharge.

For Iowa, that is about 29,100 readmissions every year which could potentially be prevented with improved care coordination. This reform bill try to improve on primary care and provide financial incentives to hospitals to coordinate care at discharge better so that they may prevent readmissions. Also this will allow for more doctors to want to encourage preventative care and educate more people on how to live healthier lives with such incentives.

It is already a proven fact that preventative measures can lengthen life-span, so this portion of the Bill is extremely valuable to all americans.

What is also expected of the Bill is creating 320,000 jobs. The decrease in health care costs by a 1% margin will create so many jobs and will raise median incomes of families to $6,800 by 2030. I know that seems like a long way from here. Things will be tough when everything starts but as the economy and the people are more aquanted with this new health care system then I believe things will start to improve.

There will be relief from rising health care costs. The premiums under the reform will be cut in half and the government will provide premium assistance to those who need it. This will help save people from financial ruin from medical costs because the bill will place a cap on what insurance companies can force families to pay in out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles.

This Bill is all about protecting families and putting more money in your pocket. Isn't that what we all want?

Myths on Health Care Reform

In a town hall meeting in North Carolina a woman gained national attention when she asked the question: I have been told I will have to decided how I want to die, is this true? No Euthenasia is no where in the Health Care Reform Bill that is before congress and it won't be. But others like House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) would disagree solely on the fact that in section 1233 of the bill patients are allowed to discuss end-of-life decisions, such as a living-will and hospice treatment with their doctors and having Medicare pay for it.

Another issue is that Americans will have to change their private insurance agencies. This is not true because you will have the option to hold a private insurance the government just believes you will be more willing to go over to theirs. Which is logical seeing that they are going to tax the heck out of the insurance companies which will inevertantly will come down to taxing the people. By doing this it will inhibit those under an insurance agency through a large company from switching to the government or to a private insurance company. It is strange they would want to do that; I guess it is better for tax purposes but also the employer will get taxed if so called employee did that.

What about abortion? Anti-Abortion politicians are gun-ho that if abortion is mandated to be paid for by tax payers then that is a major deal breaker. In a news report by CBSNEWS:

"the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday adopted an amendment, proposed by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. The amendment would not allow the federal government to either require or prohibit abortion coverage by private insurers. It requires at least one plan from the federal health insurance exchange in each region of the country to cover abortion, and at least one of the plans to not cover abortion. "

A term all Americans have heard about this bill is "rationing." The people believe that the government will ration health care to sustain money fluctuations. According to Obama: Americans will not face "rationing" in health care any more than they do now. While a public plan would not be able to cover all procedures, private insurance plans do not either. What about those procedures that won't be covered? How will those people who clearly need the procedure get them if they have to take the the time to put in the request paperwork. I think this is one myth that needs more explaining, and from the other sites I have visted there really isn't much more out there talking about what will and will not be covered. This is tough seeing that alot of people can not get life saving procedures as it is but how can we change that in the future.

The problem with all of this is the fact that people are ill informed about this topic. Obama had promised in his campaign to have all health care talks on live television so everyone can see and hear him first hand. Once more when people are informed they have a better understanding off what will affects us and our future. Both sides are represented here. I hope that this blog was some aid to help you formulate an opinion on how your health will be dictated.

Cons

Now you may look at this blog and see nothing but good about the reform. So I am taking a step back and looking at more of the con side in this post.

The time it will take for the reform to be up and running smoothing will take 10 years and cost about $100 billion, which is the yearly cost of the Iraq war. That is alot of money! Our country is already in severe debt, with this war the debt increases and now with Obama's new health care reform it will grow even more into debt. Doesn't one think that we should stop one money draining political event before we start another? This bill might also increase the cost of health insurance 1...wait a minute...increase the cost of health insurance? I thought the whole point of this bill was to make health insurance more affordable? This is not what the people want. This just means that if health insurance increases from the insurance agencies everyone will go towards the more affordable government run system. I guess that is the plan, jack up the rates from outside free business so that the only place to turn towards is the government. Also, an American will have to either buy health insurance if you don’t have it or have a 2% tax increase. This insurance will be subsidized unfortunately so there is no guarantee that the subsidy will be enough for individual's specific situation. So our insurance will go up, our taxes will rise, and everything might not be covered. But hey, at least everyone will have insurance, right? Even if it can't be used for what they have. Oh and good news! (for middle=class working America) there will be a 1% tax increase for people with high income (that includes making half a million or more).

Sure health care reform sounds good...but is it really?



Check out this blog with more information:
http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/166890864/pros-and-cons-of-the-healthcare-reform-proposal-s

How will Health Care Reform affect the people?

2010: Affordable Plans:
Individuals who are uninsured and those in small businesses will be able to recieve coverage under a government-run agency. That insurance agencies must provide coverage that will be no more than $6,000 for individuals as well as no more than $12,000 for families.
Their will also be no denied converages for pre-existing conditions. Until the reform comes into full effect in 2014 the government will spend up to 5 billion dollars for "those with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for more than six months." 1 Kids, up to the age of 26, will be able to be insured under there parents (as of now 30% of 20 year olds and over are uninsured). This decreases the uninsured rate and allow those who challenge their bodies the most to be able to get medical attention. There will also be taxes on premium plans that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. This will discourage insurers to create such plans.

Even though plans are becoming more and more affordable some people still won't be able to purchase health insurance unless its free in the year 2014 after then you will be required to buy health insurance. I am not sure if that is the best plan for the United States. If we are looking for a universal plan and our taxes are being raised because of it, shouldn't I be provided instead of forcing us to pay for one...isn't that one of the main problems? People being forced into things they are unsure of. If you are going to carry private health insurance in 2014 you must file proof of insurance with your tax return in 2014--or pay a $95 penalty to the IRS. You might not think that is a lot but in the following years the fine jumps to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016. 1

Out-of-pocket expenses will be capped based on income. A family of three earning $73,240 in 2009, for instance, would be required to pay no more than $7,733. People earning up to $43,320 (up to $88,200 for a family of four) will receive credits throughout the year to subsidize premiums. 1



Kliff, Research By Sarah. "How Will Health-Care Reform Affect Me?" Newsweek 11 Jan. 2010: 68. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 7 Jan. 2010. .

England vs America

In "A Tale of Two sickbeds," by F. Brinley Bruton, MSNBC reporter, tells a woman's story on two seperate accounts of hospital treatments in two different countries while doealing with the same illness. In this article she sheds some light on the debate that is currently our healthcare system and the improvements it needs. While one is dealing with Universal or National Health Care System the other is looked at in the Present day American system. Her first time getting a urinary tract infection she was in the United States and felt as though she was treated very well. The nurses always checking in on her, making sure she was ok. Recieving a private room and feeling like an individual with needs being met with love and care. Years later while staying in London she had the same condition fall on her. There she had a completely different experience. She felt she was not taken as good of care as she was in the states, she observed that all of the nurses and doctors looked stressed and seemed to be constantly running around. When the doctor came you had to be sure to tell him/her everything because it might be your last chance in days. She said that she had to make sure to take care of herself (bath, use the toilet, and so on...) becuase she realized no one would help her. She was not in a private room, like in the states, but in a room with other people. One of the stories she tells is having one lady who sat beside her that had sat in her soiled bed pan for hours before Burton had to take herself and her IV to find a nurse to help this poor woman...but...atleast it was free! In the United States she was told that the insurance company would pay for it, a few weeks later she got a shock when a hospital bill came for about $4000. How does that work?

This article is a great resource for our issue dealing with health care reform. On one hand she tells of great service by our medical system but it the costs were ridiculous and on the other a horrible experience but atleast she didn't have to pay for a penny of it.

So after reading this, is affordable healthcare really worth it if our bedside manner deminishes?

The great thing is that there is no worry of going bankrupt because of medical care. Something we really shouldn't be worrying about, our health is the most important thing we have, and if that goes, so does everything else. And because of this National health system the doctors are more inclined to use preventative health care measures instead of just doing the least possible. The doctors over there don't have to worry if the patient will be covered under their insurance, they can do all the tests necessary to find the problem and fix it.

More people would want to go to the doctor to get things checked on and maintain their health if only it was affordable.

Universal, National, Socialized, or communist...is there a difference?

In Michael Moore's movie "SICKO" a woman from Michigan travels to Canada for health care. Let me repeat this: A woman travels from America to Canada because health care is more affordable there. Canada has universal health care and is provided to all citizens. Something that the people here in the United States need. But what about the wait times? Surely everyone has seen the ad about the Canadian woman who was detained from care where she could have died. According to Verni Gurd, a Canadian resident and blogger at Trusted.MD if what a patient has is lifethreatening condition then the patient will recieve medical attention and the treatment they need immediately. Those who don't have something life-threatening, like a knee surgery, do have to wait for treatment but they still get it. Unlike here, if you do not have health insurance you don't get the treatment needed unless you pay for it out of your own pocket whereas there you don't have to worry about paying anything out of your own pocket.

So let's say people are ok with that, they can wait, they can learn to be patient, but what about the idea of a government run system? Does that mean it will be less effecient? Well...not necessarily, actually if money from taxes are going toward healthcare from the government then there would be a need for it to be more efficient so the loss of money would be limited unlike it is currently.

Ok ok...so what else is wrong with universal care that is making Americans so mad about health care reform? Could it just be the idea that the government seems to be taking over more and more of our lives? It does feel kind of communistic and with fears still lingering from the cold war many people are still hesitant to go towards a system that is even remotely similar to socialism. It is scary to have one body dictating the health of millions of people, I won't deny that. Faith in the government is weigning since the war across seas, so ofcourse it will cause controversy. Maybe the government needs to find a way to gain faith from its citizens and then more peoplemight come around to the idea of a government controlled health care system.

Clinton to Obama

http://healthcare.procon.org/files/righttohealthcare/slowing-down-healthcare-reform.gif

Show me the money! (look in guantanamo bay)

Did you know..

According to the Department of Defense of America detainees at Guatonamo bay receive medical, dental, psychiatric, and optometric care during their time while in jail at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

"There is still acute care 24 hours a day, in which surgical procedures, everything, can be performed right there in the detainee camps, but as those wounds healed and as the detainees got further and further away from acute injuries, there has been increasing emphasis on preventative care. Indeed, the immunization rate there is higher than in the United States of America…. Things such as screening for cancer have taken place there. Colonoscopies--a procedure which, as we all know, is used commonly in this country to screen for colon cancer--are performed there on a routine basis. The health personnel-to-detainee ratio is 1 to 4--remarkably high. That is all health personnel who are there. And I guess, as I left this briefing and the opportunity to talk to the doctors and the nurses and the psychologists and the psychiatrists, I left with an impression that health care there is clearly better than they received at home and as good as many people receive in the United States of America." Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), states on Guantanamo Bay, U.S. Senate, September 12, 2006.

How could we allow this? While we are here debating about new or old health care these terrorists are lapping up our tax dollars so that, when they return home, they are cured of any illness or disease and approx. 14% of those go back to what they are doing. They even get free teeth cleanings. I don't know about you but I know I inevertantly have to pay for that. They get better food and better care than free, good americans. Makes you feel good about how our government treats our enemies (sarcasim)?

Guatanamo Bay isn't the only place where our money goes:

Thanks to Michael Moore we have found out that the way the government and the insurance agencies, as well as thanks to Richard Nixon's money obsession (and later impeachment), to have been able to maintain our current health care system by pay off politicians and even our own president. They spent over a million dollars in just bribing people. Even Hilary Cliton was bribed out of her idea of a Universal health system!

So if people think they are spending money and giving money to the government and insurance agenies to aid them when they are ill they better look twice as to whose pockets that money goes into and why.

Why hasn't the government interviened?

There really seems to be no right or wrong answer on how health care should be ran. We need a system that allows all americans the right to affordable health care that actually works for the patient instead of against them. According to Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" many americans have died becuase of failure to recieve treatment thanks to the aid of the insurance companies who deny necessary medication and treatment for patients who are in critical condtion. One woman exclaims that she had to pay for the ambulance ride after a serious car accident because she did not pre-approve it. She was rendered unconcious during the accident and her phone was thrown from the car. Clearly unable to pre-approve any emergency action taken to save her life. Hundreds are denied insurance coverage just for having symptoms that could cause a serious condition of accumulating. Millions don't have insurance for that reason and just the fact that they can not afford it (~47 million americans are uninsured).

There must be a way to prevent this? Surely people have jobs and their employers are able to provide insurance. Emily Frendrix finds that small to midsize companies can not afford insurance for their workers because of the increasing cost of health insurance, even though the premiums were the lowest in eight years (2007). According to Drew Altman, Kaiser Family Foundation's president and CEO, says, "It does seem like we've crossed a threshold where health insurance is increasingly unaffordable for medium-sized employers, particularly smaller employers and average people this year" (Article by Emily Fredrix, September 11, 2007). But Charles Boorady, an equity research analyst with citigroup, says, "Health insurance companies are still paying out roughly the same as they have for years. The price increase doesn't looked aimed at expanding margins, it looks aimed at preserving margins."

So they are just trying to make money, according to Boorday. Just like any other company they are just trying to sustain a regular income. Putting yourself in their shoes taking on someone who will cost them alot of money is not a good business venture. And experimental treatments do not always work and are not accredited is not a good idea because that just means more money if it doesn't work. All of this accumulates into some kind of revenue for the company that the insurance companies want to maintain. But at what kind of expense is it to those they are supposed to be taking care of?

My question is: How could the government not notice all of this? We can track terrorists and Martha Sewart sweat shops but something dealing with our health (which is supposed to be of high priority) is over looked or not even considered. Thousands of americans die because of insurance companies wanting to make money, no matter what the cost.


TO BE CONTINUED.....