• commentary
  • TUESDAY AUGUST 28 2007 4:00 PM

Or At Least It Ought to Be

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by Bitch_PhD

Tags: child health insurance program, chip, health insurance, bush administration, reproductive rights



What's the connection between Bush's assholish attempt to deny health insurance to children and reproductive rights?

Glad you asked.

And finally, apparently [LIST]Hillary Clinton is not only saying that we need to make sure that reproductive health be part of any planned health care reform, but--for those of you who've forgotten or never realized--the very existence of the SCHIP came out of the work she did after her "failed" attempt at health care reform during her husband's first administration. (And yes, that's her taking credit for it--but don't worry, right wing nutjobs as well as lefties who support other Democratic candidates back this up.)

And now the latest news about poverty rates now includes information that further puts the lie to Bush's bullshit about not wanting to expand SCHIP to cover those above the poverty line.

The nation's poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, but the number of Americans without health insurance rose to a record high of 47 million in 2006, according to Census figures released today.

Children fared even worse. Last year 11.7 percent of youngsters under 18 years had no health insurance, up from 10.9 percent in 2005. The percentage of uninsured children has increased two years in a row after declining for at least five years, according to the Census data.


How is that possible?

"Despite SCHIP's earlier success in decreasing the number of uninsured children, their numbers have risen for the second straight year because of a decline in employer-based coverage."


So people are working harder, earning less

(The increase in this year's median household income appeared to be largely due to a jump in the number of people in each household taking on full-time jobs, rather than a rise in wages. In fact, earnings of both men and women declined by just over 1 percent.

The drop in the poverty rate from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006, meanwhile, was almost entirely driven by a decrease in poverty for those over 65),

and fewer jobs are offering health coverage.

HIllarycare--or fuck, any kind of national program, whether a single-payer system or nationalized hospitals--is starting to look pretty goddamn good, don't you think?

Bitch_PhD still isn't sure who she supports in the primary, but is pretty sure that Hillary's the best choice soley from a reproductive rights perspective.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

 ... 12

Next

Comments
PseudoNiMH

PseudoNiMH

Garden City, ID
August 2005

AUG 29, 2007 03:30 PM

Look, I'm not going to wade through seven pages of "You're a moron," "No, you're a moron," to see if anyone's made this point already. I'm also not coming back to this thread to see if anyone's responded to my post. I just want to say:
When I was 15, I was diagnosed with leukemia. My family was fortunate enough that, through my mom's work, we had the insurance to cover the cost of treatment. If that hadn't been the case, my parents would probably have declared bankruptcy after selling all their worldly posessions and who knows whether I'd be here today. How many families aren't as fortunate?
As far as the "I don't want to pay for someone else's stuff" argument, I'll assume that anyone saying that drives on every road in their state, currently has at least one child in public school, is actively involved in their local, state, and national government, visits the public libraries, parks, national forests/monuments/parks in their area on a regular basis, is a member of the armed forces, and volunteers at every local charity ('cause they're tax exempt, remember? You're paying their property taxes).
Seriously, in any government system, you're paying for someone else's stuff, and someone else is paying for stuff that benefits you. Try and think of someone other than yourself for once in your sad little misanthropic life.
And stop driving on my roads. I paid for that asphalt; I'm wearing it out. Dick. biggrin

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:32 PM

Morgan said:

michael9000000 said:
When you say "it's not ultimately within our control" I beg to differ... because if a couple chooses to abstain or uses alternate methods to please each other sexually, the have TOTAL CONTROL as to whether or not they produce a child...



And yet again we are back to the ridiculous notion that a couple who doesn't want children or might never want children must abstain from sex completely for an indefinite period of time or risk being deemed irresponsible.

We're human beings, we like to have sex. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, abortion is a responsible alternative to having a child.



And yet again, I have to say that abstinence isn't a choice I'd recommend... it is simply a way to avoid pregnancy with certainty... to dispute the quote that the ability to choose pregnancy or no pregnancy is "ulitmately out of our control"

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:34 PM

DevilsReject said:

Morgan said:
We're human beings, we like to have sex. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, abortion is a responsible alternative to having a child.



Yes. I agree. And hopefully one day i will get to have sex again.

The idea of abstinence as birth control in a married couple's life is ludicrous. The total control of abstinence is the same idea as cutting my fingers off so i don't bite my nails anymore.

And although eating kitty is the equivalent to the best Christmas ever to me, it still wouldn't be a very healthy marriage without penetration. The act of lovemaking bonds the couple and the marriage, and brings them closer together. Micheal9000000 you should know that, you're married.



And yet again, I have to say that abstinence isn't a choice I'd recommend... it is simply a way to avoid pregnancy with certainty... to dispute the quote that the ability to choose pregnancy or no pregnancy is "ulitmately out of our control"


michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:38 PM

RileyStClair said:

Morgan said:

michael9000000 said:
When you say "it's not ultimately within our control" I beg to differ... because if a couple chooses to abstain or uses alternate methods to please each other sexually, the have TOTAL CONTROL as to whether or not they produce a child...



And yet again we are back to the ridiculous notion that a couple who doesn't want children or might never want children must abstain from sex completely for an indefinite period of time or risk being deemed irresponsible.

We're human beings, we like to have sex. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, abortion is a responsible alternative to having a child.



exactly.
abstinence as a method of birth control is absurd and not a reasonable choice for most adults. if we start treating sex like a completely natural thing that human beings are supposed to do and not like some kind of sinful, edgy, risky behavior, we'd be a lot better off.

and yes, clearly there are means within a person's control to reduce the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy, but ultimately, if a condom breaks or if the pill or patch or shot fails, there's nothing you can do to prevent that. no method of contraception is 100% accurate, which is why i said that ultimately, it is out of a woman's control. i can choose to take every possible precaution, but if i do so and those precautions fail, it is not because i somehow chose to get pregnant. whatever




And yet again, I have to say that abstinence isn't a choice I'd recommend... it is simply a way to avoid pregnancy with certainty... to dispute the quote that the ability to choose pregnancy or no pregnancy is "ulitmately out of our control"

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

AUG 29, 2007 05:40 PM

michael9000000 said:
And yet again, I have to say that abstinence isn't a choice I'd recommend... it is simply a way to avoid pregnancy with certainty... to dispute the quote that the ability to choose pregnancy or no pregnancy is "ulitmately out of our control"



Nitpick much?

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:41 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

michael9000000 said:
And yet again, I have to say that abstinence isn't a choice I'd recommend... it is simply a way to avoid pregnancy with certainty... to dispute the quote that the ability to choose pregnancy or no pregnancy is "ulitmately out of our control"



Nitpick much?



Hmm... what do you mean by that?

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

AUG 29, 2007 05:41 PM

michael9000000 said:
And yet again, I have to say that abstinence isn't a choice I'd recommend... it is simply a way to avoid pregnancy with certainty... to dispute the quote that the ability to choose pregnancy or no pregnancy is "ulitmately out of our control"



Fair enough.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

AUG 29, 2007 05:42 PM

michael9000000 said:
Hmm... what do you mean by that?



I'm guessing he's saying that by focusing on the "out of our control" quote so intensely, you may be missing out on discussing the larger issue.

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:46 PM

Morgan said:

michael9000000 said:
Hmm... what do you mean by that?



I'm guessing he's saying that by focusing on the "out of our control" quote so intensely, you may be missing out on discussing the larger issue.



I actually didn't plan on focusing so much on the "out of our control" quote... I simply disputed it when I read it... and then came the hatred... like I was in ignorant naive little man deserving of ridicule... simply because I strongly disagreed with one statement that someone made...

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

AUG 29, 2007 05:46 PM

Morgan said:

michael9000000 said:
Hmm... what do you mean by that?



I'm guessing he's saying that by focusing on the "out of our control" quote so intensely, you may be missing out on discussing the larger issue.



Indeed. Sensible "birth control policy", treated as a public health issue, requires much more than focussing on whether pregnancy can be 100% "controlled" (or 0% "controlled") in order to determine whose "fault" it is.

It's about sensibly comparing feasible options, and the costs and benefits of each of these, where those options encompass everything from education about birth-control methods to (possibly) making abortions accessible and low-cost. Since pretty much every option is likely somewhere to involve the use of public funds, let's not get hung up on false dichotomies about "not with my tax dollars, y'hear!"

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:48 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

Morgan said:

michael9000000 said:
Hmm... what do you mean by that?



I'm guessing he's saying that by focusing on the "out of our control" quote so intensely, you may be missing out on discussing the larger issue.



Indeed. Sensible "birth control policy", treated as a public health issue, requires much more than focussing on whether pregnancy can be 100% "controlled" (or 0% "controlled") in order to determine whose "fault" it is.

It's about sensibly comparing feasible options, and the costs and benefits of each of these, where those options encompass everything from education about birth-control methods to (possibly) making abortions accessible and low-cost.



I actually didn't plan on focusing so much on the "out of our control" quote... I simply disputed it when I read it... and then came the hatred... like I was in ignorant naive little man deserving of ridicule... simply because I strongly disagreed with one statement that someone made...


TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

AUG 29, 2007 05:51 PM

michael9000000 said:
I actually didn't plan on focusing so much on the "out of our control" quote... I simply disputed it when I read it... and then came the hatred... like I was in ignorant naive little man deserving of ridicule... simply because I strongly disagreed with one statement that someone made...



You said that already. So let's move on, yes?

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 05:56 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

michael9000000 said:
I actually didn't plan on focusing so much on the "out of our control" quote... I simply disputed it when I read it... and then came the hatred... like I was in ignorant naive little man deserving of ridicule... simply because I strongly disagreed with one statement that someone made...



You said that already. So let's move on, yes?



Yes... it would be nice to move on... and I guess I'd be able to stop repeating myself if some folks here (not necessarily you) would actually take the time to read what I've written IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE... for me, copying and pasting simply saves me the time of explaining myself over and over again to people who've already written me off as a moron...

It's a shame... I'm trying to be respectful, the amount of vitriol in this conversation almost makes it a waste of time...

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

AUG 29, 2007 05:58 PM

michael9000000 said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

michael9000000 said:
I actually didn't plan on focusing so much on the "out of our control" quote... I simply disputed it when I read it... and then came the hatred... like I was in ignorant naive little man deserving of ridicule... simply because I strongly disagreed with one statement that someone made...



You said that already. So let's move on, yes?



Yes... it would be nice to move on... and I guess I'd be able to stop repeating myself if some folks here (not necessarily you) would actually take the time to read what I've written IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE... for me, copying and pasting simply saves me the time of explaining myself over and over again to people who've already written me off as a moron...

It's a shame... I'm trying to be respectful, the amount of vitriol in this conversation almost makes it a waste of time...



Move. On.

michael9000000

michael9000000

New York, NY
July 2007

AUG 29, 2007 06:00 PM

Does anyone here know of any public debate taking place about the merits of carrying unwanted, unexpected pregnancies to term and then giving the child up for adoption to folks who don't have any fertility options?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

 ... 12

Next

featured interviews