Page A7 lower right under heading "Room for improvement":
The State of Washington was alarmed; half of the births in Washington are paid my medicaid.
Frankly the above is more than alarming; how does this bode for the future?
Page A7 lower right under heading "Room for improvement":
The State of Washington was alarmed; half of the births in Washington are paid my medicaid.
Frankly the above is more than alarming; how does this bode for the future?
It means all those free condoms they are handing out are ..
2. Not being used
3. Not being used correctly?
Now, Although I find this stat troublesome, I don't know how it can change unless we get real aggressive, get in peoples face and push our values heavily on them.
Considering many people are now afraid or don't want to hear the words "Merry Christmas", I gotta think that won't work.
Surprisingly, I have no problem with the state helping out children (within reason). I know it breeds some dependency, no, a lot of dependency, but I don't think kids should be punished for their parents stupidity, I mean situation.
I believe each state should pay for children's medical services, and the elderly's medical services, drugs, and needs. But Obamacare is going to charge and take care of everyone and all will be well!!! I wonder who will be the first person to lose their home because they can't pay their government mandated health insurance?
But the adults should pay for their own services. I think their should be a distinct cut off between the youth, adults, and elderly (and disabled). And of course their should be exceptions. I am not a completely heartless bastard. Well, I am not a bastard anyway. Just heartless.
"Now, Although I find this stat troublesome, I don't know how it can change unless we get real aggressive, get in peoples face and push our values heavily on them."
just a thought but maybe the solution is to back the f... off and stop pushing your values on other people.
because i am not sure how much more aggressive you could be..
JoB - yes real aggressive like quitting cigarettes cold turkey. and what is your suggestion JoB?
one answer is Adoption - is if someone is using medicaid and does not have resources to raise a child maybe the tough love is for the state to force giving the child up for Adoption
Make the government smaller!!!! (unless we think it should take away poor people's kids!)
Join us tomorrow, same time, same station, for the next thrilling episode of:
As The Hoopworld Turns....
not having the adoption conversation with you again.
your desire for simplistic answers has made you blind to the realities...
nor am i having the condom conversation with you again..
suffice it to say that if condoms had worked the way our mothers were told they would a great many of my generation wouldn't exist..
yours either for that matter...
eliminating people's choices and then blaming them because they had none is not the answer dude
not even for you
Teen pregnancy is down I'm told, but it's still one of the leading determinants in whether a pregnancy will be funded by Medicaid. I have an anecdote about teen pregnancy. It's a PERSONAL anecdote mind, so of course your mileage will vary.
My daughter had a difficult adolescence. I mean, adolescence is never a joy ride anyway, right? But in this case, it was like the guy running the roller coaster had a heart attack and slumped over on the throttle.
Now there were several reasons for this being an even-harder-than-normal adolescence. First was the fact that we were living in The Projects, living off Welfare, and that put a severe dent in the kid's respect for me as an authority figure. I'm not saying that it always happens that way; it really depends on the circumstances. But believe me, when your kid sees that you can work, but you still choose NOT to work, it matters.
Second, gangs were rife at that time: in the school, on the playground, in the 'hood. Many of my daughter's friends were getting sucked into these gangs, and she wanted to get into one, too, so she could act all tough and grown up.
Third, there were some psychological problems on top of the usual adolescent thing, and those problems made everything twice as bad.
Finally, I was just a sucky parent, with lots of psychological problems of my own. :-)
So how's this relate to teen pregnancy? I'll tell you . . .
One day, my darling little 12-year-old girl came home and announced to my wife and I that she had a boyfriend.
Oh . . . and by the way he's 19 years old.
And in a gang.
–We knew what had to be done. And we knew that it was not going to be pleasant. But what was the alternative? We did not want to see our daughter get knocked up and have her young life ruined, as had happened with so many of her friends.
¶ First, we put her on restriction. No more late nights out for starters, and we insisted on knowing where she was and whom she was with at all times. We weeded out several of her friends right off the bat, and demanded to meet with the parents of the ones that were left. We reached an understanding with these parents whereby we would watch out for their daughters and they would watch out for ours.
¶ Next, we moved out of The Projects and changed schools, specifically to get our daughter away from this bad environment that we had put her in.
¶ Finally, we had regular heart-to-hearts with the kid, explaining to her in crystal clear terms that if she disobeyed us – and if a baby was the result of that disobedience – her youth would be over and the future would be bleak. "You, not we, will be changing diapers and getting up at 2 in the morning for feedings," we told her. And we meant it.
Needless to say, our daughter didn't care for any of this, and she made our lives hell for the next 6 years and beyond to prove it. It was an incredibly hard ride for all of us, but I've never second-guessed the decision to get tough because again, what was the alternative? Lousy father that I was, I was still this girl's father. Steering her in the right direction was my job.
This is something that many parents still don't seem to get. I want to shake some of them and say: You're the parent; you're allowed to call the shots.
Yes, as crazy as it sounds to us freedom-loving Seattle-ites, as a parent, you are ALLOWED to say:
– I wanna know who you're with.
– Curfew is at 9:00.
– While you're living here, you'll follow my rules. And that includes no sex.
Does this system always work? Obviously not. But I'll tell you one thing. When it comes to preventing teen pregnancy, it works a helluva lot better than, Here, kid. Have a condom.
why do guys get so into these either or choices?
"here kid, have a condom"
or teen pregnancy
are not the only options..
DBP's anecdote aside, all the major studies show that comprehensive sex education is overall the most effective way of stopping unplanned pregnancy (whether as a teenager or later in life). Though, I still wonder how we got onto this topic from the OP. I'd assume half of all pregnancies are not just teenagers but those on the lower income scale. Seeing how affluent people delay and have fewer children then those at the bottom of the economic ladder....Not really all that shocking...Oh, and if they weren't having kids, our economy really would tank.
You'd think from reading that Seattle Times article that the State was "alarmed" to learn that Medicaid pays for about half of all the births in the state. But that's been true for many years and it's no surprise to anyone in state government who deals with this stuff. Some things are moving in the right direction, from a public health perspective: the number of unintended pregnancies is dropping, the number of abortions has dropped more than 20% in the past decade, and the overall number of births is declining.
The Times could have improved its story, though, by explaining that the number of births paid for by Medicaid is not a result of all those women being on Medicaid for their healthcare. A more accurate statement would be that about half of all births are covered through some form of State medical assistance. Women who are not eligible for Medicaid under the federal income and resource criteria (that is, they make too much money) often qualify for state assistance for prenatal care, birth, and two or more months of post-partum care. One program provides pregnancy-only coverage to single women and legal aliens who have incomes at or below 185% of the federal poverty level. That's much higher than the Medicaid eligibility formula. This program accounts for a little under half of that 50% number the Times reported. Another program provides limited pregnancy-related coverage to undocumented women. These women are not eligible for regular Medicaid or other comprehensive state-assisted medical coverage.
One additional factor that might be contributing to the suboptimal performance of the state's family planning initiatives is that while a woman with an income of 185% of the federal poverty level qualifies for maternity care, people (men and women) with the same income have been excluded from the State's primary family planning program ("Take Charge") since its inception in 2001. For those who qualify, Take Charge provides coverage for annual exams, family planning education and counseling on "risk reduction," contraceptives including birth control pills, IUDs, emergency contraception, and of course condoms. It even covers sterilization for those who want it.
During the last legislative session, a bill passed requiring the state to seek federal permission to increase the income eligibility level to 250% of the federal poverty level. The request was approved and as of October 1, 2012, a large number of people who were previously ineligible for these services now qualify. Whether this will have any appreciable impact on the rate of unintended pregnancies is hard to predict, given all the other changes in coverage coming up under the ACA. Nonetheless, it seems intuitively obvious that people who qualify for maternity coverage should also qualify for family planning programs.
JoB. Be quiet and read between the lines. I was trying to make a point in which you and a couple of others don't get.
I don't believe in pummeling people with overpowering strict interpretations of moral values. If you had read the rest of the post you might, and I hope you are smart enough to understand this, get the fact that I think children, the elderly and the people with psychological and physical problems should be able to use a health care system that is provided by the state.
I want good pre-natal care for pregnant mothers. I want people like JanS to not have to worry about bills and care. I want the kids and parents of kids to have help. I want the people who work to pay for those people, and to take care of themselves. But, I do ask that some people be more responsible. Is that so much to ask? Is it too much to ask adults to be adults? You know that life throws many adults curves and that most of us need help now and again. I get that. I want that, but not dependency.
If that is imposing my cruel values on them, then so be it. But you know what. Don't ever use the "f" word in a post directed at me ever again. It is disgusting and unbecoming of a person that is trying to help others. You crossed a line and I will not accept it.
this idea that we can all be "adult" enough to escape becoming ill is nothing more than a huge lie used to blame those less fortunate than yourself...
the best way to cut our medical costs is with consistent preventative care for everyone... period.
if nothing else, the availability of health care would help prevent the spread of epidemics...
TB is on the rise again.. being spread by someone coughing near you who can't afford to take time off or get that cough checked out.
do you think your "values" will save you from exposure? preventing that care is nothing more than pure stupidity.
why can't you see that "imposing your values" on public health issues is a policy destined to fail?
you talk about personal responsibility but fail to grasp that the basis of personal responsibility is choice...
a concept at direct odds with the concept of imposing your values on others.
and what about the difference between the availability of a safety net available to all citizens
and charity dispensed through private sources to the "worthy" ...
one of those is a hand up Rich.
The other is the proverbial handout that your rail against if you think it is financed by public coffers but present as evidence of Republican caring about the less fortunate...
regardless of the minor fact that there is a difference between charitable deductions as defined by the IRS and charitable giving.
my use of an f followed by dots offends you Rich?
Hypocrisy offends me.
wow...Rich...a holier than thou attitude. I don't want to read between the lines to try and figure out what you're getting at. Spell it out.
Humor doesn't translate well on here, either.
we get what you're saying...perhaps we just don't agree with it...
Really? "...be quiet and read between the lines" ? Can you BE more offensive and while we're at it, more obtuse? Just say anything you want and feel and then blame readers for not understanding your pure inner intentions because they aren't reading what you're not saying? Maybe you should try to objectively read over your postings BEFORE posting.
“It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
-- Mark Twain
(American Humorist, Writer and Lecturer. 1835-1910)
JoB - another way to cut costs is to stop mandating hospitals provide charity care!
i do however agree basic preventive care is cost effective; but where do you draw a line?
and getting back to the original topic:
why is Adoption not a mandated requirement? if a person is using medicaid it is a clear indicator they do not have resources to care for a child.
"Who is going to be first to lose their home because of Obamacare?" Ans.: Absolutely no one. The mandated insurance carries no enforced penalty. Like someone who could not afford a dentist, it has no teeth.
On the other hand, two out of 3 US bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Literally thousands have lost their houses because of medical bills. And I hasten to add for those who think this is just those who don't take personal responsibility: many were simply denied coverage or the insurance company played the "not covered" game until they die or the costs were higher than the covered $1 million limit. When it comes to hospitals, $1 Million does not go as far as it used to.
But back to the original post: For many irresponsible baby makers, forcing a child into adoption is preferred over keeping it. Many of the babies wind up with the grandparents. Regrettable but how to stop it? Abstinence education has proven itself to be a great joke. So, better sex ed, MORE condoms freely available, easy access to birth control pills.....
Why is adoption not mandated? Where should I start my list?
If the child is in danger, there is the (broken) system of foster care.
I'm not sure that money ever made a well adjusted, 'productive' 'perfect' child - or whatever demon of poverty you are trying to take the kid from.
Not all on medicare (etc) are there because they don't work, they don't care, they are criminals, what have you. So they are between jobs? Surely most of us have been there.
Why don't we force sterilize the people?
Not to mention, many kids 'forced' into adoption go into foster care. Guess who pays for that?
What the hell kind of ethics would go into forced adoption? The rich 'buying' the kids of the less well off? What kind of issues would this create in the kids? 'I'm sorry, your mother (family) wanted to raise you, but couldn't pony up 'x' dollars to do so, so now look! you have a shiny new (likely a different race) family.
Stop with the BS. Think about what you are saying.
How many of those deliveries paid for by the gov't were planned pregnancies. I bet more than you think - the condoms aren't failing. People are deciding to build families, something that is most certainly within their rights.
I am beginning to think that Hooper would prefer to throw the poor out of the hospitals so they can die on the street and make women bear their children out on the street. If they are poor they don't deserve quality healthcare. Not everybody is poor by choice.
As someone who waited to have children until I was financially stable enough to do so, I understand Hoop's sentiment, but agree there is no practical way to "force" people to make the "right decision."
I would like to understand what people who decide to have children when they're having trouble paying their rent / grocery bill / ect... are thinking. And I'm not talking about sudden mis-fortune, I'd like an explantion from someone who was finacially strapped and decided to forgo birth control (or abstanance if that is what their religion dictates) anyway. Were they not thinking? Seeing only the joy of parenthood and being willfully blind to the finances? Are they really "gameing" the welfare system - and if so is it really worth it?
Unlike Hoop, I'm all for socialized medicine - so my issue isn't with the statistic of Medicare funded births, it's with the welfare system. And that's a topic for another thread.
"JoB - another way to cut costs is to stop mandating hospitals provide charity care!
i do however agree basic preventive care is cost effective; but where do you draw a line?"
if everyone gets preventative care you don't have to "draw the line"...
i wonder, why do you never ask where insurance companies draw the line
because they do you know... especially when one of their bean counters decides it's more cost effective to let the patient die and pay the penalties than it is to treat.
"and getting back to the original topic:
why is Adoption not a mandated requirement? if a person is using medicaid it is a clear indicator they do not have resources to care for a child."
and why on earth would you assume that the adoptive parents wouldn't end up with the same financial problems that caused the birth parents to need medicare?
or in your perfect world are children just passed along from "responsible" adult to "responsible" adult?
that's what happens in reality you know...
where most children (not infants) end up..
but it's not adoption.. it's called the foster parent system
and the state still pays the medical bills.
you would penalize both parents and children and still pick up the tab hoop
not a very well thought out proposal
What kind of Republican or conservative advocates the state forcing a parent to give their kids up for adoption?
Isn't that the exact depravation of rights that conservatives rail against?
Hooper, you are making my point about how stupid the Republican Party is right now.
Seriously, you should be ashamed to call yourself a conservative. Forced government adoptions? Unbelievable...
Bonnie, I agree with you.
I wish hoop would just flat out state that he thinks the poor, those who "made bad choices", those that "didn't save for a rainy day" should just die.
He sure as hell has been inferring it for quite sometime, now.
C'mon, hoop. Just say it. And no back pedaling; "....well I didn't mean...."
Just say it hoop....
Criminy, I thought I was passive-aggressive....
dhg in post 19 - the mandate should be you don't buy insurance you get no care!
miws and why should taxpayers foot the bill for other peoples bad choices?
a few years back someones house was left to burn down (from what I remember the firefighters watched it burn) because they elected not to pay the fire district tax. i suspect other people who did not pay the fire district fee quickly learned to pay the fee or else. same thing with medical care. buy insurance or pray you stay healthy.
Hooper, you really should have been horrified by those firefighters letting the mobile home burn down like most everyone else was when that happened - not acting like it is the way things ought to be.Most would be horrified to let people die for similar reasons.
I already pray I stay healthy ,who in their right mind would opt to get ill??
E pluribus unum..."from the many one".
That is a socialist idea if ever I heard one.You are perhaps living in the wrong country.
He won't say it!
Just regurgitates his usual BS!
(Oh, and hoop, how would you have felt if your house was next door to the one left to burn, and and even though the firefighters were trying to protect your house, the flames jumped over anyway and burned your place down?)
actually the person who owned the home had chosen not to pay the fire district fee and thus faced the consequences of that choice. if the firefighters fought the fire what incentive would others have to continue to pay the fee?
yes it was a harsh lesson and hopefully homeowners quickly learned to pay the fee or pay the consequences if there home catches fire. this is economics 101.
if obama had simply used this as the leverage to encourage people to buy insurance it would have been far better. this way no one is mandated to buy anything; but if something bad happens tough luck if you elected not to purchase insurance!
Mike , he would be happy because he paid the fee....I am sure he would be insured and would not mind his place burning down and losing all his possessions.I mean really, it would be ok because clearly he would have made all the right decisions so no problem.
Society has a name for people with no empathy/sympathy for others. Sociopath.I really hope there are no sociopaths here.
And then a very smart, entrepreneurial lawyer found the guy whose house burned down courtesy of the fire department, signed him up on a contingent-fee agreement and sued the fire department.
The guy who lived in a mobile home worth $40k got a $4 million settlement from the fire district who violated state law by breaking their legal mandate to protect the public from fires. The attorney claimed emotional distress, property damage, willful infliction of harm, and many more counts in the pleadings.
The smart, enterprising lawyer also sued the firefighters who made the choice to let the house burn down, and they all lost their jobs and pensions, and live savings.
The guy whose house burned down was recently featured on an episode of MTV cribs. His new $1m pad is AH-MAZE-ING!!!
And everyone lived happily ever after. :)
There, now the story has a happy and realistic ending!
win for the dyn
oddreality, thanks for answering my question form post 30. hoop sure as hell didn't.
dyn99, props to you for the Paul Harvey moment----the rest of the story...
Just wondering why it is that I need the government's permission to: drive a car, build a house, get married, get divorced, adopt a child BUT, if I decide on my own to have a baby even though I have no means to support it; and even if I'm unemployed, a convicted felon, an alcoholic, or drug addicted, the government will help me do it and even pay for it for me. Those of you who are ignoring the intent of the orginal post that the statistics show that 50 percent of births are government funded are not recognizing how serious this really is. This is not a political issue but truly a societal issue. Why is it a "privilege" to drive a car and an "entitlement" to have a child??? Why do we need Child Protective Services, Child Haven, Tree House, etc. etc. to care for children who are brought into the world either carelessly or for selfish reasons and end up in abusive and neglected situations? Am I advocating licensing the right (not privilege) to have children? Maybe so!
if only nature recognized licenses
JoB.....I understand what you're saying and accept that it will probably never happen, but I'm just trying to make people understand that this is not a political issue. I've done years of social work as a CASA and domestic abuse crisis counselor so have a pretty in-depth understanding of how insididious this really is as I'm sure you do as well.
miws - i did answer you in post 31. if you don't buy insurance and get sick tough luck.
Okay, so you bought your insurance, so everything would be fine and dandy if your house burned down due to a fire from your uninsured/non fee paying neighbor's house jumping over to your place? What if the fire was due to your neighbor's careless smoking?
What are your thoughts on the additional info dyn99 provided?
This may be a bit off topic but I felt a bit inspired reading this thread. What Hoop1961 fails to realize (as do many conservatives). Is who pays the bills in this Country, State and County. Conservatives complain about costs and taxation and paying for "others". What they fail to realize is that Liberal Seattlites, Liberal King County Residents, Liberal Tech Companies. Pay a boat load of taxes. In fact plenty of Liberals (with their college degrees) as well. I'm happy to pay more in taxes so that my fellow citizens have a better standard of living then any other country. I want to be 1st, not last!
Those of you who are ignoring the intent of the orginal post that the statistics show that 50 percent of births are government funded are not recognizing how serious this really is. This is not a political issue but truly a societal issue.
this is indeed a societal problem, but it ain't the one you seem to believe it is: that poor people should not be reproducing.
those of you who advocate the state mandating adoption for people who can't afford to raise children without government assistance are either ignoring or are completely clue-resistant to one glaring conclusion that can be drawn here:
a sizable portion of the state's population is eligible for medicaid.
to quote george w. bush, "we need to make the pie higher." in other words, if we fix poverty and income inequality, a lot of "problems" will go away.
(and, no, i'm not talking about taking your hard-earned millions and redistributing it to poor people - even though your taxes are already too low. i'm talking about a return to full employment and better pay and benefits, even for jobs that don't require a college education.)
but no, rags, the intent of the original post was to say something inflammatory. hooper doesn't like taxes going for social services, and has been posting similar b.s. for months now. he sees an article in the times that points out that taxpayers helped keep someone from dying and he thinks, "well, gee, why am i paying for that?" and then he comes here and writes a post that asks why he has to pay for it. read the archives. i assure you, he's not being attacked for being reasonable.
Yeah Rags, EdSane and redblack!
i have never liked social services as far back as i can remember. in college it annoyed me that a portion of my student fees paid for daycare services of other students.
redblack - you are correct jobs are needed. infrastructure (streets, water systems, power transmission and sewer systems) are in need of repair and upgrades. it is stupid to spend $30,000,000,000 extending unemployment benefits when productive work opportunities could be made available and society as a whole would benefit.
you will like social services more if/when you or someone you care about needs them
" it is stupid to spend $30,000,000,000 extending unemployment benefits when productive work opportunities could be made available and society as a whole would benefit."
the big lie is that you have to take something away from people who have nothing to give something to people who have nothing.
gasp.. you could take it away from major corporations who use the tax money you hand to them to compete unfairly with you.
JoB - what the blank is wrong with expecting people to work for a living?
Some of us were taught at a young age if you don't do your chores you go hungry. One quickly learns to do their chores. I started working for others when I was 12 (yard work for neighbors).
On the short list of intelligent ideas that Hoop manages to come up with is the idea of putting the long-term unemployed to work for the government rather than paying them not to work.
It worked incredibly well in the 1930's, and we are still benefitting from those public works projects that were built today.
Mind you, that may be the only compliment I give Hoop for a very long time...
there is nothing wrong with expecting people who can work and can get jobs to work for a living.
what is wrong is expecting people who can't get jobs or can't work to work for a living and blaming them for their failure.
i am all in favor of WPA type projects...
lord knows that we have plenty of need..
but hoop would have us cut everyone's safety net so that a few could be employed building roads..
the rest could ........ ?
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2005-2015, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^