thank you congress-people for passing some form of health reform and allowing it to go to president obama for signature. this has been 40 some years in the making... and while it probably would have been easier to get it done decades ago before health care got so complicated, it's progress. i know it won't technically go into effect fully for a couple more years (and even then, i suppose it'll be appealable), it's a hurdle that has finally been cleared. the bill's imperfect, but i'll keep telling myself baby steps. eventually, i think a public program will be the best option to go. we have an increasingly global society... and to get ahead of new diseases and control their spread (both infectious and chronic), we need to be able to find data to back up our decisions. with a government run health system... we'll have the capability of having standardized care, and use of best practices. i don't see private insurance disappearing completely though. some people may want to subscribe to coverage over and above what the public option may provide. i don't see anything wrong with that... as long as everyone is guaranteed a minimum (i don't like the word when it pertains to health care... so let's use standard) level of health coverage. with a federal option it will also level the playing field between states too. while medicare is fully funded at the federal level for the elderly, currently medicaid is funded through the federal government, with the state and local governments pitching in. some states provide a number of services while others don't provide much. this affects the level of care for those who may be affected in lower socio-economic levels in some states... and really hit tax payers hard in other states.
the other thing i wanted to comment on is the whole "baby killer" statement from randy neugebauer made in congress. i was doing some research a couple days ago and could find trustworthy verifiable data from 2006 on both legal reported abortions, and numbers of individuals without health insurance. in the US in 2006 there were 835,134 legal abortions reported by the centers for disease control. obviously one should keep in mind that illegal abortions are also performed, so the total number of abortions will be higher. through survey and sampling techniques, the cdc reported 43.6 million people were uninsured in 2006. using surveys may not give the most accurate data, and the figures may differ to a higher degree than if individuals were mandated to report their status to the local, state, or federal government... but i would think that their calculations would take into account an alpha level, error, and sample size which make the results more or less valid. there were 43.6 million people were without insurance in 2006. people without insurance generally have worse health outcomes, and so we would expect a greater number of those without insurance to have higher mortality rates, and higher cost of care as well since they will seek care when they are most desperate, usually leading to a higher burden on the health care system. so my question to those who are opposed to the abortion language in the bill, do we stop abortions and hurt those who ARE living by not passing health reform? looking at this from a fiscal/economic standpoint (and the republican party is generally a party of both fiscal and social conservatives)... abortions actually save money! those who choose abortion may very well do it because they know they cannot support a child. children in lower SES brackets generally have worse health outcomes. due to their SES status, they are often enrolled in medicaid, so their health coverage is covered by tax payers anyways. since they need more care over their lifespan, it actually will cost tax payers more versus being aborted where they may cost the tax payers only the cost of the service. if the parent(s) don't choose abortion and they don't make enough or work at a place to afford insurace, and make too much to be covered by medicaid, they join the ranks of those that are uninsured... whom tax payers will still have to pay for if they seek emergency care and can't afford to pay the bill. now i can't say that i'm pro-abortion... but i think the choice is not up to me, and i do think there are cases that can be made for it. it isn't my body though... and i can't imagine women (and their partners that are involved) who choose that route to look forward to going through with the process.
this leads me to the last thing... sex-ed. why social conservatives are against teaching about this... and condom/contraceptive distribution is beyond me. i would think this is the easiest way to prevent abortions from happening. people (children) should know what may happen if certain events transpire. they should know how to manage and best prevent things that they don't want to happen. teaching abstinence is great and all, and is the only way to prevent pregnacies, tranmission of std's etc... but is it really practical in today's world? if there's a problem... it needs to be addressed, you can't just hide and pretend it's not there. give people options and tools to prevent the occurance! from a fiscal viewpoint the cost of condoms < the cost of an abortion < the cost of healthcare for an individual. for social conservatives... would you be willing to help raise the child who you so want to come into the world? or are you just fighting for a fetuses right to be born, but then ignore the fact that there may be a future individual who may be suffering because they live in a broken home and/or have worse health outcomes?
oh... and i'd also like to thank t.c... whom i started this blog with for helping me figure out what was going on with my php/mysql blob code today. thank you despite the fact that you never post anything anymore.