wendyroo
-
Posts
4,297 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by wendyroo
-
-
59 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:
I totally agree. It's just that my perspective has been widened beyond thinking that the disparity is all due to having good insurance or not. It seems to me it's just as often due to not knowing, or not being capable of, navigating a hopelessly complex system. It reminds me a little bit of college costs--few people really pay the full price, many scholarships are out there, but you have to know how and where to go looking for them. Both systems are needlessly complicated, and the complexity of it keeps many people from benefiting.
I think it can also largely depend on what type of care you and your family require.
Our insurance fully covered my weight loss surgery. I didn't pay anything for pre-op appointments, hospital stay, surgery or post-op.
OTOH, we have four kids with chronic mental health and developmental concerns, and those are bleeding us dry. Of the four plans offered to DH through his employer, we choose the most expensive. But on top of that, for the last 10 year we always hit our out of pocket max. This year, we met our deductible in February, and hit our OOP max in June.
So, on one hand, our insurance is "working". It is doing its job as a safety valve and stepping in to protect us from the sky-high costs of a medical crisis. Except, our medical "crisis" is chronic, so no one year of medical costs is bankrupting us, but year after year after year of paying over 10% of our income toward healthcare is putting a significant strain on our finance.
And for how much we pay, we also have to deal with HUGE amounts of red tape and stress. DH or I spend about 2 hours a week on the phone with the insurance company (or the insurance company's mandated pharmacy) trying to get services or prescriptions covered. It takes a situation that is incredibly difficult physically, emotionally and psychologically on its own, and makes it also bureaucratically and financially treacherous.
-
4
-
1
-
7
-
-
3 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:
That could mean thousands of people with no medical reason filling the hospital every day. 😲😲😲
To me this is completely mind blowing
The hospitals around me are a constant flow of hundreds of people in and out an hour. Often several bottom floors are devoted to outpatient x-ray and other testing. People go there weekly for all types of therapies. Doctors have offices, so people are walking through to get to routine appointments.
-
6
-
-
19 minutes ago, 8filltheheart said:
We start around pge 36
I read this as "We start around age 36..." and I immediately liked the idea of putting spelling on the back burner for one of my kids - way, way on the back burner - and trying again in 30ish years. 😁
-
1
-
7
-
-
Just now, Scarlett said:
Honestly Rosie what does this mean? I know very little about the vulnerability of the new mom and you know less than that.
As you so succinctly put it: "If you don’t understand that I can’t explain it to you."
-
6
-
-
Just now, Scarlett said:
If you don’t understand that I can’t explain it to you. The person having surgery isnt t the only one who needs support. I was always taught that we don’t leave a loved one alone during anothers surgery because we never know what might go wrong.
He was probably with his wife during the surgery. And his own mother was at the hospital.
But by the time your mother sent cousin to the hospital, surgery was over and the new dad had sent pictures and good tidings, so everyone knew nothing had gone wrong.
So, my question remains. At that point, with mom, dad, baby, mom's mom and dad's mom at the hospital, what support could have been lacking that a more distant relative could have provided.
-
13
-
-
5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:
No. Just at the hospital to offer support to the dad and maybe catch a glimpse of new baby.
I don't understand. What kind of support could dad need from extended family?
-
10
-
-
7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:
I have no idea if his mom was allowed in delivery.
Okay, but according to your original post, his mom was at the hospital, so she was included even if she was not in the delivery room...which it would not surprise me if neither mom were in the delivery room since it was a C-section.
So my point stands that for all we know, the new mom would have been more comfortable with just her own mom around shortly after giving birth and having major surgery. And even allowing MIL to be there could have been a compromise between her family culture and nephew's.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Scarlett said:
Well I am discussing my family and my culture, so there is that.
Your family, your nephew, is the father, not the mother. Her family culture will be the driving factor in what she is comfortable with during her birth.
For all we know, her family culture would have only included her own mother in the birth, and even including his mother as well was already a compromise on her part.
-
11
-
-
I agree that this sounds more like a difference in family culture or personal preference than a sudden or generational change.
I am 42 years old, and when I was born only my mother's mother came to the hospital...and she just visited for a short time the day after I was born.
When I had my kids, I did not have anyone other than DH come to the hospital. Even I was barely at the hospital because I wanted out. I headed home as close to 24 hours after giving birth as possible.
-
4
-
-
Those hours would count even if he weren’t running the actual event. Plenty of organizations look for volunteers just to cut/staple/laminate/prep materials for someone else to use at an event or in a class.
-
5
-
-
14 minutes ago, ameliabergen said:
Oh, and what are you going to do? Will you ask the teacher directly or no?
I don't understand what you are asking.
"What am I going to do?" Like I said, I'm not particularly concerned for my son, and won't do much of anything. He is significantly advanced academically, and has tons of supports written into his IEP to help with emotional, behavioral and executive function weaknesses.
-
1
-
-
I always start by having my kid articulate and actually write down what their goals are in the situation.
(At this stage they sometimes need help realizing how important a certain goal might be that isn't even on their radar.)Then I ask them to write down a bullet list of red flags that they feel with be early indicators that they are not headed toward their goals.
(Again, I gently guide as much as they will let me, using phrases like, "Once X happened to me, so now I know to watch out for Y.")Lastly, I strongly encourage them to brain storm possible responses if the red flags do occur. I point out that when things are going off the rail, they will want to act quickly, so it will be helpful if they already have planned at least one step to take.
Then I sit back (on pins and needles) and watchfully wait (impatiently) , ready to jump in and help problem solve (if they let me) if those red flags crop up.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:
ETA: My kids DO call me Mommy when they’re feeling needy. But that’s different.
My kids always call me Mom...except when the youngest three want something, then they will sometimes pull out a Mommy. It feels weird because they never really went through a stage of naturally calling me Mommy. They went straight from Mama to Mom. But they must think that Mommy is best for sucking up.
1 hour ago, Emba said:My kids call us Mom and Dad mostly now, even though my husband and I still refer to ourselves/each other as “Mama” and Daddy - like “go ask your Mama”. But I never call my husband Daddy in direct address, because that would be weird. He’s my kids’ daddy, not mine. And so I regularly have to make the same clarification my mom had to make to me: “I was talking to Daddy the other day - my Daddy, not yours “.
Whenever my kids are around, I refer to my parents as Nana and Papa, my kids' names for them. Both as a form of address: "Nana, would you like to come with us to the park?" and as a reference: "I don't think Papa has ever been to Mexico." But if my kids aren't around, then I revert back to Mom and Dad.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Drama Llama said:
I don't think anybody here is unclear on that.
Everyone here has said one of two things.
1) They don't think encouraging a very young child to stay on a blanket is ever OK.
2) They think that although the Pearl/Duggar's techniques are unbelievably horrific and abusive, there are gentle ways to encourage a very young child to play on a blanket that are not abusive.
And I would even say my view goes a bit beyond 2) to the idea that perhaps it can even be beneficial to the child.
As soon as my kids were sitting confidently I started teaching them "Hand right here" especially when I was opening the oven. I would sit them next to a wall/cabinet/fridge, put one of their hands flat on the front of the surface, gently push on it like I was gluing it to the wall, and say, "Hand right here. Now wait." Then I would make a game of it while I did my quick task in the oven: "Waaaait. Waaaait. Good job keeping your hand right there...keep waiting!!" And then when I closed the oven we would applaud their feat of self-regulation.
We know waiting is hard...and my babies could have pulled their hand off the wall at any moment, but once they learned the expectation, they often kept their hand there through an act of perseverance.
Did they persevere because they wanted to please me? Probably to some extent; humans are social creatures, and cooperating within our tribe is evolutionarily advantageous. Or maybe they enjoyed playing the game with me, or they were looking for mental stimulation, or they felt pride in "helping".
In any case, I think giving a ~6 month old the opportunity to master that skill is no less healthy than letting them master self feeding or pulling off their socks.
-
4
-
-
13 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:
What you describe here isn't training, anyway.
Wait, what??
You specifically said that deliberately or repeatedly trying to change a baby's behavior was training. What I described was deliberately and repeatedly preventing my baby from grabbing my glasses in an effort to teach/train him/her not to touch them.
I would argue that is the definition of training. I never even tell baby why glasses are off limits (how could a 2 month old understand broken lenses or eye insurance costs), I just steadfastly enforce the limit until they change their behavior.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:
I'm always kind of surprised and impressed that so many of you had clear cut goals and actively worked on developing desired behaviors. Me, I just kind of muddled through day by day. If I had to label my child rearing philosophy I suppose it would have been "survive and advance" -- get all of us through each day unharmed and make some progress over time. That's about as deep or thoughtful as I got at the time.
I had done a TON of reading before having kids and when they were young. The Baby Whisperer - eat, wake, sleep cycle. Charlotte Mason - habit training. TWTM - establishing rest time.
I had taken many early childhood education classes - helping baby get on a fairly consistent routine, using cues to let them know what was happening next.
By 9 months my oldest was receiving speech therapy from our state's early intervention, so I saw those workers interacting with him weekly - calm, but firm redirection, withholding reinforcers until he attempted a skill - and who encouraged teaching independent play time every day.
I got direction from our pediatrician who noted suspicions of autism in DS's chart at his 6 month appointment - it is okay to gently enforce boundaries, and the clearer, more concrete, and more consistent the better.
I have always given my parenting a tremendous amount of thought. I view it as my most important job, and try very hard to speak and act intentionally, never sending mixed messages or carelessly working against my parenting goals. I'm an engineer who likes to find solutions, parenting four very special needs kids who from day 1 had far more struggles than NT kids.
-
11
-
-
5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:
A pre-determined pattern of parental disapproval, designed at extinguishing 'rebellious' behaviour in an infant, and repeated until said 'rebellion' is extinguished - yes, it runs that risk.
That's not the same thing as 'the slightest hint of disapproval'.
Or an involuntary ouch.
Or indeed, moving one's glasses out of reach, or using a baby's cues to hypothesize they are no longer hungry.
I can’t buy into a view of human development that makes babies out as so emotionally fragile that they can’t handle their mother, who is lovingly nourishing them from her breast, enforcing a no biting or I’m going to unlatch you for a few minutes rule.
I do not see babies as perfect heavenly creatures who always know what is best (for everyone) and therefore should never be influenced in any way. Right from day one, if baby had nursed for a couple hours, I was perfectly comfortable handing him off to DH while I took 20 minutes for myself, even if baby strongly opposed the plan. Welcome to the world kiddo where you are really special and important and loved, but where even you have to live within boundaries.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:
I'd just like to point out that I didn't say that.
I said training infants isn't developmentally sound.
You said:
"The or-else is the communication of parental disapproval via the mechanism of 'no more song'.I mean, that's the whole point of doing it, right?
I can totally see that some people feel the or-else is worth it.
My personal feeling is that it was never worth it with an infant."
and:
"I do think we can accidentally, and with the best of intentions, be coercive with regard to our infant's emotional life."Those two statement together certainly seem to add up to any parental disapproval, even turning your attention away from the baby for a moment, even disapproving unintentionally, are coercive and emotionally damaging to a baby.
-
3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:
I think making a big deal out of it, my upset, would have encouraged the behavior.
I never said I made a big deal out of it, but I also did not pretend that I loved that choice.
I was responding to the idea that it was not emotionally healthy to ever show a baby even slight parental disapproval. That seems ridiculous to me.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:
Yeah, that's not what anyone is saying and you know that. Most of the folks in this thread have kids in their teens and twenties, many in college or college graduates, so obviously all our kids have learned what they needed to know to live and thrive in society.
There is a difference between teaching a child in developmentally appropriate ways and viewing babies as rebellious, manipulative little creatures who need to be manipulated and conditioned into obedience for mom's convenience.
So, is it your opinion that if a three month old grabs an adult's glasses, and the adult reacts:
"Ooop. Glasses aren't for touching." and hands him another toy. Repeated calmly and lovingly as often as required.That that is developmentally inappropriate and manipulating the baby maliciously?
Because, if so, we will never see eye to eye on that. Realistically, my very young babies learned that "rule" very quickly. They were not psychologically harmed because while I was home all day bonding with them, I did redirected them from my glasses instead of walking around blindly and now they will forever experience that as a scar on their souls knowing that their mother doesn't love them as much as her ability to see.
My babies quickly adopted small behavior changes like that as just how things are done in our family. Babies through the ages have adapted to being strapped into cradle boards tied onto horses, left with grandparents while parents worked in the fields, left alone all day tethered like in the movie Babies, learning infant potty training in cultures without diapers, and the list goes on and on.
In our culture, babies have to ride in car seats. And in my family culture, babies are taught not to touch glasses.
-
5
-
-
6 minutes ago, Terabith said:
I have seen older babies (mostly 8/9 months and up or so) get a gleam in their eye and do something that they know we'd prefer they didn't do. Throw food on the floor or pull the cat's tail or what not. They're not being rebellious; they're trying to understand both the physical world (gravity) and the social world (how do I fit in this family; what makes the people in my family tick). They're learning.
So when they throw that food on the floor when they know they "shouldn't", do you give it right back to them so they can do it again?
I think it is disingenuous (and counter productive) if I pretend that I am perfectly happy with them throwing their food. Yes, it is age-appropriate, but that doesn't mean I have to play the pick it up so they can throw it again game...we can play that game with a ball or beanbag or something else that isn't wasteful and messy.
I use the word rebellious to mean doing something they know we would prefer they not. And while I am never going to hit a baby, I am also not going to be equally encouraging when they throw their lunch as when they throw a ball. I see no reason to mislead babies - they want to figure out what makes the people in their family tick, and I see no reason to shield them from the fact that people like some things more than others.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:
I can’t either but I regularly put them aside when DS was grabby while DD (3-4) played nearby. It was a PHASE, a moment in a day, not an excuse to punish my son.
But is it punishment?
"Ooop. Glasses aren't for touching." and hand him another toy. Repeated calmly and lovingly as often as required.
Let's remember that my kiddo #2 was/is so violent and destructive that we had psychiatrist "prescribed" safety plans in place from the time he was 4. Not exactly the kind of kid I could safely take my eyes off of for even one instant.
-
8
-
-
3 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:
All of this is getting way off from "blanket training " and if it has a direct meaning of hitting a small infant or not
Yes, I am seeing it is much bigger, and that there are people who think it is actually impossible to teach a baby anything without damaging them through abuse and coercion...even if all you are using is gentle informative statements and momentary reduced enthusiasm.
I proudly teach my babies things. I teach them how to open their mouth big to latch properly...partly for their benefit, but largely for my comfort. I teach them to push their arms and legs through their sleeves and pant legs...mostly to make my job dressing them easier. I teach them not to grab glasses or hair. I teach them to stay on their backs and play with toys during diaper changes. I teach them not to dump food or water cups off their highchair trays...and then I teach them to wipe their highchair tray with a wet rag. I teach them not to stand in the bathtub. I teach them not to touch the garbage can. And I teach them to play on a blanket next to me without my undivided attention when they need to be safely in one place while I attend to something other than them in this wide, wide world.
-
7
-
-
1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:
You know, you can just take your glasses off. When my babies reached up, it was no problem for me to do that. Somehow, someway, my 5yo no longer had that urge.
I can't see without my glasses. I've worn them since I was 5 years old, and I can't safely parent a baby without my glasses on. So, yes, I could stand in one spot holding the baby without my glasses so that they can't touch them. I couldn't safely move, or see the toddler across the room, or pick up my water cup...but, yeah, my baby wouldn't have to learn a limit, so there is that. 🤔
-
4
-
Lantern English Advanced Writer Courses Pacing for Kid with Learning Challenges/Advice Needed
in High School and Self-Education Board
Posted
Since Lantern's focused writing classes are only 8 weeks, they are meant to build on one another.
Their class Choosing and Using Sources, which is the first high school writing class in the progression before Expository and Persuasive essays, spends 8 weeks covering all the bolded things you mentioned.
So both Expository Essay 1 and Persuasive Essay 1 cover a very brief review of those topics, but mostly jump right into writing that type of essay.