FaithManor Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 pg. 769 Sec. 11-14 "Nurse Home Health Visit Services - increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." I'd like to know what that means. I know what I am afraid that means. I wonder how that will play out in real life! Faith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 pg. 769 Sec. 11-14 "Nurse Home Health Visit Services - increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." I'd like to know what that means. I know what I am afraid that means. I wonder how that will play out in real life! Faith I just searched the text and there is nothing about birth intervals. Where did you read that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) pg. 769 Sec. 11-14 "Nurse Home Health Visit Services - increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." I'd like to know what that means. I know what I am afraid that means. I wonder how that will play out in real life! Faith Editing because I misread the number on your thing. You can access the text here or here. When you have more time between pregnancies it results in healthier mothers and babies. Is there a reason you could not post this in one of the billion other threads? Edited March 23, 2010 by Mrs Mungo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 1. You are downloading the wrong bill, that bill did not pass. You want HR 4872. 2. When you have more time between pregnancies it results in healthier mothers and babies. I've seen nothing but links to HR 3590. Thanks for letting me know I"m looking up the wrong tree. BTW, I rather liked some of the provisions in HR 3590:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mermaid Mama Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 2. When you have more time between pregnancies it results in healthier mothers and babies. But whose decision is that to make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 But whose decision is that to make? *Educating* people isn't the same as mandating personal decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I've seen nothing but links to HR 3590. Thanks for letting me know I"m looking up the wrong tree. BTW' date=' I rather liked some of the provisions in HR 3590:glare:[/quote'] No, no, she was right, my brain has looked at way too many of these numbers. I misread the number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 *Educating* people isn't the same as mandating personal decisions. So what happens if someone doesn't follow that "education" and gets pregnant 5 months after delivering? Seems to me that she could possibly be denied coverage for not following the government suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 *Educating* people isn't the same as mandating personal decisions. Having been on the receiving end...some ppl's "educating" of others can border on harassment. But I can understand the view of "let's tell them their options, etc". I just wish they would approach it from a more naturalistic approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 So what happens if someone doesn't follow that "education" and gets pregnant 5 months after delivering? Seems to me that she could possibly be denied coverage for not following the government suggestions. Why would you suppose that? Education programs for people with government insurance don't have that result *now*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Having been on the receiving end...some ppl's "educating" of others can border on harassment. That usually depends upon the care provider, it's not the program(s) at fault. I have zero qualms about telling a care provider when they have crossed a line. You can take a moment to feel sorry for them now. :D But I can understand the view of "let's tell them their options, etc". I just wish they would approach it from a more naturalistic approach. I agree that natural alternatives are something that should be discussed at length. I think it's shameful how little many grown women know about their bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 So what happens if someone doesn't follow that "education" and gets pregnant 5 months after delivering? Seems to me that she could possibly be denied coverage for not following the government suggestions. I think you're making wild assumptions here. I've ignored advice from government programs plenty of times and it's never affected me. I was on WIC, for example, and the nutritionist really disliked me because I had my dd on a veg diet until she was sixteen months old, and I didn't use the milk vouchers because we only buy organic milk. We also have medical assistance through the state, and have ignored plenty of medical advice. We didn't lose our coverage. They don't cut you off just because you don't follow their suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 What's the "over-under" on the government-dispatched nurses recommending ecological BF as a way of spacing out pregnancies rather than pushing the use of artificial contraception? :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 That usually depends upon the care provider, it's not the program(s) at fault. I have zero qualms about telling a care provider when they have crossed a line. You can take a moment to feel sorry for them now. :D :lol::lol::lol: Nope, won't feel sorry for them. One good OB I had had this one quirk of pushing BCPs at me. I let his nursing staff have at him. I believe he got a good talking to and a note on my records informing him that he was no longer permitted to bring it up to me. I agree that natural alternatives are something that should be discussed at length. I think it's shameful how little many grown women know about their bodies. Yes, it's very sad. Some good alternative books (Taking Charge of Your Fertility has a teen edition for just that purpose, I believe) should be required reading of highschoolers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (Taking Charge of Your Fertility has a teen edition for just that purpose, I believe) Thanks for pointing this out - I didn't know there was a teen version. I've been freaking out a little; dd is only 9 but time will fly and we'll have to talk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I think you're making wild assumptions here. I've ignored advice from government programs plenty of times and it's never affected me. I was on WIC, for example, and the nutritionist really disliked me because I had my dd on a veg diet until she was sixteen months old, and I didn't use the milk vouchers because we only buy organic milk. We also have medical assistance through the state, and have ignored plenty of medical advice. We didn't lose our coverage. They don't cut you off just because you don't follow their suggestions. We have NO idea if that will be the case now. This bill is a complete game changer. It is over 2000 pages for crying out loud. I think it is safe to say that at this point anything is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) Thanks for pointing this out - I didn't know there was a teen version. I've been freaking out a little; dd is only 9 but time will fly and we'll have to talk... http://www.tcoyf.com/store.aspx?shop Cycle Savvy: The Smart Teen's Guide to the Mysteries of Her Body By Toni Weschler Reviews @ Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Savvy-Smart-Teens-Mysteries/dp/0060829648/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269380865&sr=1-1 Edited March 23, 2010 by mommaduck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 We have NO idea if that will be the case now. This bill is a complete game changer. It is over 2000 pages for crying out loud. I think it is safe to say that at this point anything is possible. Just because the bill is rather lengthy doesn't mean the government gets to do whatever it wants. Saying that anything is possible and then speculating with no basis of fact just to try to make a point isn't going to do anyone any good. Perhaps we ought to either read the bill ourselves or wait to learn more about it before we all start screaming that the sky is falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Just because the bill is rather lengthy doesn't mean the government gets to do whatever it wants. Saying that anything is possible and then speculating with no basis of fact just to try to make a point isn't going to do anyone any good. Perhaps we ought to either read the bill ourselves or wait to learn more about it before we all start screaming that the sky is falling. :iagree: I have to wonder that "what if" several years from now we see that things are better as a result of this bill. Will everyone still be in an uproar over it (just because of principle) or will they be able to admit that perhaps they were wrong and it was a very good change for our country? Now that is HAS passed instead of bashing the politicians and ranting over the unjustice of it why can't we be optimistically hopeful that it will be a positive change for us? Does it really do anyone any good to bash this bill before even giving it a chance? Whether anyone is man (or woman ;)) enough to admit it or not NOBODY knows for sure if this is really a bad thing. What "if" it helps? Will those opposed to it today admit that it was a good thing then? And before anyone even asks, I would absolutely admit that I was wrong if by chance the "sky does fall" and this country goes into the cra**er because of it. :D I think we should all do the best we can to educate ourselves on the changes and then wait and see how this will REALLY affect our country. That is all any of us can really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Why would you suppose that? Education programs for people with government insurance don't have that result *now*. Two words: The first one begins with "F" and rhymes with "ear." The second one begins with "M" and, well, I can't think of anything with which it rhymes! :lol::lol: astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadbhoward Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Two words: The first one begins with "F" and rhymes with "ear." The second one begins with "M" and, well, I can't think of anything with which it rhymes! :lol::lol: astrid Wrongering? Sorry I am feeling a bit cheeky today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 TXMary2, Democrats have been fighting for some form of universal health care for FORTY YEARS. This isn't a new idea. It's the one thing Democrats *absolutely, positively* wanted and they were going to make *sure* they got it while they held the majority. Republicans *knew* this. Republicans want it to be as scary as possible to as many people as possible, hoping it will get the Dems out in November. This is how politics works. If the Republicans really wanted to make it a bipartisan bill and work on the issues, they would have. They didn't want to, it's not in any way to their political benefit to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Two words: The first one begins with "F" and rhymes with "ear." The second one begins with "M" and, well, I can't think of anything with which it rhymes! :lol::lol: astrid Donger? You know, like in a bell ringer. :lol::lol::lol: Okay, okay, I'm reaching. I know Donger isn't a word. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Why would you suppose that? Education programs for people with government insurance don't have that result *now*. Oh sure, use logic :D Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Wrongering? Sorry I am feeling a bit cheeky today. LOL!!! Good one! :lol::D:lol::D astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Donger? You know, like in a bell ringer. :lol::lol::lol: Okay, okay, I'm reaching. I know Donger isn't a word. :D No, but hey, it could be somewhere! :lol::001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 TXMary2, Democrats have been fighting for some form of universal health care for FORTY YEARS. This isn't a new idea. It's the one thing Democrats *absolutely, positively* wanted and they were going to make *sure* they got it while they held the majority. Republicans *knew* this. Republicans want it to be as scary as possible to as many people as possible, hoping it will get the Dems out in November. This is how politics works. If the Republicans really wanted to make it a bipartisan bill and work on the issues, they would have. They didn't want to, it's not in any way to their political benefit to do so. Yes. This. Exactly. astrid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 TXMary2, Democrats have been fighting for some form of universal health care for FORTY YEARS. This isn't a new idea. It's the one thing Democrats *absolutely, positively* wanted and they were going to make *sure* they got it while they held the majority. Republicans *knew* this. Republicans want it to be as scary as possible to as many people as possible, hoping it will get the Dems out in November. This is how politics works. If the Republicans really wanted to make it a bipartisan bill and work on the issues, they would have. They didn't want to, it's not in any way to their political benefit to do so. :iagree: I remember seeing a video clip of JFK speaking about universal healthcare when he was in office. This is something that the democrates have been fighting for for decades. I also recall in his speech that way back then we were still the only industrialized country that didn't have some form of universal healthcare. :glare: It saddens me to see that we still haven't come too awfully far. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Oh sure, use logic :D Bill It's my fatal flaw. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommyrooch Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 It's my fatal flaw. :tongue_smilie: Shame on you. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.