Free Birth Control; Children Up to 26; Pre-Existing Conditions; Free Mammograms, etc. If these matter to you...

[8circles]

That's why Obama signed it? That's what I'm asking.

 

No, that's why we can't copy any other country - because people are unwilling to let go of their "personal responsibility", defined as every man for himself.

 

The ACA as passed was far from ideal and everybody knew it & everybody knows it. 

[BooksandBoys]

I think I used that phrase, and maybe it wasn't the best choice. But people do need some responsibility for their health. I want it to cost a little something to take your kid to the doctor, because I don't think people should be dragging kids in for run of the mill viral ear infections that antibiotics can't fix anyway, even if they're "free." If it costs a little something, maybe people would be encouraged to employ common sense and to learn a little about how the body fights disease. But I think those costs should be reasonable and maybe mean that a family eats a little simpler that month, not that they skip multiple meals or that they don't treat until it gets to be supernhorrible and requires the ER/hospital. I don't know how many people do drag their kids in for every little sniffle just because it's "free," but we need to find a balance.

While I agree with this a bit, I'll add a complicating factor. Schools.

One if my children is in the public school system. I've taken him to the doctor (paying my copay and deductibles) more this year than I ever have before in his young life. Why? Because if he misses more than a vet rtain number of "unexcused" days, they'll send the truancy officer after us. :-) Never mind that the School itself is setting the rules about fevers and other health issues. If I follow those rules and send in a note, it's still "unexcused" without a doctor's note. This infuriates me beyond words. The school says he can't return to school within 24 hours of a fever over 100 degrees, but my word isn't enough???

Infuriates me.

So, I admit to wishing the schools had to pay my copay a (have their skin in the game) for these ridiculous visits. And if my income were lower (like it's been every year until this one), we'd just be hoping they didn't come after us for truancy. There was No money for superfluous visits then.

 

As for eating simpler. Not possible. We aren't choosing food over healthcare. Food was tricky too. It's just not so simple to think that people can just eat "cheaper."

Edited January 15, 2017 by BooksandBoys

[Barb_]

I'm not saying this. 

 

I think we as Americans will have to give up some of our frills and subsidize education for medical students.   I hate to be personal, but you've been very open about your recent surgery.  Should we as a country have to pay for your surgery as a group so that you can have another child?  I'm thinking it wasn't the main goal but your weight loss was a factor.  In a one payer system is this a frill or a necessity?  Again, I'm sorry to ask, but it's pertinent ( IMHO) to the discussion,  What are we as a nation able to provide to its citizens? 

 

Katie's surgery was primarily for her long-term health.  I wouldn't call it a frill.

[Frances]

That's why Obama signed it? That's what I'm asking.

Because it was at least an attempt to do something, especially for those that could not get insurance due to pre-existing conditions and not qualifying for Medicare in their state. As far as I know, nothing serious had been attempted at the federal level since the Clinton administration. And the ACA was modeled on a Republican plan. Edited January 15, 2017 by Frances

[Artichoke]

He signed it because it was the best he could get. I imagine he and everyone else figured we could build on it in future administrations.

 

 

Sorry, Barb.  When we are told that we have to pass it to know what's in it, then we need to throw out all those who voted for the ACA,  Any senator or representative who is willing to vote for something without knowing what;s in it  is not worth our trust.  we have  a fundamental flaw in our system when totally different subjects are allowed to be combined in one bill. 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Artichoke

[FaithManor]

Tibbie, I think we'll have to disagree. I see Arctic Mama as offering a cash pay solution that may help others not as someone wanting pity. She's also pointing out some of the flaws with healthcare and consumers. IMHO.

Except that it isn't viable. Most health shares are for a specific religious group, mostly protestant, and have pre existing condition clauses making them unaccessible. It also is a gamble. It is not legally insurance and technically does not have to pay anything. The Christian Brotherhood was one health share that stuck people with millions of dollars and very little could be done because legally it isnt responsible to pay a dime.

 

That is not the answer to the problem even if it works for a very small group of people.

 

And it absolutely is cruel to say people are sentimentalists when Tibbie has said here that without the ACA provisions her own son could die. Arctic not that long ago was given huge support as she went through hell with her son who was able to have access to bizzarrely expensive healthcare. I find that quite shocking because in the past, she has always been a compassionate poster.

 

I am so glad Slartibartfast's sister is not here to have to listen to this kind of inhumane callousness as her son's future is bleak without single payer health care or at the very least the pre-existing condition provision.

 

This is no different from my brother whom I will probably end relationship with after we get mom through this husband dying by inches mess. He truly believes he deserves primo healthcare, but no one else. He and his family are special snowflakes. Everyone should magically spend hundreds of thousands and if they can't, just die already and relieve the excess population of moochers. He does not give a damn about anyone else. He complains about our male dna donor being such a horrible human these days, but from my persepctive the apple did not fall far from the tree.

[Frances]

I'm not saying this.

 

I think we as Americans will have to give up some of our frills and subsidize education for medical students. I hate to be personal, but you've been very open about your recent surgery. Should we as a country have to pay for your surgery as a group so that you can have another child? I'm thinking it wasn't the main goal but your weight loss was a factor. In a one payer system is this a frill or a necessity? Again, I'm sorry to ask, but it's pertinent ( IMHO) to the discussion, What are we as a nation able to provide to its citizens?

I'm completely fine with giving up some of the frills. Many of them actually come about because hospitals are competing with each other for patients and profits. In my area, for instance, there's a race to see who can have the fanciest and nicest birthing center to lure expectant mothers. I also have no problem with majorly changing our medical education system.

 

But if we can't fundamentally agree that healthcare is a right and that we are all willing to be in it together and that some are going to pay more so that others can have care, as those in countries with universal healthcare have done, then I don't really think any of the other details matter. But that's just my personal opinion.

[Barb_]

Sorry, Barb.  When we are told as that we have to pass it to know what's in it, then we need to throw out all those who voted for the ACA,  Any senator or representative who is willing to vote for something without knowing what;s in it  is not worth our trust.  we have  a fundamental flaw in our system when totally different subjects are allowed to be combined in one bill. 

 

Are you on your phone?  I don't understand the post.  Lots of autocorrrect or something.

[Lady Florida.]

So basically, people are saying there is no way to make sure everyone has healthcare that is of good quality. Except most other countries have it. 

 

IKR? That argument always puzzles me.

[Artichoke]

Yeah, but they can make profit off of some, and others will go without. I'm not okay with that. 

 

 

And neither am I.    We either have to decide if we, a a nation, are good with providing funding for public research or if we are good with private research,  

[Barb_]

And neither am I.    We either have to decide if we, a a nation, are good with providing funding for public research or if we are good with private research,  

 

That's a whole other thread. But I agree it's a huge problem.  Science has a PR issue.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I remember discussions about universal healthcare on these boards years ago. Many like Tibbie were against it until it became personal.  I remember more than half of us back then were claiming socialism.  That didn't happen.  A lot of people who are for better healthcare now were staunchly against it back then.

 

I was against it 20+ years ago.  At the time I was still convinced there was a market solution, but after all these years I simply do not see a viable one.

[Artichoke]

Except that it isn't viable. Most health shares are for a specific religious group, mostly protestant, and have pre existing condition clauses making them unaccessible. It also is a gamble. It is not legally insurance and technically does not have to pay anything. The Christian Brotherhood was one health share that stuck people with millions of dollars and very little could be done because legally it isnt responsible to pay a dime.

 

That is not the answer to the problem even if it works for a very small group of people.

 

And it absolutely is cruel to say people are sentimentalists when Tibbie has said here that without the ACA provisions her own son could die. Arctic not that long ago was given huge support as she went through hell with her son who was able to have access to bizzarrely expensive healthcare. I find that quite shocking because in the past, she has always been a compassionate poster.

 

I am so glad Slartibartfast's sister is not here to have to listen to this kind of inhumane callousness as her son's future is bleak without single payer health care or at the very least the pre-existing condition provision.

 

This is no different from my brother whom I will probably end relationship with after we get mom through this husband dying by inches mess. He truly believes he deserves primo healthcare, but no one else. He and his family are special snowflakes. Everyone should magically spend hundreds of thousands and if they can't, just die already and relieve the excess population of moochers. He does not give a damn about anyone else. He complains about our male dna donor being such a horrible human these days, but from my persepctive the apple did not fall far from the tree.

Faith, please note that no where have I  said anything about sentimentalism.   I've also given Tibbie the benefit of the doubt because I have known her from other boards.   I am honesty uncertain  as to why you think I'm being callous, I have no idea.  Please reread my posts.   I believe everyone should have healthcare and dignity at the end of life,  

Edited January 15, 2017 by Artichoke

[TechWife]

Do you think it isn't?  I mean, come on.  Doctors tell people every day that grandma only has a 5% chance of life and they can let her go at any time.  They go away and think about it and then do it.    If they just run up bills for a long time, everyone talks to them about the chances. 

 

Nothing is new in this.  We don't need to mandate and run expensive programs to run to simply use common sense. 

 

 

Yet a physician intubated my 86 year old father because no paperwork came with him when he was transferred from rehab, they said it wasn't complete.  Then the doctor was reluctant to remove the tube. We, the family, insisted.  Where was the common sense you are so adamant exists? Have you ever, in your life, had to make a real life and death decision like we did that day? Trust me, we would have much preferred that all of the paperwork be in order so that we didn't have to make that decision. Had my father met a long time ago with his physician and discussed this, all of the paperwork for the DNR would have been in order and complete. So, no, don't tell me that this is something that just naturally happens, because it does not. 

[Artichoke]

Are you on your phone?  I don't understand the post.  Lots of autocorrrect or something.

 

 

Sorry.  I took out the as.  Does that make it better?  

[Barb_]

Faith, please note that no where have I  said anything about sentimentalism.   I've also given Tibbie the benefit of the doubt because I have known her from other boards.   I am honesty uncertain  as to why you think I'm being callous, I have no idea.  Please reread my posts.   I believe everyone should have healthcare and dignity at the end of life,  

 

She's referring to the post I linked you upthread. Not anything you posted.

[Barb_]

Sorry, Barb.  When we are told that we have to pass it to know what's in it, then we need to throw out all those who voted for the ACA,  Any senator or representative who is willing to vote for something without knowing what;s in it  is not worth our trust.  we have  a fundamental flaw in our system when totally different subjects are allowed to be combined in one bill. 

 

 

Sorry.  I took out the as.  Does that make it better?  

 

 

Maybe?  What do you mean "we are told we have to pass it to know what's in it?"  They knew what was in it.  No one liked it.  Obama wanted to go much farther but there was so much pushback from the opposition that he passed what he could get in the hopes we could add to it.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe?  What do you mean "we are told we have to pass it to know what's in it?"  They knew what was in it.  No one liked it.  Obama wanted to go much farther but there was so much pushback from the opposition that he passed what he could get in the hopes we could add to it.  

 

Correct.  The quote by Pelosi that is used to attack the ACA is usually taken out of context.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

[TechWife]

Who needs a separate 1 hour consultation (or wants to pay for it, or wants to leave the family member to have it)?  Your family member is dying, and people come in and out all the time.  They DO talk about this stuff.   

Been there, done that. 

 

 

These conversations should take place long before someone is on their death bed. The purpose of them is so that the patient's wishes are honored and so that the family doesn't have to guess at what their family member might want. That is the purpose of allowing reimbursement, so doctors can get paid for office visits that address these situations. 

 

You may have "been there, done that" but there are so many complicated scenarios that people should think through. I'm sure you haven't encountered all of them. I also find the "been there, done that" attitude to be particularly dismissive of the person who is actually dying. They should be given an opportunity to indicate their own choices as much as possible. 

 

For example, there's the issue of intubation. It can play out in many ways: 

chance of meaningful recovery

chance of recovery with severe physical limitations

chance of recovery, but patient is impaired by Alzheimers/dementia and no longer recognizes family and friends

no chance of meaningful recovery 

 

Then, put "feeding tube" in the place of intubation.

Put "hydration" in the place of intubation. 

 

Each of these things (intubation, nutrition and  hydration) can prolong life, but they work differently and have different consequences. They are all worth separate consideration.

 

Then, start thinking about what you consider to be a meaningful recovery. What does that mean to you? 

Walking, talking, able to feed self, able to communicate without talking, hearing, bathing, toilet, reading?

[Artichoke]

Maybe?  What do you mean "we are told we have to pass it to know what's in it?"  They knew what was in it.  No one liked it.  Obama wanted to go much farther but there was so much pushback from the opposition that he passed what he could get in the hopes we could add to it.  

 

 

I'm referring to Nancy Pelosi's statements at the time.  Respectfully, no one, or few, knew what was in it because of its length.    

[TechWife]

Well, that is totally fine if you are talking about voluntary programs that people themselves decide to participate in to make their own decisions.  I wasn't addressing that at all, and I apologize if I misunderstood you. 

 

 

 

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the ACA provision. It is voluntary. It is not a program. It is a private appointment with their own personal doctor that allows them to learn and make educated choices before the need arises. It is pre-planning. It allows them a modicum of control over the end of their life. 

 

Please, get your facts straight before you start saying something isn't necessary. 

[happypamama]

So, I admit to wishing the schools had to pay my copay a (have their skin in the game) for these ridiculous visits. And if my income were lower (like it's been every year until this one), we'd just be hoping they didn't come after us for truancy. There was No money for superfluous visits then.

 

That is appalling, and I've heard similar from other parents. That's definitely one we should be complaining about. There has to be a better option there.

As for eating simpler. Not possible. We aren't choosing food over healthcare. Food was tricky too. It's just not so simple to think that people can just eat "cheaper."

I'll admit that that might not have been the best example. I just would like to see doctor's visits for basic and routine things be something that most families can handle with a little belt tightening. But that does assume that families have room to tighten those belts, and I do know that that's not always the case, which is a different set of issues. I've had times myself when there just wasn't room for that. There are always going to be people who really just can't absorb any costs other than food, shelter, and transportation to work, but I'd like to see that pool smaller.

[Artichoke]

Correct.  The quote by Pelosi that is used to attack the ACA is usually taken out of context.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

 

 

I just responded with this answer so I fell compelled to reply.  Can you tell us what student loan provisions are included in this bill without researching? 

 

ETA:

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,†she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.â€

 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Artichoke

[Barb_]

Correct.  The quote by Pelosi that is used to attack the ACA is usually taken out of context.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

 

Thanks, I missed the reference.

[BooksandBoys]

Maybe? What do you mean "we are told we have to pass it to know what's in it?" They knew what was in it. No one liked it. Obama wanted to go much farther but there was so much pushback from the opposition that he passed what he could get in the hopes we could add to it.

Exactly. The ACA never had much support from either side. The conservatives hated it because it went to far, the liberals hated it because it didn't go far enough.

My DH was among those who thought that a little progress was good and we'd make it better later.

 

I'm more pessimistic, always have been.

 

But, I also have a brother who had a child with a pre-existing condition (found between jobs/insurance coverage...hence pre-existing) who had medical care that was covered because of ObamaCare. Not once during that care did that brother of mine ever stop railing about the evils of the ACA. The ACA that let the child have a years worth of care, including expensive end of life care. He benefited....extremely..,hundreds of thousands of dollars...from the ACA, yet he hated the ACA. My parents, my brother, my other relatives, all voted for people who wanted to gut the ACA this year.

 

I'll never understand.

[Guest]

I was against it 20+ years ago. At the time I was still convinced there was a market solution, but after all these years I simply do not see a viable one.

I know, right?? I'm not sure if I was lied to or if the people I listened to were mistaken. I kept hearing about the free market and how prices for insurance would drop if there was enough competition. Not really how it worked out!!

[Barb_]

I just responded with this answer so I fell compelled to reply.  Can you tell us what student loan provisions are included in this bill without researching? 

 

ETA:

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that people won’t appreciate how great the Democrat’s health plan is until after it passes.

“You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America,†she told the National Association of Counties annual legislative conference, which has drawn about 2,000 local officials to Washington. “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.â€

 

She seemed to mean, "You will have to live with this for a while before you understand how it will benefit you."  Which seems to have been the case.

[Guest]

I know, right?? I'm not sure if I was lied to or if the people I listened to were mistaken. I kept hearing about the free market and how prices for insurance would drop if there was enough competition. Not really how it worked out!!

Except with the way insurance has been bargained I'm not sure there has been much market pressure and solutions for most of my lifetime. Too much regulation and fixing already when it came it group insurance, tax breaks and incentives for employers instead of individuals in the marketplace, state policies that made risk pools difficult to enter or limitrd time in them, etc. It's like claiming single payer didn't work because the ACA sucks - it was no more single payer than the previous system was free market. The hybridizing seems to make the worst of each and not enough one way or another for them to really succeed.

 

That's my biggest complaint and concern about incremental overhaul. I don't think we will see any improvement unless it is literally torn to the ground and completely redone, whichever way congress goes. Sunsetting provisions on a date certain in the future (like January 2018 or 19) and getting ducks in a row in the intervening years for the roll out is probably the smoothest way to go that won't leave existing customers in the lurch. But trying to cobble together disparate ideas without a cohesive set of regs, at a bare minimum, would be problematic. Removing almost all regulation except basic insurance commission consumer protections would also likely clean up a fair bit of the marketplace problems we are seeing where plans are mandating so much minimum service and coverage that the prices have jumped too high for many to afford them without massive subsidy, and sometimes even with it.

 

These are the discussions we have even on a state level with health and social services budgets and priorities. Halfway between two ideologies about care seems to breed the worst from both. And if a consumer desires extremely limited insurance to manage their risk, as many do, being unable to purchase it at a scaled cost to the coverage means people opt out altogether.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know, right?? I'm not sure if I was lied to or if the people I listened to were mistaken. I kept hearing about the free market and how prices for insurance would drop if there was enough competition. Not really how it worked out!!

 

If there was really a free market, maybe.  The reality is that the conditions needed for a truly competitive, free market for health care/health insurance is simply not possible.  And before the usual suspects jump in, no, the reason is not due to regulations.  Health care, and therefore health insurance. are goods with fairly inelastic demand curves, which lead to imperfect markets.

[Barb_]

If there was really a free market, maybe.  The reality is that the conditions needed for a truly competitive, free market for health care/health insurance is simply not possible.  And before the usual suspects jump in, no, the reason is not due to regulations.  Health care, and therefore health insurance. are goods with fairly inelastic demand curves, which lead to imperfect markets.

 

This exactly.  Health care isn't a consumer good.  Patients aren't customers.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And if a consumer desires extremely limited insurance to manage their risk, as many do, being unable to purchase it at a scaled cost to the coverage means people opt out altogether.

 

The issue becomes how many consumers truly desire those types of plans vs how many can only afford those types of plans.

[Artichoke]

She seemed to mean, "You will have to live with this for a while before you understand how it will benefit you."  Which seems to have been the case.

 

I  firmly believe that the bill was s long and complicated that no one knew what was included.  I think this is a fundamental flaw in our system -- why are politicians allowed to bundle unlike bills in a single vote?  

[Barb_]

I  firmly believe that the bill was s long and complicated that no one knew what was included.  I think this is a fundamental flaw in our system -- why are politicians allowed to bundle unlike bills in a single vote?  

 

You believe it because you've heard it was?  Or you read it?  I haven't read it.  I wouldn't know.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I  firmly believe that the bill was s long and complicated that no one knew what was included.  I think this is a fundamental flaw in our system -- why are politicians allowed to bundle unlike bills in a single vote?  

 

My memory is fuzzy but everything I recall in the ACA bill was directly related to the plan. 

[redheadmom]

A few years ago DHs company switched to a HSA and high deductible plan. The deductible was about 10% of his take home pay. Plus we paid the premium. How much money should families spend on health insurance? How much do they spend in other countries?

 

I read today that it costs 2.5 billion dollars to bring a new drug to the market. Should drug companies pass that cost to consumers in the form of $30k - 100k a year drugs?

Edited January 15, 2017 by redheadmom

[Artichoke]

My memory is fuzzy but everything I recall in the ACA bill was directly related to the plan. 

 

There were other things included, including student loan repayment.   

[Barb_]

There were other things included, including student loan repayment.   

 

Here is a pdf of the Affordable Care act.  Please cut and paste the other things unrelated to healthcare provisions.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

[Artichoke]

Here is a pdf of the Affordable Care act.  Please cut and paste the other things unrelated to healthcare provisions.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

 

 

Barb, I can't.  The student loan info was a rider.  It's not included in what you posted.  Can't speak to other riders since  I haven't researched them. 

[Artichoke]

My memory is fuzzy but everything I recall in the ACA bill was directly related to the plan. 

 

 

It had multiple riders.  It's late here so i'll need to look at it when I can. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It had multiple riders.  It's late here so i'll need to look at it when I can. 

 

There was a Student Aid Act passed as part of the Reconciliation Act.  My understanding is they are two separate bills passed through the same reconciliation procedure.  This is not the same thing as saying that there was a student loan rider attached to the ACA,

 

[Barb_]

Barb, I can't.  The student loan info was a rider.  It's not included in what you posted.  Can't speak to other riders since  I haven't researched them. 

 

It was called, "The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act" and was signed into law a week after the ACA.  The provisions are right there in the outline at the header.  It's disingenuous to imply the information was buried somewhere and lawmakers didn't know what they were passing.  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/html/PLAW-111publ152.htm

 

I suspect you're repeating things you've heard were true without going to the primary sources. It happens, but that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Barb_

[Artichoke]

It was called, "The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act" and was signed into law a week after the ACA.  The provisions are right there in the outline at the header.  It's disingenuous to imply the information was buried somewhere and lawmakers didn't know what they were passing.  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/html/PLAW-111publ152.htm

 

I suspect you're repeating things you've heard were true without going to the primary sources. It happens, but that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

nm

Edited January 22, 2017 by Artichoke

[horsellian]

I don't oppose the government being involved with healthcare. What I oppose is one entity, ANY one entity, even the government, being entirely in charge of access to medical insurance coverage for specific conditions. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO DIE. I am sorry you are in the position of having a family member who is vulnerable to this. I'm sorry anyone does. It's ridiculous and entirely unacceptable.

But this isn't the case in most countries with single payer. In the UK private health insurance and private hospitals still exist. It's just that they are for the minority who can afford them, or whose employers subsidise cover. If you don't like what is available on the NHS you can go elsewhere, but NHS cover is there for everyone even if you have private insurance.

[Carrie12345]

The issue becomes how many consumers truly desire those types of plans vs how many can only afford those types of plans.

 

In the realm of currently existing ACA/hcdotgove options, desire vs. afford aren't even the only factors.  

 

My first year, we paid beaucoup bucks for a truly amazing plan.  It stung, but it was more affordable than the employer option and it spread our cost evenly, giving us the "privilege" of never questioning whether we should take our kids our ourselves to the doctor, UC, or hospital.  Our whole family deductible (and zero cost after) was less than 1 month's premium.

 

Every year, the plan we chose was taken off the marketplace by BC.  So we picked the second "best". Then the third...

 

Even *privately*, BC offers a great (though horrifically expensive) plan to the next county over.  I can literally take a casual stroll over to the next county.  Someone with a better arm might even be able to throw a stone over the border!  (That might be exaggerated, but I love cliches.) But it isn't offered in MY county.  I'm just not allowed to have it, even if I hit the lottery, unless I move down the street.

 

This is why I don't understand the call to open things across state lines.  I can't get something I want *right here*!  Maybe there's a provision I'm not aware of that causes that. Not being aware of it, I'm just mad at BC.

[creekland]

Many things being pushed as "healthy" lifestyle/diet choices are questionable and are pushed by lobbyist.  The food pyramid/my plate (whatever it is they call it these days) is primarily lobbyist driven.  Research, especially in diet, is VERY mixed and muddled.  

 

I know, from my animal science studies, grain has very specific and adverse effects on the digestive tract, blood ph, and alters they very methods of energy metabolism and muscle chemistry of animals. Many of these animals are also being forced to eat unnatural vegetarian diets as well.  Yet we are told to be eating a healthy diet we must be eating more servings of grain than anything else, by what, almost double?  

 

It just does not compute to me.

 

Stefanie

 

I am incredibly behind reading this thread due to not being on the computer yesterday and something like 400+ new posts on it, but got this far... so am answering it for my school and what is taught there...

 

We teach ALL of what you mentioned - grain, unnatural diets, etc.  They watch the "controversial" shows like Food, Inc, Supersize Me, etc, and discuss implications.

 

Like any other class, I certainly can't say all kids learn everything (or care to try), but many learn a TON and modify their choices because of it.  When teaching Bio and the body, I hear quite a bit of what they've taken in.  The discussions are definitely worthy.  We've had several end up interesting in pursuing these studies in college afterward.

 

I'm sure at some schools all of this gets glossed over - not at the one I work at.

[Guest]

I think there are people who "abuse the system," going to the ER for tylenol or to urgent care for parenting advice, but I'd really like to know two things:

 

1. How much of this has to do with low education level or low cognition? Maybe there should be another level of support somewhere, some sort of community center for group classes...I really don't care about people who feel they can't ask questions or learn in a group setting, who must have one-on-one attention or else they are receiving substandard care. For parenting classes and a quick clinic, this might be a really good way to do it. We have a local pharmacy trying to fill this gap, but for reasons unknown the paperwork is so onerous that the clinic doesn't get much use, but it's a start.

 

.

 

This reminds me of when I had the last baby, and I took my older kids on the maternity ward tour.

 

We went along and along, as you do, and you know the nurse was showing us the rooms and the operating room jic, and there was a volunteer there to talk about their lactation consultants (who, it turns out, sucked, but I digress)... the nicu, etcetcetc

 

TWO of the six women on the tour start asking questions...they did not know each other.... And it comes out as we go that they don't actually know what will happen when they go into labor. They did not just not know what the possibility of a cesarean was...or what the nicu was for....they literally did not know what was going to happen. They were all closer to 40 weeks, than 30.

 

I mean. THEY DIDN'T KNOW. I felt so so soooo so sorry for them. And I was trying to keep my kids (boys) quiet, because they were more than happy to explain the whole process to them :laugh: :glare:

 

The nurses had clearly had plenty of experience with this and gave a basic run-down, to their shocked, round eyes.

 

ugh.

 

So to say those women had not received adequate maternity care is a giant understatement. [nor education, which goes without saying].

[SparklyUnicorn]

I am incredibly behind reading this thread due to not being on the computer yesterday and something like 400+ new posts on it, but got this far... so am answering it for my school and what is taught there...

 

We teach ALL of what you mentioned - grain, unnatural diets, etc.  They watch the "controversial" shows like Food, Inc, Supersize Me, etc, and discuss implications.

 

Like any other class, I certainly can't say all kids learn everything (or care to try), but many learn a TON and modify their choices because of it.  When teaching Bio and the body, I hear quite a bit of what they've taken in.  The discussions are definitely worthy.  We've had several end up interesting in pursuing these studies in college afterward.

 

I'm sure at some schools all of this gets glossed over - not at the one I work at.

 

Is this a high school?

 

Here if they teach those things and show those videos I'd call them a bunch of hypocrites.  They serve tons of crap food (for free) that would conflict with all the advice they are giving. 

[creekland]

So you think the Cocoa Puffs and juice for breakfast they serve regularly constitutes a healthy diet?  And the fact they barely have recess for elementary and none for junior high school or high school is encouraging an active lifestyle?  If they are teaching otherwise then they are definitely sending mixed messages.

 

I do think there have been efforts, but it's not enough and if you happen to be lower income you might get the message of what you are supposed to do, but it's difficult to actually do that due to lack of money and access. 

 

There are plenty of healthy things for sale, but in the mega grocery stores around here I'd say probably 75% of what is in the store isn't all that healthy.  Even the dietician recommendation segments they feature in the sale's fliers are often about packaged products (packaged smoothies, cereals, frozen diet meals, etc.).  I don't know what is so healthy about those things. 

 

I don't know what the answer is.  So long as I don't go out and eat and avoid social gatherings involving food I do quite well with healthy eating.  If I have to go somewhere it's nearly impossible sometimes because the stuff they have is crap.  So if I were a student relying on the cafeteria, etc....I'd have mostly crap to choose from.  Sometimes I do like to go out and eat, but most places I've gone to about the best I can do is just order an appetizer of some sort because I figure well at least I'm getting a smaller portion of crap.  And some of the offerings in places are a joke and it's understandable why anyone would choose crap.  Like a fast food joint in a mall with the sad afterthought selection of apples and oranges.  If you are hungry, that's not going to fill you up.  And their crap tastes good. 

 

Again - only read up to your thread so far...

 

What your school does is up to your school.  I'm talking about what mine does.  Mine offers both healthy and unhealthy choices and students make their own decisions.  More and more students are choosing healthier options.  It's quite nice to see.

 

Our school has recess through 8th grade, and for 9th - 11th, kids have PE half the year (because we're on Block scheduling).  When they have PE they get a workout the ENTIRE gym period which is 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours (other than changing clothes).  They do different things (weight room, track, active sports).  

 

The colleges my boys go to have some AWESOME food choices - esp for eating healthy.  We often opt to eat IN the dining hall when we visit due to the food offered.  There are unhealthy options too.  It's up to the student to make their own choices.

 

My school is statistically average educationally.  Assuming this is the same with other things, half will be better and half will be worse, but to me, in this case, average isn't bad - esp comparing it to the 70s and 80s when I was in school and college.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Again - only read up to your thread so far...

 

What your school does is up to your school.  I'm talking about what mine does.  Mine offers both healthy and unhealthy choices and students make their own decisions.  More and more students are choosing healthier options.  It's quite nice to see.

 

Our school has recess through 8th grade, and for 9th - 11th, kids have PE half the year (because we're on Block scheduling).  When they have PE they get a workout the ENTIRE gym period which is 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours (other than changing clothes).  They do different things (weight room, track, active sports).  

 

The colleges my boys go to have some AWESOME food choices - esp for eating healthy.  We often opt to eat IN the dining hall when we visit due to the food offered.  There are unhealthy options too.  It's up to the student to make their own choices.

 

My school is statistically average educationally.  Assuming this is the same with other things, half will be better and half will be worse, but to me, in this case, average isn't bad - esp comparing it to the 70s and 80s when I was in school and college.

 

They do it because that's what they can afford.  Another example of lower income getting the short end of the stick.  But they do follow government guidelines because they have to.  So according to the government they are serving healthy enough food. 

 

[creekland]

where the very people who shout the loudest about Christian values are the ones to trample them in the dust.

 

Not all of us... just saying... ;)