Comments on: Why Aren’t Women Fighting the Health Care Trojan Horse?

By: Common Reader

Common Reader — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:33:19 +0000

There is actually a reason for the disconnect. In one particular area, socialized medicine is better for women because in this particular area, the cheapest care happens to be the best care. Most countries with socialized healthcare cut obstretics costs by paying for the kind of care for birthing women that reduces the c-section rate and reduces subsequent maternal and infant hospitalization (homebirth, midwifery, rooming in, lactation support). Countries without socialized medicine tend to have very high c-section rates because power lies with doctors’ professional associations, not with a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, and those professional associations act to restrict or even criminalize midwifery. Countries without socialized medicine also do not have a compelling state interest in reducing formula use. Because of this, short-sighted women’s groups who are already very lefty look at Norway or the Netherlands and they see a tiny c-section rate, a high breastfeeding rate, fewer maternal deaths, and a lower infant mortality rate, and they’re sold on socialized medicine.

By: Xmas

Xmas — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:13:22 +0000

Joshua,

I could argue that an unplanned pregnancy that a woman wants to terminate is an unhealthy lifestyle choice that shouldn't be covered.

I, personally, don't agree with that statement, but I could argue it.

By: Joshua Sharf

Joshua Sharf — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:19:57 +0000

For the records, I do not believe that any of the studies showing long-term adverse health effects of abortion are conclusive. I do not believe abortion is a risk factor for cancer, for instance. But let's suppose, just suppose for the sake of argument that it were a risk factor for some long-term health problem. Cancer, or depression (since the left wants to include mental health coverage under any socialization.)

Would anyone at NOW seriously entertain the idea that coverage for said cancer or depression should be denied or reduced for women choosing to have abortions? Or would we be told that such coverage is simply the cost of safeguarding a right to choose?

Look, I'm not an abortion fanatic. But I think the *real* answer to my question, is that I shouldn't be asking it.

By: Mesa Econoguy

Mesa Econoguy — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:01:50 +0000

This is offensive:

People need and deserve universal, continuous, and accessible health coverage that is provided by a single payer and does not require full-time employment and a beneficent employer.

Bullshit. Absolute steaming putrid bullshit.

To everyone who supports this:

I demand one room in your homes dedicated to me wherever you live. I don’t care where you are, I need to have some place to stay, without having a home of my own. I need at least one room everywhere, and anywhere I want to be, because shelter is right, not a privilege.

By: Jim Howe

Jim Howe — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:56:49 +0000

I recently wrote a letter to our local paper about this topic. In a nutshell it argued that when taxpayers pay your insurance, taxpayers own your body. Single payer is a nanny-state lovers dream and a nightmare for everyone else. Just yesterday I read a quote from John Edwards where he stated that under his plan, people would be *required* to have annual checkups and diagnostic procedures. It’s really scary that most people don’t even think about the deeper implications.

By: dicentra

dicentra — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:11:32 +0000

Health care is a right, not a privilege.

Right. That would make going to medical school a duty and an obligation, not a choice. Same with running a pharma, making medical equipment, and running diagnostic labs.

Perhaps we should instate the draft to make up for the nursing shortage?

By: JG

JG — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:52:58 +0000

Oh its worse than this. Note this excerpt from the U.K.:

"Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services' request for an emergency protection order - these are usually granted - will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.

[...]

The case adds to growing concern, highlighted in a series of articles in The Sunday Telegraph, over a huge rise in the number of babies under a year old being taken from parents. The figure was 2,000 last year, three times the number 10 years ago.

Critics say councils are taking more babies from parents to help them meet adoption "targets".