Are you kidding me? - pg.2 | allnurses

Are you kidding me? - page 3

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and... Read More

  1. Visit  WORKINGWOMANINTN profile page
    1
    Pure & simple... the Feds have gotten WAY too intrusive. The Health Care cost reform debate has just underlined what (for some) was a vague uneasiness. It has escalated for decades, well beyond what it needs to.
    Imagine -- we don't even bat an eye to pay the government money when we earn money (i.e. - income tax). We just think it's a 'natural' thing to do.
    And the Federal Reserve kinda does their own thing, and we just ASSUME they're doing the right thing. Wake up, darlings!
    ozoneranger likes this.
  2. Visit  HM2VikingRN profile page
    0
    Early childhood and parent education is a bargain for government spending. 1 dollar spent in early childhood (up to about age 7) saves 7 dollars in future spending on welfare, mental health services, and corrections.

    Art Rolnick did a study a few years ago and found that interventions for at risk families yield a lifetime 16% rate of return (12% for society and 4% for individuals.0

    (sources available at epi.org and through the MPLS federal reserve bank.)

    I am rather tired of these expressions of faux outrage driven by the corporates hacks of Faux news and EIB which are easily disproven with 5 minutes of research.
  3. Visit  WORKINGWOMANINTN profile page
    1
    Sorry your feeling tired, HM2Viking. An umbilical cord to DC is not the way most Americans want to live their lives. Imaginative twist of words (I like it), but it ain't faux.
    ozoneranger likes this.
  4. Visit  wowza profile page
    2
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Early childhood and parent education is a bargain for government spending. 1 dollar spent in early childhood (up to about age 7) saves 7 dollars in future spending on welfare, mental health services, and corrections.

    Art Rolnick did a study a few years ago and found that interventions for at risk families yield a lifetime 16% rate of return (12% for society and 4% for individuals.0

    (sources available at epi.org and through the MPLS federal reserve bank.)

    I am rather tired of these expressions of faux outrage driven by the corporates hacks of Faux news and EIB which are easily disproven with 5 minutes of research.
    Excuse me... just because someone disapproves of the gov't stepping into a system that delivers quality health care does not mean he or she have anything to do with Fox news, agrees with their tactics or view point. I for instance never watch fox news because I think it is ridiculous. However, you on multiple occasions have accused me of being a fox news cronie.

    You throw that ?insult around all the time to anyone who disaggrees with your point without actually addressing their arguments. Please stop it.

    Is it not more likely that someone actually thinks for themself and by looking at almost every other gov't program realizes a gov't run program reliant on tax payers' money is a terrible idea?

    Most gov't programs cannot maintain profitability, cannot keep costs at bay, are going bankrupt or deliver worse care than the private sector:

    1) Postal service- has raised rates much faster than its competitors yet is still going bankrupt. Notice that it's competitors FedEx and UPS are not.

    2) Medicare/Medicaid- always in a budget crisis. Never keeps costs at bay and the difference either gets added to the deficit, the pockets of the tax payers or on the shoulders of those actually providing the service. Medicare reimbursements (not even corrected for inflation) have actually gone down in many areas since the 1980s. Why because the gov't cannot run a large system efficiently

    3) Social security- everyone is well aware of the problems here, they are numerous.

    4) VA heath system- while not terrible I can assure you the care at the VA is worse than every private hospital I have worked in. Things move like molases. It shuts down over the weekend. How ridiculous is that? You end up adding 1/2 a week to everyone's stay adding to the risk of nosocomial infections and the other complications that come with extending hospital stays. The studies on how great the VA is, compares VA people to those w/ and without insurance. They cold called people during the day. Who do you think is home during the day? People with jobs and the money to pay for insurance or people who dont have a job and dont have insurance? A better comarison would be to those with insurance. I will acquiesce that having some insurance is better than none. That doesn't mean you have to bring the entire health care system down to the lowest common denominator.

    The VA is good in a few areas though. Their computer system is not only simple but pretty powerful. It helps with reminding about screening tests and allows you to review the chart easier. Despite some good, after seeing it for myself, I still I would not choose to get care at a VA.

    5) Our Public schools system ranks one of the worst in the civilized world.

    6) Gov't limiting its own size- never, during any presidency has the gov't actually shrunk in size- this goes for Republicans and democrats alike. It cannot limit itself and it's spending has continued to increase every year.

    So really the gov't has a pretty terrible track record for doning all the things it says it is going to: provide a quality service on par with the private sector, maintain profitability (or stay out of the red), and keep prices down without pawning its inability on someone else (namely the tax payers or the proviors or having to cut services).
    ozoneranger and WORKINGWOMANINTN like this.
  5. Visit  wowza profile page
    2
    Furthermore most also fear the gov't, and for good reason. Our country was founded in response to governmental tyrrany. Our constitution and declaration of independence bear witness to this in the way they are worded- to limit gov't size and create checks and balances.

    As soon as you cede power to the gov't you open the door for abuses by the gov't. Will it happen immediately- probably not. But being cautious is not a bad idea given the history in this country and every other where the gov't has been given too much power.
    VivaLasViejas and ozoneranger like this.
  6. Visit  heron profile page
    4
    I'd like to ask a few questions:

    In thread after thread here on AN, we see posters bemoaning the lack of parenting skills on the part of someone or other. Basically, parenting knowledge and skills are obtained primarily from one's family of birth, less often from churches and educational institutions.

    When those skills don't exist in the family of origin, where is a person supposed to get them?

    Or are you saying that children born into poorly functioning families don't deserve decent parenting?

    Or, perhaps personal responsibility should play a role ... just how does a newborn take personal responsibility for his/her own care and upbringing?

    The programs you cited, wowza, are all federal programs. This proposal is for grants to the states, just like the feds already do for the public schools and universities. Do you object to all federal funding for education? What part is OK, if any?

    As for values, you are right, Freedom42 - there are a plethora of theoretical models of early childhood development and values is always a sticky wicket.

    But we're not talking about preparing parents for a doctoral dissertation. We're talking about basic information about health and development, learning needs, boundaries and safety. There's no such thing as value-free education, but it is possible to convey the basics without violating personal moral, social or religious values ... nurses do it all the time.

    You could say, and you'd be right, that "those people" should not have children they aren't prepared to raise. But once the child is born, that becomes moot, 'cause the baby exists. Short of compulsory sterilization, I don't see how to get around that fact. Are we just supposed to say, "Too bad, so sad ... we have information that'll help you grow up with a fighting chance, but we're not gonna share it ... see you when you land in the justice system or the morgue, when we'll give your mom the fish eye and moan 'but where were the parents?'"

    I also happen to agree that government ... on any level ... has become way too intrusive. In this case, however, non-government resources do not exist in a quantity to meet the need. Volunteerism and private non-profits could make a huge difference, but so far they haven't cracked the nut, either.

    And, workingwomanintn, could you please explain how grants to states for parenting education constitutes an umbilical cord to DC?
    herring_RN, HM2VikingRN, nicurn001, and 1 other like this.
  7. Visit  WORKINGWOMANINTN profile page
    1
    Good points, heron. There will always be needy children & adults in our society, and there must be ways to address their needs. I don't think you're arguing that any of the nurses on this post lack compassion. But what is at issue is 'who' meets the needs. Do we want a bureaucratic system far-distanced from the need to address it (like the Feds or the UN), or something closer to home?
    I believe needs will always be addressed better by the entity closest to it, and should only be 'bumped up' in rare cases. But we've gotten turned upside-down. We jump right from family to the Fed.
    Post-WWII, Americans spread out geographically. Now, many nuclear families fend for themselves and cannot rely on the extended family. So here comes the evolution of Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, SCHIP, etc. to the rescue. Filled the need, but was it the best choice for who should help?
    I believe that nowadays non-government resources do not exist sufficiently because we reflexively think that Big Brother will handle the need. People think 'well, that's why I pay taxes', and on & on. But in my lifetime I've seen charities dry up and churches become social clubs. Why -- because government stepped in. If/as government would phase-out of social programs, you would see these other entities pick up.
    As to your question 'how grants to states for parenting education constitutes an umbilical cord to DC?' --
    Federal monies come with strings attached that states do not want to pay for or be forced to relinquish their rights.
    In fact, there is an increasing adversarial relationship between the states and the US govt. 30+ states have recently introduced bills affirming their 10th amendment sovereignty rights. The balance of power has gotten skewed. The federal government is supposed to provide coinage, militaries for defense, rules for naturalization....a limited list. NOT health care.
    That is part of the reason why there is so much outrage about the health care bill. It has over-reached the Constitution.
    I think what we'll see is the states will use their sovereignty if health care reform is 'rammed down their throats'. They know it will ultimately hurt their budgets.
    ozoneranger likes this.
  8. Visit  ozoneranger profile page
    0
    Quote from WORKINGWOMANINTN
    Pure & simple... the Feds have gotten WAY too intrusive. The Health Care cost reform debate has just underlined what (for some) was a vague uneasiness. It has escalated for decades, well beyond what it needs to.
    Imagine -- we don't even bat an eye to pay the government money when we earn money (i.e. - income tax). We just think it's a 'natural' thing to do.
    And the Federal Reserve kinda does their own thing, and we just ASSUME they're doing the right thing. Wake up, darlings!



    How many tax payers are paying into the current Medicare program, for one person to receive a dime from it? You might also consider the number paying into Social Security, for one person to receive those benefits, before jumping on the train to add another under funded government program. It may have a set cost cutting from a few principle players now (those that made a deal undercover with the Whitehouse), but it will be the tax payers that wind up funding the shortfalls when the set cuts from those players run out.



    Here's a look at the history of Social Security:

    1940: 35,390 Payers, 222 Beneficiaries, = 159.4 Ratio

    2006: 161,852 Payers, 48,863 Beneficiaries, = 3.3 Ratio

    Now, Take the same scenario into account for healthcare.


    If the intrusive nature of the bill doesn't bother you, maybe the math will.
  9. Visit  nicurn001 profile page
    0
    Whatever system we use so that everybody can recieve healthcare , who makes it to the ER.The present system allows insurance companies to cream off the ones least likely to need insurance , then profit from the least amount of care they can get away with providing , whilst leaving the higher risk groups for us the taxpayers to finance.
    The only way to provide healthcare to all economically is to either stop providing care to all who cannot prove ability to pay for it ( a socity in which I for one would not wish to live ) , or get every one covered by insurance ,without exception .
    Last edit by nicurn001 on Aug 16, '09
  10. Visit  psychonaut profile page
    0
    When are you people going to wake up to the fact that our Kenyan dictator wants to force illegal Mexicans into your homes to raise your children and kill your grandparents? Nazi Marxists will be forcing your daughters to have abortions and HPV vaccination AT THE SAME TIME!!!
  11. Visit  nicurn001 profile page
    0
    Quote from psychonaut
    When are you people going to wake up to the fact that our Kenyan dictator wants to force illegal Mexicans into your homes to raise your children and kill your grandparents? Nazi Marxists will be forcing your daughters to have abortions and HPV vaccination AT THE SAME TIME!!!
    It's almost horrifying to see the way , the extremes of the political spectrum think , but wonderful that we all , live in a country where we have the ability to see it and come to our own conclusions about the veracity / sanity of some opinions .
    Obviously in this case I think the naut is superfluous .
  12. Visit  psychonaut profile page
    1
    Quote from nicurn001
    [snip]Obviously in this case I think the naut is superfluous .
    Took me a second, but I liked it once I got it...if I used a sig line, I think that would be a winner.

    "The 'Naut is Superfluous" <---oh yeah! Works on a couple of different levels, actually.
    nicurn001 likes this.
  13. Visit  tulip928 profile page
    0
    What radio show did all this krepp come from? ''=

    It's called "reading the bill with your own eyes and using your own brain".


Visit Our Sponsors
Top
close
close