Come to America to Have your Baby!!

[hope3456]

Los Angeles, California, national and world news, jobs, real estate, cars - Los Angeles Times

(The link to this article doesnt work, type 'medicaid' in the search engine and the article is 'Delivering Dual Benefits')

A couple excerpts from the article:

One of the most controversial aspects of coverage has been prenatal care. In 1989, California passed a law guaranteeing prenatal care to all impoverished women, with the state footing the bill. Last year, it began to tap federal funds dedicated to healthcare for working families, under the theory that the fetus would ultimately be an American child. Some other states have done the same

In Los Angeles County's public and private hospitals, undocumented women accounted for 41,240 Medi-Cal births in 2004, roughly half the deliveries covered by the public program.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Christian Conservatives willing to trade amnesty for stronger border security and an end to birthright citizenship:

Immigration debate gets religious - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

~faith,

Timothy.

[LydiaNN]

I guess you are all assuming I meant ALL patients. Everyone knows there is no such thing as ALL pts, right???

Whatever. Believe whatever you like. My pts always like me. Thats who I care about.

Think about it. If you can receive good care in your own country,then why would you come on a long plane trip to come here, to deliver and go home in 6 weeks?

Those of you who choose to label me (incorrectly I might add) cannot seem to offer any other ideas about why someone would come to have their baby here, when their family, spouse and Dr are all overseas.

Believe whatever I like? Thanks for the permission. That's swell of you.

The only reason that I believe you consider certain people terrorists is because you said you do. All the back pedaling in the world won't change that.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Christian Conservatives willing to trade amnesty for stronger border security and an end to birthright citizenship:

Immigration debate gets religious*-*Nation/Politics*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

~faith,

Timothy.

Simply wrong headed article. The federal government cannot simply "end" birthright citizenship. Congress proposed and the states agreed that citizenship is a birthright that was placed beyond the reach of congress with the ratification of the 14th amendment.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Simple facts:

Individual Income accounted for 899 BILLION in tax revenue in 2005

House Budget Committee - Democrats

Individual Income accounted for 797 BILLION in tax revenue in 2000

The Economic and Revenue Effects of Reducing Federal Income Tax Rates by 10 Percent

As I cited above, the top 50% of Americans pay more than 96% of that bill.

Net effect of tax cuts: 102 BILLION dollars YEARLY in more taxes paid by the 'rich' within 5 yrs of implementation.

Simple fact: the 'rich' aren't paying less taxes, but considerably MORE as a result of the 'cuts'.

By any objective measure, it is an overwhelming measure of success for the poor when the gov't can devise a scheme to make the 'rich' pay not only MORE overall taxes, but the greatest proportion of taxes. That is the net result of President Bush's pro-poor tax policies.

Reversing that trend would NOT be a pro-poor policy.

~faith,

Timothy.

Encouraging obscene concentration of wealth through tax cuts is most assuredly not "pro poor." When you really look at the net effect of the Republican tax code it results in concentration of wealth at the very highest ends of the economy. Warren Buffet made this point quite elegantly. He made the point that his secretary paid a higher marginal rate in taxes than he did. Another example, The child tax credit is not fully refundable to the poorest of our society. Making it fully refundable encourages work. EITC tax returns under Bush are subjected to far greater scrutiny than corporate tax returns. A truly pro poor (and middle class) family tax policy would have made that a priority. When tax reform issues came up in the republican congress the emphasis was always on wealth concentration against the interests of the middle class. (See AMT modernization for a very clear illustration.) Each of these decisions was a moral decision and each of them tilted towards the privileged against the broad interests of our society as a whole. I invite you to read Bill Moyers article in the Nation for an analysis of the moral bankruptcy of the conservative movement in its attitude towards the common good.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i think the comment from bill moyers says it all in response to the role of social justice and our society: for america's sake

everywhere you turn you'll find people who believe they have been written out of the story. everywhere you turn there's a sense of insecurity grounded in a gnawing fear that freedom in america has come to mean the freedom of the rich to get richer even as millions of americans are dumped from the dream.

daniel yankelovich, reports that a majority want social cohesion and common ground based on pragmatism and compromise, patriotism and diversity. but because of the great disparities in wealth, the "shining city on the hill" has become a gated community whose privileged occupants, surrounded by a moat of money and protected by a political system seduced with cash into subservience, are removed from the common life of the country. the wreckage of this abdication by elites is all around us.

corporations are shredding the social compact, pensions are disappearing, median incomes are flattening and healthcare costs are soaring. in many ways, the average household is generally worse off today than it was thirty years ago, and the public sector that was a support system and safety net for millions of americans across three generations is in tatters.

reagan's story of freedom superficially alludes to the founding fathers...still means today, is the freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic responsibilities and the license to buy the political system right out from under everyone else, so that democracy no longer has the ability to hold capitalism accountable for the good of the whole.

at the heart of our experience as a nation is the proposition that each one of us has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."... inherent imperative: "inasmuch as the members of a liberal society have a right to basic requirements of human development such as education and a minimum standard of security, they have obligations to each other, mutually and through their government, to ensure that conditions exist enabling every person to have the opportunity for success in life."

john schwarz, in freedom reclaimed: rediscovering the american vision, rescues the idea of freedom from market cultists whose "particular idea of freedom...has taken us down a terribly mistaken road" toward a political order where "government ends up servicing the powerful and taking from everyone else." the free-market view "cannot provide us with a philosophy we find compelling or meaningful," schwarz writes. nor does it assure the availability of economic opportunity "that is truly adequate to each individual and the status of full legal as well as political equality."

freedom, he says, is "considerably more than a private value." it is essentially a social idea, which explains why the worship of the free market "fails as a compelling idea in terms of the moral reasoning of freedom itself." let's get back to basics, is schwarz's message. let's recapture our story.

[garfinkle] the american dream vs. the gospel of wealth, as he describes how america became the first nation on earth to offer an economic vision of opportunity for even the humblest beginner to advance,

garfinkle writes, than abraham lincoln, who called on the federal government to save the union. he turned to large government expenditures for internal improvements--canals, bridges and railroads. he supported a strong national bank to stabilize the currency. he provided the first major federal funding for education, with the creation of land grant colleges. and he kept close to his heart an abiding concern for the fate of ordinary people, especially the ordinary worker but also the widow and orphan. our greatest president kept his eye on the sparrow. he believed government should be not just "of the people" and "by the people" but "for the people."

in my time it was fdr, who exposed the false freedom of the aristocratic narrative. he made the simple but obvious point that where once political royalists stalked the land, now economic royalists owned everything standing. mindful of plutarch's warning that "an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics," roosevelt famously told america, in 1936, that "the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the minute man." ...now came collective bargaining and workplace rules, cash assistance for poor children, social security, the gi bill, home mortgage subsidies, progressive taxation--democratic instruments that checked economic tyranny and helped secure america's great middle class.

so it is that contrary to what we have heard rhetorically for a generation now, the individualist, greed-driven, free-market ideology is at odds with our history and with what most americans really care about. more and more people agree that growing inequality is bad for the country,...working families and poor communities need and deserve help when the market system fails to generate shared prosperity.

one story would return america to the days of radical laissez-faire, when there was no social contract and the strong took what they could and the weak were left to forage. the other story joins the memory of struggles that have been waged with the possibility of victories yet to be won, including healthcare for every american and a living wage for every worker.

we have a story of equal power. it is that the promise of america leaves no one out. go now, and tell it on the mountains. from the rooftops, tell it. from your laptops, tell it. from the street corners and from starbucks, from delis and from diners, tell it. from the workplace and the bookstore, tell it. on campus and at the mall, tell it. tell it at the synagogue, sanctuary and mosque. tell it where you can, when you can and while you can--to every candidate for office, to every talk-show host and pundit, to corporate executives and schoolchildren. tell it--for america's sake.

please take the time to read this article in its entirety. it tells a story of an america that works together for the common good not just that of the plutocracy.

[pickledpepperRN]

People become wealthy in this country by using tax supported services. they use our infrastructure more.

They benefit from the public education that prepared their employees to produce the goods and services that created their wealth.

[OB_RN]

Believe whatever I like? Thanks for the permission. That's swell of you.

The only reason that I believe you consider certain people terrorists is because you said you do. All the back pedaling in the world won't change that.

What I SAID was "we have a terrorist threat here."

I never called anyone anything.

YOU did.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

People become wealthy in this country by using tax supported services. they use our infrastructure more.

They benefit from the public education that prepared their employees to produce the goods and services that created their wealth.

That is the single best argument in favor of retaining the Estate Tax!

[LydiaNN]

What I SAID was "we have a terrorist threat here."

I never called anyone anything.

YOU did.

I know what you SAID. No need to SHOUT. How is a terrorist threat possible without terrorists? Now you take care you don't hurt yourself backpedaling.

[cherrymary]

Hi all, I thought I'd jump in again and explain myself since I'm the one who first responded to your post about Arabic patients, OB_RN. I apologize, my use of the phrase "racial profiling" was sort of a kneejerk reaction and not fair to you, I'm sure. What really got me - leaving "anchor babies" completely aside for the moment - was just the fact that you identified these people under the blanket term "Arabic-speaking" - which shouldn't be heard as a terrorist threat. I am of the opinion that language should not be conflated with race, culture, or political ideology, no matter whether it's a Spanish speaker assumed to be an illegal immigrant or an Arabic speaker heard as a terrorist threat. In my experience it's a totally natural reaction to be frustrated, annoyed, and even suspicious when you hear people speaking a language you don't understand - must be instinct or something - but that is no grounds for what amounts to discrimination based on national origin (see the USDOJ Civil Rights Act Title VI).

[OB_RN]

All right, look, my only intention was to point out that "coming to America to have your baby" could have later repercussions.

I realize now that my opinion was not anything to do with the intent of the one who began this thread.

I surely did not intend to take anyones bait and enter (or begin, for that matter), a pi$$ing contest.

I now I will be accused of back pedalling here, but what the heck...

I should have been more direct, not saying "Arabic speaking", but maybe use the term "short term visitors from the Middle East"? I only mean to say that there is a security issue here. The plan to blow up the WTC wasn't formulated on 9-10-01. If you want to infiltrate our country, this is one way.

Maybe I am too cynical.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

After skim reading last several posts, closing for the night to cool down + review TOS conformity.

Please keep focus on topic and not each other.... don't want to loose a member due to poked eye from fingerpointing.