It's funny how for some, banning abortion is a most important social issue, yet many in that same group don't believe in reasonable reform that might bring better maternity care for those of little means, and instead decry such ideas because they may be "socialist".

i don't think lack of access is the issue. it's lack of education and fear by undocumented folks that if they seek service, they'll get bounced.

How many of those deaths were probably brought on by the risky behavior of the mothers-to-be? There's an abundance of free clinics across the nation for the very people you're claiming need it.

There's an abundance of free clinics across the nation for the very people you're claiming need it.

Exactly. When people don't take advantage of programs meant specifically for them, who is at fault?

on a completely unrelated note;

"Experts claim the immigration boom will leave whites in the minority in America by 2050"

There's an abundance of free clinics across the nation for the very people you're claiming need it.

#3 | Posted by American1st

Exactly. When people don't take advantage of programs meant specifically for them, who is at fault?

#4 | Posted by andyuhenet

Well then I guess you guys has better go take these women by the hand and guide them to this accessible and inexpensive quality care that you believe exists. They apparently aren't finding it.

#6 believe it or not, i've tried and been part of more than 1 organization that has attempted to get folks educated on what resources were available. language, cultural, apathy and fear issues got in the way. again, it was not ever an access issue.

you'd have people who speak languages with dialects that nobody can even translate and may or may not have a written form. you can't even tell folks what vitamins to take and when, and they can't read the basic instructions. moreover, many don't even care about it.

you can reach some - but, again, it's not a lack of access.

Crack cocaine became popular about 20 years ago too.
Crack babies are common in the NICU for quite sometime now.

Why do Republicans hate women?

Ever notice that is always the woman victim's fault with the Rtards? Every time.

Without fail, these steaming piles of Republican Base will blame the women.

"Crack babies are common in the NICU for quite sometime now.

#9 | Posted by KBM"

Wear a condom, fucknut.

geez man...
i don't think lack of access is the issue. it's lack of education and fear by undocumented folks that if they seek service, they'll get bounced.

since that IS where you left it, then, no, you're just another bigot!!!!

mb you can't think, eh?! "i don't think," those are your words.

"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such infortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest. " -- Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 58

CRACK BABIES, KBM writes, you are fucking asshile.

got your stas all in line do ya? no ya don't. IDIOT.

Maternal death rate doubles roughly over the same time period that the poverty rate doubled?

Jeez, wotta coincidence.

America has some of the best health care in the world.

This doesn't mean shit if people who can't access it.

Anybody who doesn't acknowledge the moral imperative for Health Care reform in the US is either a mindless asshole or heartless fool.

Be Well.

Shoulda been... 'This doesn't mean shit if people can't access it'.

Why do Republicans hate women?

Cos Eve was responsible fer original sin, doncha know.

Also, cos Paul nee Saul was a cynical misogynist who perverted the teaching of Christ.

Be Well.

Ever notice that is always the woman victim's fault with the Rtards? Every time.

10 | Posted by axe at 2010-03-12 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

ever notice how 1,000 different Democrat programs to help women always fail?

Almost like they were:

1. Designed to fail
2. As inept as every other Democrat political scam

So, why do Democrats:

1. hate women and continue to use them as political tools (like slavers)
2. encourage unwed mothers? It creates broken families and cycles of poverty and misery. But to Democrats it is an acceptable price for power

ever notice how 1,000 different Democrat programs to help women always fail?

Name 'em.

Can't?

How about just a few?

Just one?

Be Well.

Such vast insightful knowlege....amazing......"
Spudipedia".....

#6 believe it or not, i've tried and been part of more than 1 organization that has attempted to get folks educated on what resources were available. language, cultural, apathy and fear issues got in the way. again, it was not ever an access issue.

So seemingly you've noticed that a significant barrier to care is that we do not have a unified system. Instead, we have a patchwork of public, private, and parochial health care providers, none of which share data, none of which interoperate in any meaningful way, and none of which provide the complete continuum of care.

This, in a nutshell, is why single payer universal coverage works better (i.e. delivers equivalent outcomes at lower cost) than what we've got. Because it's a unified system, there are fewer cracks to fall through, and it's much simpler for the patient to navigate the care network. Because it's all one network.

and fear by undocumented folks that if they seek service, they'll get bounced.

Maybe because they should be?

Particularly the pregnant ones. We've gotta put a stop to this anchor baby shit.

Because it's a unified system, there are fewer cracks to fall through, and it's much simpler for the patient to navigate the care network. Because it's all one network.

I think his point was that it's not an access issue, but a willingness by the woman to actually utilize the clinics they DO have access to.

A unified system would not in any way help this problem.

Just googled free clinics first one hit...

Columbia, South Carolina
Free Medical Clinic

Services not provided:

Pregnancy testing
Abortions
Birth control services
Routine eye exams
Immunizations
Dental services

Health care to pregnant women

Physicals/second opinions
Treatment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Treatment for Hepatitis
========
Just one example...so how available/accessible are free clinics that provide prenatal care throughout the country?

Eligibility:

To receive services, a person needs to meet two criteria:

(1) No health insurance (no Medicare, Medicaid or private health insurance)
(2) Household income at or below 133% of the 2008 federal poverty level*

$1,153/month - 1 person
$1,552/month - 2 people
$1,951/month - 3 people
$2,350/month- 4 people
===============

Free but with restrictions.

Maternal death rate doubles roughly over the same time period that the poverty rate doubled?

How can this be, this were the decades when Reaganomics made everything wonderful?

How can this be, this were the decades when Reaganomics made everything wonderful?

#23 | Posted by northguy3 at 2010-03-13 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Correct NG3.

And really, I'm sick and tired of hearing republicans say "we want a solution for healthcare, just not Barrys solution"

Typical bullshit. The right had 8 fuckin' YEARS to do something with healthcare reform and they squandered Mine and Your money on a fucked up war with no strategy.

LFT-
Same could be said of Clinton's tenure given the issues of that day.

No?

So where does that leave us?

So where does that leave us?

#25 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-03-13 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Clinton tried to do something with healthcare... thats the difference. the same obstructionists are in the way.

There is a point that the complicated system we have can be a bar to care. Sure us fortunate few can google free clinics and find one even check it's service out to see if we can use it or not. Those living at 133% of 2008 poverty line may not have computers or easy access to the internet. They may not be able to read english to find it. There are lots of bars to free care. A unified system would help.

A unified system is not on the table at the moment is it?

Oohrah seems to suffer from a selective memory.

A unified system is not on the table at the moment is it?

#27 | Posted by TaoWarrior

No it isn't. A piece of crap with a lot of compromises, trying to lure some yes votes out of a few pubbies, is what's on the table. But even that is still better then the system we have.

Clinton had eight years to work on any number of issues, ranging from airport security, terrorism, Middle East peace, environmental concerns, poverty, education, etc. Some were Dem pet project, others not so much.

His list of "coulda shoulda dones" is as long as with any POTUS if we're to play Monday morning QB.

#30 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-03-13 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

you're missing the point...

The conversation is about healthcare...

My point was that a lot of republicans want to jump on the healthcare bandwagon but not to the tune of BHO's plan.

If they wanted to do something about healthcare they should have made it one of their priorities...

I'm sure they could have done without at least one of the wars.

Agreed, LFT... Reps had a chance to make it a priority and didn't.

That said, all administrations have areas which they don't push the pedal to the metal to everyone's desire.

The fact the Dubya (and Congress, during his six year with Rep control) did little regarding healthcare means what? That when healthcare is a "hot" issue they can't speak up?

Remember when Reps took the offensive on terrorism following 9/11? Dems had largely been AWOL under Clinton. Would you have argued that Reps should not consider Dems' input? If not, why?

Would you have argued that Reps should not consider Dems' input? If not, why?

Look, I wish they would work together but it aint gonna happen on healthcare. It costs you and me a lot of money to have lawmakers at each others throat in DC.

The only way I can see a reform in health care is to deregulate and have government oversight. The average republican is screaming SOCIALISM from the roof tops.

This isn't the USSR. We can get our people affordable healthcare. And we need to loose the mindset that "the federal government isn't efficient" The Fed. gov't needs to be efficient and prove to people that they can be trusted

So again I say they need to play nice. But when you have a reputation for bullying people while you're in power do you think you can expect the same treatment?

Health care is a personal responsibility. No person is responsible for the payment of another person's personal expense. The Constitution does not endow the Congress with authority to enact legislation which would require such.

No person is responsible for the payment of another person's personal expense

#34 | Posted by gluon at 2010-03-13 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I pay a lot of taxes that go to schools and such in the community. Why is it that the poor broke bastard across the way has kids who get the same education as mine and he pays nothing in property taxes?

Because it would put a lot of people at a disadvantage if it weren't this way

The day is comming and not too far off when an average american will not be able to afford care.

While we are talking about "personal responsibility" there are people out there who cannot take personal responsability for their healthcare when a pre existing condition comes up.
They are just screwed at that point.

What do you tell a person in remission that lost his job?

Stop envoking rules and regulations, Gluon...it messes with the "democratic" process, ya know...

#32 | Posted by OohRah

Its' the 'pro-life' crowd not being 'pro-life'.

please get away from your fucking keyboard for a weekend and go forth and find some of these poor souls and show them where to find clinic,be a part of the solution.

And really, I'm sick and tired of hearing republicans say "we want a solution for healthcare, just not Barrys solution"
Typical bullshit. The right had 8 fuckin' YEARS to do something with healthcare reform and they squandered Mine and Your money on a fucked up war with no strategy.

#24 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Ditto..

Fuck the right and fuck their collective opinion. Don't like the direction the US is moving towards, you really can move.

..and before you you start threatening insurrection, talk to the hand. The middle and left are heavily armed and fully capable.

Has Medicaid gone 'out of business'?

MSGT,

Nope but there are a lot of people not eligible for medicaid, probably the people that most republicans would like to help ironicly enough. Hard working families who make just over the income line. Folks who are temporarily disabled but not in a way enough for medicare and while lowering their income and costing them a ton but not lowering their income enough for medicaid. My Brother-In-Law who was almost killed by a drunk driver while his wife was pregnant. However why would we want to take care of these people when there are so many Arabs to kill? I mean that is a much better use of tax dollars right?

Maybe their mothers should stop placing them in garbage cans....or is this only here in Chicago?

Has anyone actually looked at the numbers these people are quoting? They're skewed beyond recognition.

The middle and left are heavily armed and fully capable.

#39 | Posted by Legio

Another tough guy in his moms basement.

@NERDYGIRL42 - That is very interesting. It is amazing how misused the statistics are in this story.

Why do Republicans hate women?

Ever notice that is always the woman victim's fault with the Rtards? Every time.

Without fail, these steaming piles of Republican Base will blame the women.

#10 | Posted by axe

WOW! Really?

Could it be because there is no man in the picture? Yeah, it's the Republican machine that breaks up families and creates poverty! Yeah, the Republicans constantly supply the "promise" that the government will always be there to help them. The man of the family is no longer needed as the provider. The government will always be there...

You're fake rage just got you into trouble, Axe, you dumbshit!

Just like a stupid Lib... Create a problem and then blame it on a Republican. Katrina blew the roof off of your corruption and you still don't get it.

Here is an informative article on that. It's amazing what they can do with statistics through some simple selectivity and omission :)

#43 | Posted by nerdygirl42

Perhaps they need Obamacare to make the numbers real! It's sad how the Libs in this country hate women!

"Has anyone actually looked at the numbers these people are quoting? They're skewed beyond recognition.

Here is an informative article on that. It's amazing what they can do with statistics through some simple selectivity and omission :)
#43 | Posted by nerdygirl42 at 2010-03-13 10:52 PM"

A good point and an interesting question that piqued my curiosity.

The analysis of most any data set is often fraught with assumptions and interpretations. In this case one is faced with the challenge of assigning significance to a small difference between large numbers. A task that has many potential pitfalls.

One could definitely/correctly quibble about whether the 'doubling' is statistically true and/or significant. That all being said, it is quite interesting that how no matter what variation of tweaks they apply in this article to analyze this data set, one still is left with the same conclusion: there is an increase.

The 'doubling' is likely much more useful as a 'headline grabber', but the overall 'bottom line' is still the same (even if it's not as flashly).

That all being said, it is quite interesting that how no matter what variation of tweaks they apply in this article to analyze this data set, one still is left with the same conclusion: there is an increase

#48 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE AT 2010-03-14 03:20 PM

While it's true that an increase is still within the realm of possibility, I disagree with the notion that this is a foregone conclusion. Sure, the author leaves the upper amount to allow for a range, but even before adjusting for the second year (2004) after a purportedly gradual change, the lower end of the range is actually a decrease.

I think they leave the range in there to show just how much uncertainty there is in interpreting this data - it could be an increase, or it very well could be steady or decreasing. It's impossible to tell when there's been that much mucking around with the dataset.

"While it's true that an increase is still within the realm of possibility, I disagree with the notion that this is a foregone conclusion. Sure, the author leaves the upper amount to allow for a range, but even before adjusting for the second year (2004) after a purportedly gradual change, the lower end of the range is actually a decrease.

I think they leave the range in there to show just how much uncertainty there is in interpreting this data - it could be an increase, or it very well could be steady or decreasing. It's impossible to tell when there's been that much mucking around with the dataset.
#49 | Posted by nerdygirl42 at 2010-03-15 10:31 PM"

Of course, and you apparently concur with my original statement: 'In this case one is faced with the challenge of assigning significance to a small difference between large numbers. A task that has many potential pitfalls.'.

However, it's quite a stretch for you to realistically claim 'it very well could be steady or decreasing.' when the range is from -4% to +61%. Personally, I (and likely many others) would be much more willing to "place their bets" that it is likely there was an increase.

Meanwhile, your claim "It's impossible to tell when there's been that much mucking around with the dataset." MIGHT be true. However, you've presented no evidence that there has been ANY mucking around with the dataset, much less that there has been 'that much mucking around'. Until you do, the analysis from your own link stands.