Healthcare Solves 3 GOP Concerns
It’s such a tight rope women walk in today’s world.
Republicans claim to want to reduce the abortion rate.
Republicans claim to think it’s wrong when women who work fulltime and “abandon their children in daycare.”
Republicans claim to hate “entitlement programs” that cost them tax money.
I have to wonder why, when facing a solution to 3 of their main concerns with universal healthcare, they are not jumping on board with glee.
If women have equal access to healthcare they can prevent conception, the most effective means of drastically lowering the abortion rate.
If women have equal access to healthcare they can more easily work fewer hours, more flexible hours untied to corporate 40 in-office hour work weeks, resulting in more face time with their children. In other words - Mary Kay Lady takes on a whole new level of stability.
If women have equal access to healthcare they are less likely to seek prenatal care and give birth with taxpayer money, thus reducing women’s reliance on “entitlement programs.”
Not to mention all the kids who currently receive SCHIPS because they can’t get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. With both Democrats’ healthcare reforms “pre-existing conditions” (read: any diagnosis) are overruled and EVERYONE gets equal access.
I have to wonder if they really are looking for solutions or if they are getting something out of having these problems to bitch about?
Perhaps they just hate women?
I think they might be getting more out of having these problems than they would by solving them.
Stop Abortion Vote Healthcare!
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Fabulous Mothering, Fabulous Politics, Fabulous Susie Homemaker, Fabulous Work Life Balance
42 opinions for Healthcare Solves 3 GOP Concerns
Violet
Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28 am
Excellent point. Health care coverage for everyone makes SO much sense on so many levels. It really shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
Thrifty Karen
Apr 29, 2008 at 8:21 am
I’m still not believing that healthcare is going to stop abortions. There are plenty of women out there that are having abortions that have healthcare. There are many of them in the military that have complete and total access to healthcare (with no copays) and are not taking advantage of it. If women aren’t going to take responsibility for themselves from pregnancy and STDs by using a $1 condom, then why would they go through the trouble of finding a doctor, making an appointment, waiting to have sex until they get the appointment, asking for a prescription, driving to the pharmacy to get it filled, and then actually taking their medication?
Tracee
Apr 29, 2008 at 8:29 am
Nothing’s going to stop abortions Karen.
But healthcare and equal access over women’s health and conception will reduce the numbers of it more than overturning Roe V. Wade.
Abortion is right now the lowest it’s been due to education about how to prevent pregnancy in large part. By definition women who get abortions don’t want to be pregnant. If given all the tools I’m sure they will, in increasing numbers, learn to take control over their own health and prevent it from happening.
ding
Apr 30, 2008 at 1:12 pm
where does a condom cost a dollar?
yikes. in chicago, they’re at least $7 a package.
and i think women in the military, under current law, aren’t allowed to access abortions. so there ya go.
but for women not in the military, imagine the freedom and autonomy if their contraception was universally available, and priced accordingly? women have been managing their fertility quite well for centuries and having access to what they need to plan for the families they want, through healthcare, would be a boon.
Thrifty Karen
May 4, 2008 at 7:27 pm
In North Carolina, you can buy a 3 pack of condoms for about $3-4. CVS had a bunch of 12 packs on close out this week for $5.
The health department doesn’t have a problem handing out condoms or spermicide. They’ll even give you DepoProvera or the pill and in most states it is based upon your income, which means that many people would not have to pay for contraception. Medicaid also offers Family Planning Medicaid which pays for the cost of pap smears, vasectomys, and birth control. There are programs out there for people with lower incomes.
There are women in the military who are getting abortions, whether the government knows about it or not. I didn’t say that the govt clinics were paying for their abortions. These men and women have access to doctor’s visits and prescriptions, but they are not taking advantage of it. That alone makes me wonder if women will take advantage of healthcare to prevent pregnancy.
There have been over 40 million abortions performed in the past 30 years. I don’t know how you could say that women have been managing their fertility well.
BTW Tracee, I can view the comments fine in Internet Explorer, but they look crazy in Firefox. Thought you’d want to know.
Ashley
May 5, 2008 at 6:30 am
I still believe that better access to healthcare for the group of women who are too ‘rich’ to qualify for medicaid and too poor to afford insurance would cut down on abortions. I believe many abortions are performed on women in this group who have simply had an accident.. These women can’t afford a doctor’s visit much less the purchase of contraceptives monthly. I think sometimes we let ourselves believe that abortion clinics are filled with poor young women who have been irresponsible. And that people who can’t afford health ins. are lazy or mismanage their money..But that’s not the case. There are women there from all walks of life. Also, I can certainly understand the women in the military being scared about having a baby and having to be deployed..Can’t you? I understand you’re concerned about the portion of women who are simply being irresponsible and using abortions as birth control, but if you feel that strongly about stopping abortions, why wouldn’t it be worth it to try and stop the ones that occur from lack of health insurance? Picketing and bombing the clinics hasn’t been real successful so far..
Ashley
May 5, 2008 at 7:05 am
Also, I believe the women in this group would be more likely to keep an ‘accident’ if they had health ins. and could actually, oh, I don’t know..have prenatal care?..doctor’s visits.?..deliver the baby without a ridiculous bill?
Tarah
May 5, 2008 at 7:37 am
How comeothers comments are coming through and mine are still waiting..maybe that is why no one is commenting on this site anymroe..they really are but they are all in “awaiting”.lol
Ashley
May 5, 2008 at 7:54 am
Terah, I’ve still got one in moderation too. I think that’s just to cut out spam comments - Tracee has to okay them and then they’ll post..
Thrifty Karen
May 5, 2008 at 7:59 am
Ashley: Pregnancy medicaid is available for those with low incomes too. It pays for everything - all prenatal visits, sonograms, stress tests, epidural, delivery, etc.
Tarah
May 5, 2008 at 8:04 am
I meant I have comments from DAYS ago not posting..so if they ever do they will all be out of order with everyones and seem weird. Its all too confusing not knowimg if your comments will ever post or not..a pain in the butt.
Ashley
May 5, 2008 at 8:17 am
Thrifty Karen, pregancy medicaid is NOT available for most of the working poor.. I’m specifically speaking of the group that are slightly above the “poverty” line..
I have a long post in moderation at the moment - so this little one above is sort of out of context.
Ashley
May 5, 2008 at 8:17 am
Maybe Tracee’s out of town or something?
Tarah
May 5, 2008 at 9:02 am
Ashley,
I was thinking the same thing.
She better get back and get it fixed (gee Im bossy).
I really can’t take it any more. Patience is not one of my stronger virtues. (I know you can tell ahah)
Tarah
May 5, 2008 at 9:03 am
PS
Most sites you jsust type and it’s there .I have never encountered this awaiting moderation stuff on any other stie.
Tarah
May 5, 2008 at 9:04 am
just..site..oops
Violet
May 5, 2008 at 9:06 am
I’ve always wished the comments here would go right up also. It’s more fun to talk back and forth - you know, you can have a conversation with other commenters that way. You can just delete any inappropriate comments.
Ashley
May 5, 2008 at 9:12 am
I’ve been to some sites though that were invaded w/ spam B.S. and it completly shut down the flow..
Violet
May 5, 2008 at 9:16 am
That makes sense.
Thrifty Karen
May 5, 2008 at 9:26 am
With b5 media and most wordpress sites, only the first comment you make has to be approved. If your comments are showing up now, you are approved and your comments shouldn’t go in to moderation.
Tracee is usually pretty good about getting comments through moderation. She’s probably just out of town for the weekend.
Tracee
May 5, 2008 at 9:37 am
Very sorry Ladies.
Karen is right - I did go camping and did not ask anyone to moderate comments. My mistake.
Please accept my apology.
If you are a frequent commenter there is no reason your comment should have sat in spam but they did some recent changing of how the comments flow and I’m not too thrilled about it either.
Violet and my other regular readers - I’ll open comments without moderation and see how it goes as per your request.
I do get a LOT of spam, but I almost never delete real comments (only extra-offensive and includes profanity.) But, we’ll see if it becomes too much of a problem - I can always change it back.
Tracee
May 5, 2008 at 9:55 am
It’s a double sided standard Karen.
You can’t really refuse to educate people about how to use a condom and then be indignant that they didn’t use one and got an abortion or be indignant that they had the baby and went on welfare.
It’s unfair and discriminatory.
Where are people getting their reproductive education? School. But, it’s not including the most important component about how to be responsible with sexual health and family planning.
Insurance is also very discriminatory when it comes to women and men and reproductive health. Do you know how much my husband got a vasectomy for? $15 office copay.
Compare that to my $30- $50 copay every single month for the pill or patch. Lots of insurance plans don’t even cover birth control or are very limited as to what women can get. They aren’t required to offer it as part of their plans.
Not to mention that men are not carrying an equal burden for birth control. Where’s the male birth control pill?
I believe women ARE using the free clinics for reproductive health and that is why we have the lowest abortion rate right now.
I have a friend who qualifies for the free clinic and she uses the “pull out” method because it’s humiliating to her to have to go there and be unable to go to her own private physician who knows her and who she is comfortable with. They don’t look at your foot at that free clinic. They look inside your vagina - which is pretty intimate and invasive to be opening up to any free doctor at the clinic.
It’s not crazy or unreasonable to want a little dignity about reproductive health.
We can afford universal healthcare and I believe it is the most EFFECTIVE way to reduce the abortion rate. If I’m wrong it’s at least worth finding out and giving women a solid chance at taking control over their own reproductive health. You’re judging them pretty harshly considering it is an unknown.
Thrifty Karen
May 5, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Why wouldn’t they be taught how to use a condom? I started receiving sex education classes from 6th on. I heard more about sex and reproductive health from public school teachers than I cared to, so I’m not sure how people don’t know how to use a condom.
I agree that men are not carrying their weight on responsibility with birth control. That’s the way it’s always been and it’s up to a woman to protect herself and her body since unfortunately, the responsibility will fall upon her.
I have used the health department many times for my reproductive health. One particular HD was warm, the ladies were nice, and I did not feel like “a number”. The other place wasn’t as great. I stuck it out though because putting up with a cold HD for an hour or so is much better than getting pregnant.
Tracee Sioux
May 6, 2008 at 6:29 am
For the last 8 years the US has had Abstinence Only Education in schools (Thanks to Bush’s Conservative Movement). I have some of the curriculum here. The kids are now led to believe that a condom is basically useless because it doesn’t protect 100% of the time.
Instead of phrasing it, “A condom is effective to prevent STDs, HIV and pregnancy 96% of the time. ”
They phrase it, “A condom can break. It is not effective 100% of the time. Condoms have a high failure rate.”
As a result, 25% of teenagers are currently infected with an STD -( HPV, which causes cervical cancer, is the most common.) In the African American community the number is HALF.
Other less than great side effects include the fact that anal sex has increased because teenagers feel they can still keep their “virginity” this way.
The pregnancy rate has not gone down either.
So we’re not teaching condoms. Then we’re angry that women aren’t using them and getting abortions. Then we’re angry that they use the system if they go on welfare.
Some trap.
Tracee Sioux
May 6, 2008 at 6:36 am
I’ll also say this Karen.
It’s not useful to concentrate on what people “should” do. Of course they “should” be going to the free clinic and taking responsibility for their reproductive health. I did and you did. But, we’re both a lot more educated and empowered than many, many women and you can’t discount that.
It’s more useful to find out why they are not and then fix the problem from there. My friend (and lots of other poor women) has a pride issue about the free clinic. There is no amount of judgement or “shoulds” that’s going to change their pride issue.
I have to say that there is a lot more dignity in going to my own doctor than in going to the free clinic.
I don’t feel these women only deserve free reproductive care. I feel every human being deserves health care for their whole bodies.
I also know we can afford it in the wealthiest country on earth.
Ashley
May 6, 2008 at 6:52 am
AMEN. The free clinic does not hand out dignity. I am thankful it exists, but women who are right above the poverty line are, many times, too prideful to use it.
Also - this is disgusting! {They phrase it, “A condom can break. It is not effective 100% of the time. Condoms have a high failure rate.” }
I wonder what kind of sex ed was taught at the schools Bush’s daughters attended? Who the heck still thinks sex ed makes teenagers WANT to have sex?! It certainly did not make us all hot and bothered to look at gross pictures of std’s and have our home-ec teacher discuss the details of childbirth! And don’t get me started on the birthing video with the shocker ending!
Kids have a right to know the facts of sex, std’s, and contraception. I think conservatives have a fear of them showing them episodes of Sex in the City and handing out fruit flavored condoms or something!
Thrifty Karen
May 6, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Tracee: I’m not sure how you can blame Bush for the 1 in 4 STD statistics. From what I’ve learned, that has been the statistic since the 90’s, before Bush was in office.
Tracee Sioux
May 6, 2008 at 12:42 pm
It’s only been the statistic since Abstinence Only Education - when federal money was withheld from education for actually teaching about contraception and condoms - that would be a George Bush policy.
I think the blame for the STD rate rest on all conservative shoulders though - to be fair.
Thrifty Karen
May 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm
In the U.S., 1 in 4 sexually active teens become infected with an STD every year.2 Some common STDs are chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital warts (also known as HPV - human papillomavirus), and herpes. (Facts in Brief: Teen Sex and Pregnancy, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, 1996).
This is from a source dated from the 90’s.
Tracee Sioux
May 6, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Either way 25% is FAILURE, Karen.
And we should be willing to change course to improve the odds.
Thrifty Karen
May 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I’m not saying that 25% isn’t failure. I will say that it’s wrong to totally blame conservatives and Bush for a lot of things that aren’t true.
Revka
May 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I completely agree that health care costs are outrageous and that something needs to be done about it; however, I don’t want universal health care because it is another step toward socialism (government controls too much already) and it will take more taxpayer money. I already pay WAY too much in taxes as is! How else would this be funded, if not with taxpayers’ money?
In addition to the reasons stated above, I don’t believe that this proposal would lower abortion rates, STDs, or unwanted pregnancies. There is more than sufficient sex education in schools today, and there are plenty of ways to get cheap protection if people really cared. Not to mention that abstaining from sexual relations has proven to be 100% effective against unwanted pregnanacy and STDs. (How could it not be?!)
Nor do I see how this is supposed to affect women’s working hours (unless you are suggesting that women work 40-hour weeks only because they need the health care benefit). I don’t think that today’s “empowered women” want to give up or curtail their careers for their children. Of course, that is simply my observation from my limited experience.
Myron WW Buckhalter
May 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm
How do you argue and debate issues with an elephant on your head? You’re not worth the trouble to debate or respond back to any degree of concern. Goodbye
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:13 am
“socialism” give me a break. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
No one is a socialist. We’re just tired of getting screwed by the insurance companies.
Universal health care is a private system with private insurance Companies. Which is completely capitalist.
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:14 am
I’m sorry Myron have we met?
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:23 am
Revka - I am suggesting that many women do cut their hours to below 40 to spend more time with their children - which leaves them without insurance.
I’m also suggesting that many women
Do work fulltime because of the insurance benefits and studies show they would seek fewer hours to spend more time with their children.
I am also suggesting that if women are getting their insurance via a husband’s job then they, and their children are more likely to qualify for welfare programs if they divorce (odds are one in two) or become widowed.
If we give women access to insurance - without being tied to their husbands - we do reduce the number of people relying on public assistance for their healthcare.
Lots of women/mothers would be able to just buy it with their 20-30 hour work week.
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:25 am
Expecting the whole world to hop on board with abstinence isn’t a solution.
Ashley
May 7, 2008 at 6:29 am
I KNOW! It is completely unrealistic that ANYTHING is going to stop (at the very least, a portion of) teenagers from having pre-marital sex.
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:34 am
It’s completely unrealistic to expect adults to stop having sex.
People aren’t getting married until their late 20s and into their late 30s - are you really expecting all of them to abstain? That’s so never going to happen.
Bunches of people are divorced and have already lost their “virginity” but don’t want to get married again. They aren’t about to adopt abstinence as a lifestyle either.
Not saying you aren’t right about it being 100% effective - just saying it’s not a realistic solution as much as a moral judgement.
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:42 am
Revka, one last point to answer two of your questions.
There is one plan before congress right now where it is still paid for by the employee and employer (but not tied together in a small pool) as well as the current taxes we already pay for SCHIPS, Medicaire, Medicaid, Social Security.
The difference is that it forces insurance companies to give everyone an affordable price without allowing them to choose not to insure or cover someone who is sick or has a pre-existing condition.
The government acts only as an administrator, but utilizes private insurance companies and private hospitals. A fully Capitalist system with less fraud.
The plan SAVES the taxpayer over $1 TRILLION dollars rather than costing more as you assume.
More details here: http://www.blogfabulous.com/healthy-americans-act/
Tracee Sioux
May 7, 2008 at 6:59 am
Karen I believe it is true now because we’re doing the conservative abstinence only plan. 1994 was 1994. Whatever they were doing then was a failure. What we’re doing now, the conservative abstinence only plan - is a failure.
Perhaps if we gave up the “extremes” and met in the middle we might find some success.
How bout telling kids the truth? Giving information rather than withholding it is the most effective way to go.
Waking up to the world our teenagers actually live in instead of wishing for the one we wish they had would be a better way to go.
The current curriculum that’s being taught here is a joke. It’s not only negative about condom use, it is dangerously naive. These kids are talking about sex in a way we never imagined and the curriculum isn’t addressing any of their very sophisticated issues - anal sex, what to do if someone tapes you having sex with his buddy and posts it on the Internet, what’s the difference between coercion and respect.
We need to let go of our shoulds and accept responsibility for the effect.
Abstinence only is a good intention. Good intentions pave the way to Hell.
We need to combine that good intention with more effective methodology and the bold abrasive truth to really reduce teen sex, STDs, teen pregnancy, abortion, teen domestic violence, and date rape.
Tracee Sioux
Aug 15, 2008 at 10:34 am
“Joel Hunter is a conservative, Republican megachurch pastor in Central Florida. He’s giving the Democrats some free advice, if they care to hear it: Even if you stick with Roe V. Wade, you can show evangelicals that you are the pro-life party by showing us how you will actually reduce abortions—and how you will support “life” in other areas besides abortion.”
The low-down is this: The GOP sucks at preventing abortion because they are using it as a distraction tactic - distracting Pro-Lifers by using their emotionally overwhelming love for the babies.
Healthcare REALLY prevents abortion. It encourages women to keep from getting pregnant and it encourages women to carry the baby to term for adoption. So far it’s prevented 9 million abortions. Think about it.
Here’s more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/will-the-real-pro-life-pa_b_119146.html
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: