Democratic leaders are right to contest President Bush’s veto of their bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance program. But sadly, their “bipartisan compromise” will leave millions of young Americans vulnerable to sickness and suffering of the most preventable kind.
To entice Republicans to support the bill, the House of Representatives agreed to increase money for abstinence-only sex education by $28 million, to a total of about $200 million a year. Abstinence-only courses, the only form of federally financed sex ed, teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to cause psychological and physical harm.
If that were true, our health care system would be not only broken, but besieged. A 2002 survey found that 93 percent of American adults had had premarital sex by the age of 30.
In addition to provoking shame about a nearly universal activity, abstinence-only sex education is ineffective and dangerous. Last April, a 10-year study found that students who took abstinence-only courses were no more likely to abstain from sex than other students. Previous studies revealed that abstinence-only students avoid using contraception.
Programs in public schools teach patently false information like “the chances of getting pregnant with a condom are one out of six” and H.I.V. “may be in your body for a long time (from a few months to as long as 10 years or more) before it can be detected.”
The results are tragic. The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the developed world (about the same as Ukraine’s), and the highest abortion rate in the Western world. Sexually transmitted infections like syphilis and gonorrhea are on the rise for the first time since the 1980s, and chlamydia is being diagnosed twice as often as it was a decade ago.
Among Americans living in poverty - those who might see the $4 price of a three-pack of condoms as the take-home pay for an hour of work at minimum wage - the unintended pregnancy rate has increased 30 percent since 1994.
Our teenage pregnancy and abortion rates have declined during the last decade, but research suggests this is mainly because of increased use of condoms, something young people must learn about outside of school.
By dropping the financing for abstinence-only sex ed, Congress could save enough money to insure 150,000 children a year. And it would also demonstrate much needed resolve to protect all aspects of children’s health.
Amanda Robb is at work on a book about the abstinence movement.
© 2007 The New York Times Company
What do we want our government to do for us? Do we want them to direct, control and provide our health care? I for one, don’t.
It all boils down to what YOU perceive as the role of government in YOUR life; and what do you see as the role of government in society as a whole.
When you think of what you want your government to do in your life, what is it that you want? Do you want them to provide you with health care at no direct cost to you, regardless of the quality of that care? Do you want them to provide you with free housing, regardless of the quality of that housing? Do you want them to provide you with free education, regardless of the quality of that education? Should the government provide a job for you and guarantee employment as well as select your place in the socioeconomic spectrum?
From a societal level, do you think it’s the government’s place to do all of those above things for each member of society?
Or perhaps you think as I do. It is my considered opinion that I want the U.S. government to do what the constitution directly states it will do. I want them to work to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity. That’s what I want.
By promoting the general welfare, I specifically do NOT mean that we GIVE anything to ANYBODY just because they WANT it! Welfare should be a helping hand, and not a way of life. For reasons often beyond their control, people end up with the short end of the stick sometimes and I’ll grant that as Americans, we can and should be there to help someone work themselves out of a difficult situation, but that’s as far as it goes with me. Call me a cold hearted ass, but I firmly believe that you cease to HELP somebody when you make them dependant upon you.
Welfare was meant to be a means to achieve self-sufficiency and not a crutch to live on indefinitely. Far too many have latched onto the government teat and will not consider any other course of action for themselves. We cannot afford to continue to keep paying for generation after generation of laxy, dependant free-loaders!
I want a country that is fairer than the US, like the one I live in. I see every European country doing more their people than the US.
“Do you want them to provide you with health care at no direct cost to you, regardless of the quality of that care?”
I suppose it all depends who you ask. If you’re one of the 40-50 mil who have no health insurance at all, you’ll probably get a resounding “YES!” Now as to who makes judgments whether health care is of high quality or low, that’s a different matter. It seems that many doctors would prefer there be a national health care system. I say let THEM decide. I for one would like to get a balanced view on national health care from those countries who already provide it, not just hear the negatives, which is mostly what seems to get through. Moreover, If the pricing trend in health care continues unabated, then only a few will be able to get “quality” health care anyway, and the rest of us will be wishing for a government sponsored plan. We are headed in that direction now.
“We cannot afford to continue to keep paying for generation after generation of laxy, Dependant free-loaders!”
Well, then, do you support a “living wage” for all? And it may be that many of those whom you refer to as “free-loaders,” provide many services to YOU, but must also get food stamps to feed their families. And what if something happened to you making you part of the “we” you so bitterly condemn? Would you say put me out into the street to starve? Your post is indeed compassionately conservative.
“Welfare should be a helping hand, and not a way of life.”
I know, I know shoot all the welfare queens–um, what is it they drive now? Obviously, ignorance still prevails. Well, if you want them to work, why not provide safe and decent childcare combined with a living wage and medical care? That would be a carrot, but from the tone of your post, I’m guessing you prefer the stick. You should be happy with present status quo then, welfare has already been cut to the bone. So what’s your beef? If you want to keep more of your own money then get your government to quit spending so much on war and war toys, though I’m betting you completely support that.
No matter how we feel, abstinence wins! the failure to override proves it.
The tone of sex education is something that can always change fairly quickly, depending upon the current will of the people, and depending upon whether Democrats or Republicans are running the country.
The PHILOSOPHY of health care, that is, whether it’s regulated by government or strictly a private “market” matter (which corporations control) is a far bigger ship that is far harder to turn in motion.
Dennis Kucinich has correctly stated that “We’re already paying for national health care, we’re just not getting it.” The reason we’re not is the “market” philosophy is serving corporations and draining individuals. People in many other nations somehow easily understand this while we struggle with it.
The current SCHIP episode is one of those matters of philosophy we hope will cause a few thoughtful Republicans to jump sides to the Democrats in 2008.
We’re better off to tilt health care philosophy, if we can, toward a societal approach in this debate, than we are to waste energy quibbling about Republicans’ ideas of sex education. (The goal, remember, is to not have Republicans in control of anything, long ter.)
Government is merely a tool. The problem is not with the tool but the way in which the craftsman uses it. Responsive, caring and accountable government is good. What we have not isn’t. I for one have enjoyed government provided healthcare in other countries. One comes to view it like roads, fire departments, and similar services.
Interestingly, the man who vetoed the SCHIPs bill and the 150 or so Republican members of the House who sustained that veto all get government provided health insurance. Good enough for rich, aging, white males but not the rest of us?????
OK,pdf. I’ll call you a cold-hearted ass. I would also like to point out that you need to expand your thinking. You say that you want the U.S. government to do what the Constitution directly states it will do. Yet you latch onto the single phrase “promote the general welfare” and define it in your own narrow-minded way to mean handouts. You completely skip over the other phrases of the Preamble. Perhaps when you expand your thinking you can spend some time on the “establish justice” phrase. You can start by pondering something Martin Luther King,Jr. said. “Any nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”
By the way, I agree that far too many have latched onto the “government teat.” But I usually think of entities such as Halliburton and Blackwater, not children who need healthcare, when I think of sucking our treasury dry.
If you’re a Kucinich supporter I urge you to go to http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll and vote for DFA to support Kucinich for president. Sorry for the cross posting.
I am a retired teacher of 12 to 15 yr. olds. When the aids/hiv situation became a major issue, our school board, Roman Catholic, began working on an aids awareness program. I remember asking a superintendant if he really believed that abstinence approach would work. His answer was that when the students found out that HIV/AIDS could kill them that yes, it would work. Unfortunately as he was saying this, he was smoking a cigarette!
“By promoting the general welfare, I specifically do NOT mean that we GIVE anything to ANYBODY just because they WANT it!”
Something tells me the 10 million children that this program would cover don’t need health care “just because they want it.”
“Do you want them to provide you with health care at no direct cost to you, regardless of the quality of that care?”
If you think the quality of health care in the US would decrease if the government funded universal healthcare–or even something as small as this program–you should try getting sick and convincing your HMO to pay even 40% of your medical bills. Or maybe you should try to convince your insurance company to stop labeling pregnancy as a “pre-existing condition” that is uninsurable. Or perhaps you should try to get tested for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or get a cancer screening–you know, take care of the problem before its too late–and see if your insurance (that you pay hundreds of dollars a month for) covers it.
The quality of healthcare becomes a moot point when only the very rich can afford any at all! Life expectancy isn’t any lower in Canada or in Scandinavian countries, is it? Quality of life is consistently rated highest in the world in countries that provide healthcare to its citizens. Infant mortality rates are lower than the US in countries with universal healthcare, including CUBA!! Not exactly an affluent country.
Same tired arguments from pdf. Heard them in 92 when Clinton first started talking about universal coverage. When will people realize that healthcare is a racket in this country and that a vote against government funded and regulated healthcare is a vote for greedy insurance companies?!
The fault line with abstinence only is the part of the equation that is never mentioned: the human nature factor and raging homones. Solid sex education should be a mandatory part of any health plan.
By labeling people in need “laxy, dependant free-loaders” (did you mean “lazy, dependent freeloaders”?), pdf demonizes a huge section of our population. Demonization has succeeded in killing thousands overseas in our name, and now demonization of those too poor to buy health insurance succeeds in allowing thousands here at home to die.
If I were you, pdf, I’d get myself educated on basic human rights (and basic spelling!)
By the way, pdf, it’s too late to keep the government from interfering with people’s lives. They already have; by trying to deny healthcare to poor children and later sending them off to be killed in some war. On the other hand, by outlawing abortion & contraception, the government interferes with reproductive choice, which keeps children from being born into poverty.
The provision to authorize millions for a worthless “abstinence-only” program as a “compromise” to pass this bill is just typical of the democrats; they’ll give away the farm instead of standing their ground and saying that they will do what’s right and they will NOT subject themselves to any intimidation!
The idea of SCHIP was great but the funding plan for it was a Republican dream…fund it by taxing ONLY people who smoke , at the rate of sixty-one cents per pack. No income tax involved, just tax “sin”. It was a regressive, judgmental, egregiously unfair funding plan, just what the Republicans love.
I’m still astonished the Democrats went along with it and disgusted that they didn’t even talk about that side of it.
Hope when the bill is re-worked, the Democrats have the sense to ditch the tobacco tax in favor of an income tax to fund SCHIP. As it stands, it will tax some people with lower income than some of those the program will help. What could be more Republican than that?
Sex produces children. Children produce bad smells, noise and great expense, and they grow up to be adults, who pollute the environment, commit crimes, hoard wealth and become Republican politicians. So sex is very bad and must be abolished at once.
All ~ Thank you for a wonderfully diverse and open minded discussion of the issue! You’re all to be commended and applauded for your free thinking approach to problem solving!
pdf
(forgive my zeal to share ideas, like hopefully we all do here, which sometimes results in rapid fingers that don’t always behave as they should! Laxy is an obvious typo and my spelling skills are just fine, thank you very much)
PDF: I like your manners, and feel that CHESSGAME 56 and Dr. J offered good points for your consideration. One I’d like to add is that the TRUE welfare in this country is squandered on mega-corporations in the forms of a variety of perks, incentives and other insidious ways of allowing wealth to aggregate upwards.
An enlightened society wrestles with questions of balance and as our Founders came to see by creating a government based on a triangle of 3 separate equal powers… there MUST be a balance between the goal(s) of profit and the welfare of citizens. When a society invests in those activities that bring its quality of life down, we ALL pay one way or another. Perhaps the payment is extracted in the form of prison programs, or loss of the net creativity of generations who, exposed to poor educations, are never nurtured to provide their gift to the greater society.
My greatest peeve is the $ spent on war and armaments. The investment in violence (even in our media and what passes for “entertainment”) is a collective sin against the intended evolution of mankind. To the extent “life is a shared creation” (that quote comes from author Paul Brenner) we are each a strand in the great woven design, we all feel at some visceral level, what happens to THAT design. Therefore it behooves each of us to invest in one another or in those ideals that support a humane and just society. That, rather than the embarassment of armaments, makes for a wealthy, healthy nation.
The reason Bush has always pushed for abstinance is that was his philosophy all through high school and Yale and see how good he turned out. It is so reassuring to have a man of high principle in the White House.
Siouxrose___ about time for another astrological take on our latest problems in the country___ the politicions sure aren`t making much headway.
[Quote]Do you want them to provide you with health care at no direct cost to you, [/Quote]
It wouldn’t be a no direct cost to ME. I pay a Large Chunk of my income every year in TAXES. So, if I want to receive Health Care in return, why shouldn’t I be able to?
As for you, if you don’t pay your taxes, I agree, you shouldn’t get any health care.
As far as government inefficiency, it can’t be any worse than the current Corporate method of systematically DENYING Health care to everyone they can get away with so that their executives can pocket the money instead.
At least with government run health care, the guy in charge would go to prison if he paid himself a multimillion dollar bonus for successfully allowing a few hundred thousand people to Die of untreated diseases and injuries that are mysteriously NOT Covered by their policies.
This ‘Abstinence only’ is the biggest waste of taxpayers money right after the program to counsel young people to get married before they reproduce. I still have a hard time believing American’s have allow this group of self-righteous bigot’s to dominate this country. How far are we going to sink in the mire of ignorance before people start getting fed up? A lot of us are starting to get sick of religion and religious nuts period! I don’t have a gram of patience left with any of them.
“We cannot afford to continue to keep paying for generation after generation of laxy, Dependant free-loaders!”
———
This says it all. Even a country like Cuba understands the importance of providing health care to its citizens and has accepted it as a RIGHT! The problem with this country is that we’re trained to put a price on everything.
Providing socialized health care is not the ONLY solution. It has to be done by revamping a other things such as pharma costs, improving public health facilities, streamlining the bureaucratic process for payment of health costs, etc. I for one, am in favor of higher taxes for socialized medicine because
1) We pay way too much for healthcare through private insurance companies
2) I think its morally right for us to not live like animals and leave the weaker ones in our society left behind and uncared for.
Its funny how people don’t want the government to INTERFERE in our health decisions while the insurance companies have all the rights to determine whether I get to ride an ambulance or not when I’m sick. Its just a matter getting your minds out of this brainwashed attitude which assumes that those in our society who can not afford all the good things that some of us can are purely LAZY. They’re not..they were just dealt a bad hand or are in reality a product of our lop sided society which favors the rich!
“As far as government inefficiency, it can’t be any worse than the current Corporate method of systematically DENYING Health care to everyone they can get away with so that their executives can pocket the money instead.”
——————-
Very true. I’d rather have the government take my money and provide it to the needy instead of paying for multi-million dollar mansions for CEO’s of insurance companies.
Thanks Siouxrose, and you are most correct about the armaments; it’s the elephant in the room no one wants to see. While our infrastructure crumbles, bridges collapse, water treatment plants go underfunded, children go without health care, manufacturing jobs get shipped away, military appropriations continue to increase. Our fear of terrorism is leading to a kind of self-destruction far worse than terrorism could ever cause–and isn’t that just what the terrorists want?
Puffin: not to worry, the schip appropriation bill failed. I suggest you vote or continue republican because they are clearly on your side. You’ll have to decide what’s ultimately most important to you in that regard.
Chessgame, I’m a lifelong Democrat and I expect the Democrats to stand up for fair taxation based on income and against regressive taxes. This time, in order to play footsies with Republicans, they didn’t. Instead they approved what would have been the single most regressive tax in memory.
If that’s what our latter-day Democrats have come to stand for, who needs Republicans?
Complicit in all of this has been the media. Of all the hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about SCHIP, practically no one has addressed the tax funding plan. What did they think, that people who smoke are too stupid to figure it out? Or have we been declared non-persons?
You can get all holier-than-thou all you want, but the fact remains the Democrats were in bed with the devil on this one and the media pulled the covers over them.
Hold up a sec, 4$ for a three pack of condoms??? Where the fuck are you shopping? Good god, I used to work at a gay bathhouse and we (like all bh’s) provided all the free condoms you wanted(never had one of them break on me either, well made, and if used properly you’ll never get an std) I know they don’t cost nearly that much to make, produce or distribute. Perhaps that’s another way to encourage people not to practice safe sex, make it cost too much…
CHESSGAME: I look at the waste in both a practical way–the obvious misuse of resources to support those that will destroy our world, rather than invest in those who might be its promise (children–decent education & health care). Having studied spiritual masters most of my adult life, I can’t help but attempt to look on this nexus through their eyes. The greater the spiritual maturity of a soul, the higher its capacity for empathy. That is a tough call these days as suffering is so vast and spreading. One irony also conveniently excluded from the debate on extending health care coverage, is the role big business plays in directly compromising the health of a great many.
As we attempt this discussion placed in the periphery are the facts that our food is being heavily adulterated with chemical preservatives, much of our produce is genetically altered and we, as consumers, are deemed unworthy of being told what the actual–not virtual–state of this “food” constitutes. Meat is ridden with hormones and antibiotics (I don’t eat it). Fish are being “farmed” with similar chemicals to boost immunity and beef up life cycles for quick marketplace “value.”
Our waters are the convenient exit route of much factory waste, our air is filled with pollutants, our ozone is burning away and the capitalists architects of mega-billions march on scot-free. The costs of these encroachments on healthy human life figure onto no balance sheets.
Not only can many of us not obtain fair-priced insurance or health care, WE are guinea pigs in a huge experiment that slowly is exposing the lie of “better living through chemistry,” and/or that “nuclear power is safe,” etc.
KERNEL asked about the astrology–America is fast approaching a very karmic cross roads. I think things will expand to the breaking point (fiscal borrowing) next year. This feat will be perpetrated by US enablers until after the election. In late 2009 and thereafter is where the cosmic shit hits the fan. I am seriously considering moving elsewhere, except friends & family are here. Most don’t want to know that things will get worse before they get better… our culture is too busy selling happiness or quick routes to escape “reality.” Not a prescription that makes Truth particularly popular, or convenient.
Big tobacco wholeheartedly supports your position puff; in fact, Phillip Morris was among the first to oppose SHCIP on the same basis as you do:
http://texasimpact.org/phillipmorrisschip07
No surprise there.
pdf:
“I want them to work to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our prosperity. That’s what I want.”
Philosophically…who could argue?
But ‘come down to cases’, pdf. In ensuring both “general-welfare” and “establishing-Justice” (as per the intended ‘proper-functioning’ of the US Government), Congress/Law/Constitutional-application would first need to establish (in many-senses, just re-establish) appropriate Regulation/Oversight to insure private-interests (such as the current and ridiculous Medical/Insurance-outrages, that have so-elevated the costs, governmental&individual, that it would actually be CHEAPER for the government to exceed Constitutional-Intent by paying for it-all, as single-payer) do-not and cannot ’tilt the market/playing-field’ unfairly and Criminally to their-advantage. If the US government first-performed this proper role and Duty of ‘Good Management’, then average citizens really-could afford (via lesser-taxation and hard-work) what private health-care is actually ‘worth’ [and those-few unfortunates who could-not, could be succored by other-means — private-or-governmental].
It’s neither possible nor Just to hold the citizens of the US to such a strict ‘Private&FreeMarket/pay-your-way’ mentality/criteria while, simultaneously, allowing the Corporate-or-other oligarchies to receive purchased-freedom from sensible/PublicInterest Regulation, and also shower only-them with tax-cuts, Deregulation, and CorporateWelfare. True ProgressiveTaxation, and a somewhat ‘leveled playing field’ could, in-fact, promote the sort of ‘personal-responsibility’ you tout, but not until said-Government insures those who CAN take-advantage of the system, DON’T and HAVEN’T. As alternative, a degree of ‘Socialized-Democracy’ must be practiced — as alternative to a woeful Public-Loss/Plight, which would/will eventually bring-down the ‘elite’ as surely as the ‘poor’ (if/when they lose their Constitutionally-promised Representation to these ‘higher-bidders’).
‘Philosophy’ is one-thing, ‘Reality’-another. You (like those you are so critical-of?) “want your cake, and fully-intend to eat-it”. A leveled/Just ‘playing-field’ and Constructionist-philosophy must, always, be accompanied by a ‘limit’ upon just how-’successful’ the involved Interests/Individuals/Concerns are able to become, and/or, at-very-least upon how much Influence/Advantage they can buy from “the People’s Government”.
Me also2 ~ I take an historical perspective on this, and I look at what has moved our country forward and what has been value added over time, and what I see is the value of self-sufficiency as it relates to self determination. When we as a society not only accept, but promote dependency, we do ourselves harm. On taxation, I’m of the considered opinion that taxation as a means of funding gov’t function has been rendered impotent and the tax code is primarily geared toward redistribution of wealth. I do not disagree with the concept of socialized democracy as a safety net and a means to turn one’s life around, but the reality I perceive tells me it’s transmogrified into a permanent way of life, and that my friend, is wrong. We do people a grave disservice when we make them dependant.
I can agree with your arguments — but not their attendant-Frames…
Within any given system/Society with a reasonable-degree of opportunity and productivity, there can be both a ‘progressive-Cap’ upon “Success/Reward”, and an ‘absolute-Delimitation’ upon “Failure/Punishment”.
Chessgame, I did a bit of research since my last entry, hope you’re still checking.
The tobacco tax was indeed a Repunk brainchild, proposed by Senator Gordon Smith, R-Oregon. For further info, read the Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report of July 11th…
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=46144
But, really, why does this surprise anyone? A regressive “sin” tax…a Republican dream.