In BBC News Mark Mardell wrote an article titled, President Obama Faces Touch Choices on Healthcare, he uses this article to highlight the possible impending doom the Supreme Court could inflict on the President's upcoming election this year.
As we all know the "healthcare" he is referring to is also called Obamacare. This link will help you sift through the facts of the plan and not the talking points.
While I like the article and it was incredibly easy to read it was still media. Most of the time when reading or even watching media about the election it is either RED or BLUE with no purple people in between. What does that mean? I mean with any article or show it is going to be spun in favor of one party or another, but usually nothing about the in-betweeners who just want to know the facts from both parties.
Mardell did a very nice job of explaining why Obama is facing tough choices, focusing on the 'individual mandate' (which is being said to be unconstitutional) stated in Obamacare. He has input from representatives from both sides, a former speech writer for the Clinton administration, and a health specialist from Freedomworks, a Conservative campaign group. Both seem to agree Obama will fail, but both have very different opinions on the impact of that failure.
There were two things about this article that I felt were disappointing. I felt like there should have been a light shined on the current condition of our healthcare, and why we need change like the Obamacare... or why we do not. For instance, according to the CDC in 2011 46.3 million American's were uninsured, and another 58.7 million were uninsured part of that year. People are dying because they do not have the resources they need to combat acute and chronic illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, and even mental health services. We are on such an uneven playing field when it comes to healthcare and insurance. If parent's of babies with PKU or Phenylalanine disorders do not have insurance or cannot afford the incredibly expensive formula they are forced to feed them regular formula which ultimately causes mental retardation in those infants. These are only a few issues we face as a nation and I believe he should have touched base on some of the hot topics. The other part of his article I did not "like" was a comment made, "The president can moan about the Supreme Court if he likes, but he can't
campaign for a law they have ruled to be unconstitutional", but in all fairness it is only because I know it is true.
Mardell did a great job of giving information to both sides as well as giving his opinion of what to expect in the upcoming months.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
First to Suffer...Women, Infant, and Children
Confucius said, "In a country well governed poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed wealth is something to be ashamed of.”
An article on CNN spurred my thoughts to dig deeper on what is to me a huge issue facing our nation. House Republican's to Cut WIC Spending by 10%. Really???
Currently our nation faces a very big question....Where are we going to cut spending? Especially during an election year pressures run high. Among some things Congress is looking to cutting is SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), WIC, and Medicare. I am most passionate about the WIC program and the absolute atrocity it is to cut funding from a program that is already underfunded.
The Texas Legislature, in my opinion, does not have the capacity to make the better decisions for our state. And, in some context, I am also saying Republicans do not have the capacity to make the best decisions for everyone in Texas, especially women and children. Texas is dead last in the number of non-elderly women without health insurance, and 6th nationally in the percentage of women in poverty, according to the Texas Legislative Study Group. If that is not enough to persuade you to believe Texas or Rick Perry need to make a change one in five Texas children lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation. Rick Perry tried to opt out of Medicaid, which provides insurance for the most vulnerable of Texan's, pregnant women and children.
WIC, a nutritional assistance program for pregnant women, infants and children has received bipartisan support in the past, but now has been faced with some pretty hefty budget cuts. While originally reported that WIC may have to turn away as many as 79,000 mothers in 2012 under the approved U.S. House of Representatives budget this has not happened. YET.
The WIC program is intently focused on helping low income families reduce the incidences of malnutrition. The program strongly advocates breastfeeding and has been providing manual as well as "hospital-grade" breast pumps for free. The program is incredibly diverse, ranging from helping a mom deal with a stubborn or "picky" eater to breastfeeding peer counseling to a struggling mother. The WIC program is much different from SNAP (Formerly known as food stamps) in that mothers must take classes on nutrition and the food they are given is limited to peanut butter, whole grains, milk, cheese, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and tuna. For ever $1 dollar invested into WIC, we save $3 dollars on healthcare costs.
According to the WHO, World Health Organization, beyond the immediate benefits for children, breastfeeding contributes to a lifetime of good health. Adults who were breastfed as babies often have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, as well as lower rates of overweight, obesity and type-2 diabetes. There is evidence that people who were breastfed perform better in intelligence tests.
WIC operates on a budget close to $6.7 billion dollars wich comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On top of the $532 million cut in 2011, there will be another $685 million cut in 2012. Our Texas Legislature is allowing much of this budget cut to go against the "fresh produce" (which mostly goes back into the community through spending at local Farmer's Market's) allotment for WIC, and it's breastfeeding resources. El Paso County registered 2.5 million dollars pumped into the community by WIC recipients.
Sec. 165.001. LEGISLATIVE FINDING. The legislature finds that breast-feeding a baby is an important and basic act of nurture that must be encouraged in the interests of maternal and child health and family values. In compliance with the breast-feeding promotion program established under the federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. Section 1771 et seq.), the legislature recognizes breast-feeding as the best method of infant nutrition.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., Ch. 600, SS1, eff. Aug . 28, 1995.
However, there was no reduction in the amount of baby formula subsidized out. But, Williamson County is borrowing from the City of Austin because they do not have enough breast pumps or the funding to purchase more.
Right now 26 states are looking at cutting Peer Counselors from the WIC budget. These women are vital to the program in keeping new moms informed. Without Peer Counselors WIC may very well just be a formula handout program. I am not saying we need to be a "nanny" state, but we need to be sensible in the decisions we make as a nation and state.
Texas is already 47th in monthly benefit payments under WIC. It seems counterproducive to limit an organization that does so much for a state's people. By cutting funding to WIC we can only assume Medicaid costs and SNAP benefits will increase. The Legislature also needs to take in account the millions of dollars that will be lost upon local farmers.
This all points to a domino effect for our nation, and our state (Texas).
Thank you, Republican Party and our diversity-lacking Legislature for defending life, liberty, wealth and the pursuit of formula, corn and soybean subsidies!
An article on CNN spurred my thoughts to dig deeper on what is to me a huge issue facing our nation. House Republican's to Cut WIC Spending by 10%. Really???
Currently our nation faces a very big question....Where are we going to cut spending? Especially during an election year pressures run high. Among some things Congress is looking to cutting is SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), WIC, and Medicare. I am most passionate about the WIC program and the absolute atrocity it is to cut funding from a program that is already underfunded.
The Texas Legislature, in my opinion, does not have the capacity to make the better decisions for our state. And, in some context, I am also saying Republicans do not have the capacity to make the best decisions for everyone in Texas, especially women and children. Texas is dead last in the number of non-elderly women without health insurance, and 6th nationally in the percentage of women in poverty, according to the Texas Legislative Study Group. If that is not enough to persuade you to believe Texas or Rick Perry need to make a change one in five Texas children lack health insurance, the highest rate in the nation. Rick Perry tried to opt out of Medicaid, which provides insurance for the most vulnerable of Texan's, pregnant women and children.
WIC, a nutritional assistance program for pregnant women, infants and children has received bipartisan support in the past, but now has been faced with some pretty hefty budget cuts. While originally reported that WIC may have to turn away as many as 79,000 mothers in 2012 under the approved U.S. House of Representatives budget this has not happened. YET.
The WIC program is intently focused on helping low income families reduce the incidences of malnutrition. The program strongly advocates breastfeeding and has been providing manual as well as "hospital-grade" breast pumps for free. The program is incredibly diverse, ranging from helping a mom deal with a stubborn or "picky" eater to breastfeeding peer counseling to a struggling mother. The WIC program is much different from SNAP (Formerly known as food stamps) in that mothers must take classes on nutrition and the food they are given is limited to peanut butter, whole grains, milk, cheese, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and tuna. For ever $1 dollar invested into WIC, we save $3 dollars on healthcare costs.
According to the WHO, World Health Organization, beyond the immediate benefits for children, breastfeeding contributes to a lifetime of good health. Adults who were breastfed as babies often have lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol, as well as lower rates of overweight, obesity and type-2 diabetes. There is evidence that people who were breastfed perform better in intelligence tests.
WIC operates on a budget close to $6.7 billion dollars wich comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On top of the $532 million cut in 2011, there will be another $685 million cut in 2012. Our Texas Legislature is allowing much of this budget cut to go against the "fresh produce" (which mostly goes back into the community through spending at local Farmer's Market's) allotment for WIC, and it's breastfeeding resources. El Paso County registered 2.5 million dollars pumped into the community by WIC recipients.
Sec. 165.001. LEGISLATIVE FINDING. The legislature finds that breast-feeding a baby is an important and basic act of nurture that must be encouraged in the interests of maternal and child health and family values. In compliance with the breast-feeding promotion program established under the federal Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. Section 1771 et seq.), the legislature recognizes breast-feeding as the best method of infant nutrition.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., Ch. 600, SS1, eff. Aug . 28, 1995.
However, there was no reduction in the amount of baby formula subsidized out. But, Williamson County is borrowing from the City of Austin because they do not have enough breast pumps or the funding to purchase more.
Right now 26 states are looking at cutting Peer Counselors from the WIC budget. These women are vital to the program in keeping new moms informed. Without Peer Counselors WIC may very well just be a formula handout program. I am not saying we need to be a "nanny" state, but we need to be sensible in the decisions we make as a nation and state.
Texas is already 47th in monthly benefit payments under WIC. It seems counterproducive to limit an organization that does so much for a state's people. By cutting funding to WIC we can only assume Medicaid costs and SNAP benefits will increase. The Legislature also needs to take in account the millions of dollars that will be lost upon local farmers.
This all points to a domino effect for our nation, and our state (Texas).
Thank you, Republican Party and our diversity-lacking Legislature for defending life, liberty, wealth and the pursuit of formula, corn and soybean subsidies!
.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Not-So-Free Services
"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must - must - redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition re-distributional."~Unknown
In A.Trevino's editorial, Free Services, there are some thoughtful points brought up as well as what can be seen as injustices to the hard-working population.
First, let it be known the Medicaid program is over 50% federally funded, and it is a completely voluntary program for each state to have. Also, CHIP is not Medicaid, it is bundled together by our state to be administered by one group but very different. The $863 dollar tab is not only on the shoulders of those not on Medicaid but those on it as well. Any working citizen or resident is paying in to the same pot you do. In that respect, Medicaid makes us "united" in helping each other out.
While I understand your grievance over "picking up the tab", and also understand how often things like Medicaid and CHIP are probably abused, it does help a lot of children that would otherwise not have any healthcare. Further, a doctor has the right to say no or yes to accepting Medicaid. If they say yes and choose to accept Medicaid patients they can't also be mad that they do. It also needs to be examined how much money it will cost not to have these services.
Should we expect people to get their own insurance? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average hourly wage in Texas is $15.44, not including part time jobs (which many people have been forced to take due to lack of extended unemployment and full time work availablity). Most jobs do not offer insurance, and to buy it on your own is too expensive. The monthly average insurance premium for a household of four is $750, not including office visit copays.
As most of us know, Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured or underinsured children. We also have over 3 million children on Medicaid. According to the Center for Disease Control, 'Disease prevention is key to public health. It is always better to prevent a disease than to treat it.' If we were to "do away with" medicaid or "free services" how many children would suffer? According to a recent article, "Health department statistics show the number of whooping cough cases in Texas has risen by almost 60 percent in the state since 2008." This is a disease (also known as pertussis) protected by the DTaP vaccine. Vaccines need to be given in lower-income and lower socio-economic regions of the state because they are at a higher risk, and without Medicaid or CHIP these parents will not be able to vaccinate. While I am not a strong believer in all vaccines that is a debate for another day.
In order to have people stand up for a cause you believe in, such as "deleting" free services you must first weigh the pros and cons to them. I read your pros, but never saw any cons. You also need to ask yourself hard questions, such as...What if I lose my job and get cancer? What if I had a job with no insurance and got pregnant? Some of these people on Medicaid may because they were laid off after paying into the "system"you say we get rid of, and now they are using it because they are terminally ill with no way to pay for what they need to live. I believe we all pay in, and sometimes we all need a little help, unexpected or not, and to get rid of a healthcare program like Medicaid would make Texas a huge outcast among our United States. Getting rid of what I see as "not-so-free" services seems to be too big of a risk for a much more expensive situation and a lot of sick children.
In A.Trevino's editorial, Free Services, there are some thoughtful points brought up as well as what can be seen as injustices to the hard-working population.
First, let it be known the Medicaid program is over 50% federally funded, and it is a completely voluntary program for each state to have. Also, CHIP is not Medicaid, it is bundled together by our state to be administered by one group but very different. The $863 dollar tab is not only on the shoulders of those not on Medicaid but those on it as well. Any working citizen or resident is paying in to the same pot you do. In that respect, Medicaid makes us "united" in helping each other out.
While I understand your grievance over "picking up the tab", and also understand how often things like Medicaid and CHIP are probably abused, it does help a lot of children that would otherwise not have any healthcare. Further, a doctor has the right to say no or yes to accepting Medicaid. If they say yes and choose to accept Medicaid patients they can't also be mad that they do. It also needs to be examined how much money it will cost not to have these services.
Should we expect people to get their own insurance? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the average hourly wage in Texas is $15.44, not including part time jobs (which many people have been forced to take due to lack of extended unemployment and full time work availablity). Most jobs do not offer insurance, and to buy it on your own is too expensive. The monthly average insurance premium for a household of four is $750, not including office visit copays.
As most of us know, Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured or underinsured children. We also have over 3 million children on Medicaid. According to the Center for Disease Control, 'Disease prevention is key to public health. It is always better to prevent a disease than to treat it.' If we were to "do away with" medicaid or "free services" how many children would suffer? According to a recent article, "Health department statistics show the number of whooping cough cases in Texas has risen by almost 60 percent in the state since 2008." This is a disease (also known as pertussis) protected by the DTaP vaccine. Vaccines need to be given in lower-income and lower socio-economic regions of the state because they are at a higher risk, and without Medicaid or CHIP these parents will not be able to vaccinate. While I am not a strong believer in all vaccines that is a debate for another day.
In order to have people stand up for a cause you believe in, such as "deleting" free services you must first weigh the pros and cons to them. I read your pros, but never saw any cons. You also need to ask yourself hard questions, such as...What if I lose my job and get cancer? What if I had a job with no insurance and got pregnant? Some of these people on Medicaid may because they were laid off after paying into the "system"you say we get rid of, and now they are using it because they are terminally ill with no way to pay for what they need to live. I believe we all pay in, and sometimes we all need a little help, unexpected or not, and to get rid of a healthcare program like Medicaid would make Texas a huge outcast among our United States. Getting rid of what I see as "not-so-free" services seems to be too big of a risk for a much more expensive situation and a lot of sick children.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Breath of Fresh..What???...Smoke
After reading through blog after blog I was having a hard time deciding which one I felt the most strongly about. The new abortion law seemed to be a hot button, ironically I found it too politically incorrect to comment on. Then there was a blog about pink slime in our food being, "no big deal", which was incredibly distasteful. For someone, like me, with a degree in nutrition I found it incredibly "wrong"for pink slime to be "no big deal". But, today someone else made my mind up for me when I stepped out of People's Pharmacy with my seven week old baby and my eight year old son and received a blast of secondhand smoke in all of our faces.
The blog, Smoke and Mirrors, by Alison stayed mainstream in settling into more of a "freedom" type of approach, but I do not think the Smoke-Free Texas campaign is trying to take away the liberties or freedoms of a smoker as much as it is trying to provide the "freedom"or "liberty" to others to choose whether they want to be around secondhand smoke or not. In the blog she states, "No one should be forced to do what society thinks is "right" if its not what you or I view as right for ourselves." I found it counterintuitive to make such a statement without thinking about the person having to inhale the secondhand smoke. I do not smoke, and I do not think I should have to share the clean air with a smoker. She then goes on to say, "The fact that Texas has adopted this whole "smoke free Texas" thing shows me that tomorrow I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and it's relation to heart disease." I understand where she is trying to go with this, but smoking and fast food are two very different subjects. If you CHOOSE to eat fast food you are only harming yourself and no one else around you, but if you CHOOSE to smoke outside the person next to you is affected.
My main argument with the blog/article is that secondhand smoke leading to or not leading to cancer is a very debated topic depending on where your information is found. It is also a little more complicated than "just secondhand smoke leads to cancer". According to the American Cancer Society's Facts on Secondhand Smoke "Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.
SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast."
The EPA, IARC, WHO, National Toxicology Program, and American Cancer Society have enough research to scare me into not wanting my children exposed to secondhand smoke for any length of time if I can prevent it. I feel this law is more about protecting liberties rather than abolishing them. Who is to say you have the right to smoke (even though you are a non-smoker) and my seven week old, six year old or eight year old don't have the right to fresher "immediate"air? It is not only cancer they could contract but asthma or lower respiratory infections.
I think she made good arguments in her favor, but could have made a stronger argument by checking into any and all possible facts. Comparing the freedom to smoke with diabetes and sugar really threw me off. Sugar does not cause diabetes, and there is no correlation with sugar to diabetes especially in Type 1, to expect the world to ban sugar is unrealistic because it is not directly linked to diabetes like secondhand smoke and cancer is linked.
Maybe I am being overly critical because I also feel strongly towards this law, but in some aspects it is a lose-lose law. Both sides of the law are going to feel that they have lost their "freedom"in a sense.
The blog, Smoke and Mirrors, by Alison stayed mainstream in settling into more of a "freedom" type of approach, but I do not think the Smoke-Free Texas campaign is trying to take away the liberties or freedoms of a smoker as much as it is trying to provide the "freedom"or "liberty" to others to choose whether they want to be around secondhand smoke or not. In the blog she states, "No one should be forced to do what society thinks is "right" if its not what you or I view as right for ourselves." I found it counterintuitive to make such a statement without thinking about the person having to inhale the secondhand smoke. I do not smoke, and I do not think I should have to share the clean air with a smoker. She then goes on to say, "The fact that Texas has adopted this whole "smoke free Texas" thing shows me that tomorrow I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and it's relation to heart disease." I understand where she is trying to go with this, but smoking and fast food are two very different subjects. If you CHOOSE to eat fast food you are only harming yourself and no one else around you, but if you CHOOSE to smoke outside the person next to you is affected.
My main argument with the blog/article is that secondhand smoke leading to or not leading to cancer is a very debated topic depending on where your information is found. It is also a little more complicated than "just secondhand smoke leads to cancer". According to the American Cancer Society's Facts on Secondhand Smoke "Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.
SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast."
The EPA, IARC, WHO, National Toxicology Program, and American Cancer Society have enough research to scare me into not wanting my children exposed to secondhand smoke for any length of time if I can prevent it. I feel this law is more about protecting liberties rather than abolishing them. Who is to say you have the right to smoke (even though you are a non-smoker) and my seven week old, six year old or eight year old don't have the right to fresher "immediate"air? It is not only cancer they could contract but asthma or lower respiratory infections.
I think she made good arguments in her favor, but could have made a stronger argument by checking into any and all possible facts. Comparing the freedom to smoke with diabetes and sugar really threw me off. Sugar does not cause diabetes, and there is no correlation with sugar to diabetes especially in Type 1, to expect the world to ban sugar is unrealistic because it is not directly linked to diabetes like secondhand smoke and cancer is linked.
Maybe I am being overly critical because I also feel strongly towards this law, but in some aspects it is a lose-lose law. Both sides of the law are going to feel that they have lost their "freedom"in a sense.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Juanita's Jeans (Stage 4)
After my last post about women's healthcare I felt I needed to do a follow-up with a commentary by fellow blogger, Juanita Jean's. My favorite thing about her blog's are how incredibly pro-democrat they are, but my least favorite thing about her blogs is how incredibly anti-republican they are. Yes, I know it sounds a bit like an oxymoron.
One of her latest commentaries, Stop the Spinning! Stop the Spinning! I'm Gonna Throw Up!, is about the latest women's healthcare crisis between Texas and Washington. Her statement, "So, it’s not the state’s fault for being outlaws. It’s Obama’s fault for being sheriff" seems to put it in a perfet metaphor for all the "simple folk". I love her spunk in each post she ads, but sometimes her posts/blogs come across slightly biased because I get the feeling she possibly despises Republicans.
I learned something new about the issue/topic by reading her commentary. I had no idea Rick Perry suggested he would match the $36 million dollars in funding. According to Juanita, "Rick Perry pledged that Texas would come up with the 90% matching federal funds on our own, meaning he has to go find $36 million dollars in a state with a $15 billion deficit." After checking facts, Rick Perry did say this! What a dumb... Well, nevermind that, but has Perry not done enough this last year or so? Now he has the audacity to put pride before the health of women.
The one comment I did not necessarily agree with but probably because of my own opinions. Duh.. Juanita's last comment is, "And that's how pro-life works." I felt like that comment would cause pro-lifers who did not agree with what the state is doing to get offended. To me, this is not about being pro-life or pro-choice, but being pro-women. While I would not be shocked I could definitely see some pro-life activists preferring the state's side versus Obama's.
Juanita's commentaries always help me see things in a "lighter" perspective, but I am always sure to double-check facts because of her outward bias towards the party she does not like.
One of her latest commentaries, Stop the Spinning! Stop the Spinning! I'm Gonna Throw Up!, is about the latest women's healthcare crisis between Texas and Washington. Her statement, "So, it’s not the state’s fault for being outlaws. It’s Obama’s fault for being sheriff" seems to put it in a perfet metaphor for all the "simple folk". I love her spunk in each post she ads, but sometimes her posts/blogs come across slightly biased because I get the feeling she possibly despises Republicans.
I learned something new about the issue/topic by reading her commentary. I had no idea Rick Perry suggested he would match the $36 million dollars in funding. According to Juanita, "Rick Perry pledged that Texas would come up with the 90% matching federal funds on our own, meaning he has to go find $36 million dollars in a state with a $15 billion deficit." After checking facts, Rick Perry did say this! What a dumb... Well, nevermind that, but has Perry not done enough this last year or so? Now he has the audacity to put pride before the health of women.
The one comment I did not necessarily agree with but probably because of my own opinions. Duh.. Juanita's last comment is, "And that's how pro-life works." I felt like that comment would cause pro-lifers who did not agree with what the state is doing to get offended. To me, this is not about being pro-life or pro-choice, but being pro-women. While I would not be shocked I could definitely see some pro-life activists preferring the state's side versus Obama's.
Juanita's commentaries always help me see things in a "lighter" perspective, but I am always sure to double-check facts because of her outward bias towards the party she does not like.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
War On Women's Health (Stage 3)
The "war" on women's health seems to be the biggest topic of debate in the news lately. After reading a commentary in the Austin American Statesman, Women's Healthcare Offers New Wrinkle in Texas-Washington War by Jason Embry I asked myself, is it just a war on women?
A little background for the ongoing..."controversy centers on the Women's Health Program, which provides Pap smears, breast exams, birth control and other services to low-income, uninsured women between the ages of 18 and 44. A new state law says money for such programs cannot go to providers that are affiliated with abortion providers." But, "That bars Planned Parenthood from participating in the program, even though its participating affiliates are legally separate from the Planned Parenthood entities that perform abortions, and even though the law already prohibits taxpayer-funded clinics from providing abortions."
This topic touches home for me in a very personal way. Two years ago I was "fired" after 3 years of dedication and acceptance into the Coorporate Management Program by a major coorporation the day before my lumpectomy in my right breast. I was terrified! How could my company do this? I would have 30 days of insurance coverage. I immediately called Planned Parenthood, not because I am a believer in abortions, but because they, along with the Women's Health Program, would be my best bet to take care of any surgeries, medications, or procedures I needed done if I in fact did have breast cancer according to the Susan G. Komen foundation. Fortunately, my labs came back pre-cancerous, but benign. Not all women are as blessed as I was and will need somewhere to turn. This debate should not be a "show" for Washington OR Texas politicians.
Jason Embry wrote a very informative commentary on the debate without coming off left or right-winged. Instead he just stated the facts and spoke his opinion on both political parties. Embry goes on to say that this is a concrete decision and because of that politicians have everything to lose. It is not a decision like job creation or environmental issues that can be debated and fidgeted with, women's health is not something to "debate" about. At first, I did not like that it was a man writing about this topic, but his commentary soon made me realize this affects men as well as women. Fathers, brother, sons, husbands, and grandsons will be affected by this because their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters will be.
I wish everyone would read this commentary because he points out more than once that this is a war between Washington and Texas, primarily Texas Republicans. They are trying to make it seem like the federal government is overstepping their boundaries but if Texan's are smart, "they might decide that the state government, and not the federal government, is the one that's overreaching this time."
Embry did a great job of informing without over-stepping political boundaries.
A little background for the ongoing..."controversy centers on the Women's Health Program, which provides Pap smears, breast exams, birth control and other services to low-income, uninsured women between the ages of 18 and 44. A new state law says money for such programs cannot go to providers that are affiliated with abortion providers." But, "That bars Planned Parenthood from participating in the program, even though its participating affiliates are legally separate from the Planned Parenthood entities that perform abortions, and even though the law already prohibits taxpayer-funded clinics from providing abortions."
This topic touches home for me in a very personal way. Two years ago I was "fired" after 3 years of dedication and acceptance into the Coorporate Management Program by a major coorporation the day before my lumpectomy in my right breast. I was terrified! How could my company do this? I would have 30 days of insurance coverage. I immediately called Planned Parenthood, not because I am a believer in abortions, but because they, along with the Women's Health Program, would be my best bet to take care of any surgeries, medications, or procedures I needed done if I in fact did have breast cancer according to the Susan G. Komen foundation. Fortunately, my labs came back pre-cancerous, but benign. Not all women are as blessed as I was and will need somewhere to turn. This debate should not be a "show" for Washington OR Texas politicians.
Jason Embry wrote a very informative commentary on the debate without coming off left or right-winged. Instead he just stated the facts and spoke his opinion on both political parties. Embry goes on to say that this is a concrete decision and because of that politicians have everything to lose. It is not a decision like job creation or environmental issues that can be debated and fidgeted with, women's health is not something to "debate" about. At first, I did not like that it was a man writing about this topic, but his commentary soon made me realize this affects men as well as women. Fathers, brother, sons, husbands, and grandsons will be affected by this because their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters will be.
I wish everyone would read this commentary because he points out more than once that this is a war between Washington and Texas, primarily Texas Republicans. They are trying to make it seem like the federal government is overstepping their boundaries but if Texan's are smart, "they might decide that the state government, and not the federal government, is the one that's overreaching this time."
Embry did a great job of informing without over-stepping political boundaries.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
STAAR Exam (Stage Two)
In the article, “STAAR Faces Questioning From
Lawmakers” in The Texas Tribune reported on the roll-out of the new state exam
and how school districts are dealing with it. In this article people are
shocked at what STAAR is and whether they have voted for it. Now, it is too
late to take those votes back and this test and its policies seem to be causing
more problems than once thought. STAAR, or State of Texas Assessments of
Academic Readiness, will count towards 15 percent of a student’s final grade in
the corresponding courses in which the student is tested. The problem is how
school districts will apply the 15-percent rule. This test is also replacing
the more well-known TAKS testing system. Many schools are still figuring out
how their grading policies, class rankings and grade-point averages will apply
with the new rule. And because the law did not delineate how the schools should
implement the new test, school districts are coming up with different methods
in applying the 15-percent rule. The schools have to figure out how to convert
the raw score, which ranges from 2,000 to 6,000 points, to one they can use as
a grade, and then decide how to factor that grade on one exam into what is
usually two semesters’ worth of courses in areas including math, social studies
and English.
I believe education is the foremost important
gift we can give our children and for most of us, we have to rely on the state
to educate our precious ones. The state sets the standards regardless if we
think it is good or bad. They do this when laws are passed during odd number
years. The Texas Legislature convenes and passes laws that impact how children
are educated. We, as parents, do not have a say. Granted, we can testify at a
committee hearing, but most of us work and do not have the flexibility to do so
especially because we have families that need us. Learning about what laws
passed will make each and everyone of us better informed parents. This in turn
can help us be more proactive in our own children’s education.
Some schools are deciding “to give all students
that score below a failing range a 69 and all who get above that range a 100;
while others have assigned grades to ranges of points on the exams, giving, for
example, a 65 to a student who falls below a certain point, an 85 to a student
who scores in the satisfactory to advanced range and a 95 to a student who
scores in the advanced range. School
districts have also approached weighing the exam score into a final
grade, in several different ways. Each semester can count toward 42 percent,
and the exam can count 15 percent. They can average the grades of each
semester, count them toward 85 percent and then factor in the exam for 15 percent.
They can take the first semester grade for 85 percent, factor in the exam for
15 percent, do the same with the second semester, and then average those two
figures.”
Advocates of the STAAR are upset that there are
not clearer guidelines and believe this will decrease the high standard given
to the exam.
The Texas Education Agency is supervising the
rollout of the exam, but refuses to give any guidance to school districts
stating that “lawmakers did not give it the authority to set conversions in the
2009 law that established STAAR.” A spokesperson for the agency stated that
lawmakers have to address how the school districts implement STAAR in the next
legislative session. This comes on the heels of the agency seeing tremendous
budget cuts and losing a third of its staff.
STAAR Faces Questioning From LawmakersThe agency does not have the resources or the
inclination to do more than is laid out in the legislation. School districts
are always concerned about losing local control and unfunded mandates. They
believe if the state is going to limit their control and mandate they take action,
then they should ensure the school districts have adequate funding. Of course,
this last legislative session, school districts received $4 billion less in
funding, a huge reduction in staff, and now bigger class sizes. It’s not that they want to undermine the test
or do not care about educating the children. It’s that they do not have the
money or the staff to do it.
As a society we need to stay informed on every
topic because we never know when a law or bill will affect us. While I
completely disagree with “teaching to the test” which is what most teachers
have resorted to I also do not agree with lack of preparation. My 3rd
grader will take the STAAR this year and his teacher has no idea what is on it,
leaving her in the dark to at least give her students the best opportunity for
success.
The Texas Tribune- STAAR
The Texas Tribune- STAAR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)