The question is a fallacy ... 40% dont have insurance ?? BS .

Exactly. The 2x to 3x figure is also made up. Much of the differences in infant mortality rates reported by various countries is attributable to reporting criteria and data collection methods. It is becoming obvious that Obamacare is not going to reduce the number of people who do not have medical insurance nearly to the extent that was promised. So far, its biggest "achievment" has been to move people from full time jobs to part time jobs. I met with a small business owner earlier this week who told me that his cost of covering employees with medical coverage increased by 40 percent in the past year.

 

Besides, the biggest problem with Obamacare is the loss of individual liberty. The impact on the number of people who will be covered by medical insurance will be trivial in comparison and the quality of medical coverage and actual quality of services provided will not be enhanced. Obamacare is just another attempt to transfer wealth to real working men and women to real non-working men and women. Meanwhile, Obama is threatening to veto a defense appropriations bill if Congress does not agree to cut raises for members of the military and increase the premiums that they pay for medical insurance coverage. Obama promised to reward his friends and punish his enemies when he ran for the presidency and he has kept that promise.

We have great health care in this country. We provide education in schools, on TV commercials, news shows and PBS.

What is missing is responsibility. No matter how much info and insurance, free or paid for, it does not matter if people do not do what is needed to take care of theirselves and their babies.

I've seen reports that the infant mortality rate in the US is 2 to 3x higher than the top countries in the world. One of the reasons is that about 40% of females do no thave health insurance for them or their children.

 

Obamacare would provide that healthcare specifically for mothers and their infants.

 

If it is proven that greatly decreases the infant mortality rate would you put aside your other issues and support it?

Clyde your mortality rate and insurance number are off. I mean not even in the ball park of reality.

I thought there were currently resources available for pregnant women? I know my niece has had plenty of free care during her four pregnancies by four boyfriends. Isn't one of the arguments that we're already paying for care for people who can't afford it so we might as well have Obamacare? And if they don't have insurance and can afford it, that's their decision and I don't want to pay extra to provide them insurance.

Both of you are 100% correct. Positives and negatives.

 

Let's say Congress continues down the road that they've been on for a while and they can't really change it much.

 

So, as bad as much of the concoction might taste is this one very big positive make it worthwhile?

No. You can get to the same place without the rest of the concoction.

The issue actually isn't with the ones you reference above. It's with those that have private insurance that isn't covering enough of the cost of the care.

 

So is the issue not enough prenatal care?

Found it. I didn't quote it accurately.

 

It wasn't that they didn't have insurance. It was that they DID have health insurance BUT had insufficient maternal insurance.

 

ACA makes maternal care an essential health benefit.

 

Clyde were you inebriated? You've moved the stick on this thread 2 or 3 times...are we now at the final point of this thread :lol2:

You know what would save more infant lives? Reversing Roe v. Wade. I'll give ground if they will.

I thought there were currently resources available for pregnant women? I know my niece has had plenty of free care during her four pregnancies by four boyfriends. Isn't one of the arguments that we're already paying for care for people who can't afford it so we might as well have Obamacare? And if they don't have insurance and can afford it, that's their decision and I don't want to pay extra to provide them insurance.

 

Correct on availability for those who can't afford it. My original thoughts were incorrect on what I heard. I found later that those who use programs like CHIP or Medicare aren't the ones who are struggling. Sorry for the initial confusion.

 

The issue is for those who HAVE insurance but it's not strong in prenatal and maternity.

Clyde your mortality rate and insurance number are off. I mean not even in the ball park of reality.

 

Pretty consistent from the various data sources.

 

US rate is 6 per 1000.

Norway is 3.

Finland is 2.

France is 3.

Ireland 3.

German 3.

 

 

Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) | Data | Table

Edited July 26, 201313 yr by Clyde

Clyde were you inebriated? You've moved the stick on this thread 2 or 3 times...are we now at the final point of this thread :lol2:

 

Actually wasn't drunk. Just faulty memory. However, I did finally get to the real numbers. I then provided a link stating how it works for many WITH INSURANCE today vs how it will work under ACA.

 

So, your thoughts on that?

 

If we can cut it from 6 per 1000 to 1 or 2 doesn't that make ACA worth it?

You know what would save more infant lives? Reversing Roe v. Wade. I'll give ground if they will.

 

Let's assume Roe v Wade isn't changing. However, ACA provides better options for mothers WITH INSURANCE which logically says mortality rates will go down.

 

You wouldn't support that even with all of the bad parts of ACA?

So is the issue not enough prenatal care?

 

The article indicated issues with what's covered and what expense is involved as factors. ACA seems to fix those issues.

Actually wasn't drunk. Just faulty memory. However, I did finally get to the real numbers. I then provided a link stating how it works for many WITH INSURANCE today vs how it will work under ACA.

 

So, your thoughts on that?

 

If we can cut it from 6 per 1000 to 1 or 2 doesn't that make ACA worth it?

 

I still believe the changes to pre-natal care can be accomplished without the entire mechanism of ACA...So while I do support improving pre-natal care I don't think that it can only be accomplished through ACA. I also still think parenting or lack there of, drug use and poverty has more to do with infant mortality rates than weak insurance coverage.

 

As I said before I think the infant mortality rate being used to push through the ACA is a bit disingenuous. I can see the election headlines now...."Candidate XXXX voted against expanded pre-natal care that could save lives"

I still believe the changes to pre-natal care can be accomplished without the entire mechanism of ACA...So while I do support improving pre-natal care I don't think that it can only be accomplished through ACA. I also still think parenting or lack there of, drug use and poverty has more to do with infant mortality rates than weak insurance coverage.

 

As I said before I think the infant mortality rate being used to push through the ACA is a bit disingenuous. I can see the election headlines now...."Candidate XXXX voted against expanded pre-natal care that could save lives"

 

Again, your choice is the following in my scenario: Keep ACA with all of its flaws because it will save lives of infants OR eliminate all of Obamacare - good and bad. That's really where we're at today. Which way you going?