Monday, June 28, 2010

Are Republicans denying health care to the children of the working poor because they tend to become democrats

Are Republicans denying health care to the children of the working poor because they tend to become democrats?
Such children overwhelmingly grow up to become voting democrats. Is it possible that Repubs have calculated that denying them health are will reduce democratic votes via infant mortality?
Elections - 24 Answers
 


Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
They just don't want to take people off of private insurance and put them on government run insurance. http://truewordtoday.blogspot.com/
2 :
lol, i think we are in a struggle with the elite,,, the elite are bargained with to give the people some of the resources that technology has brought to humanity... the elite prefer to make profits off of it... rather than give it away... for free as a human right....
3 :
Democrats do look at the world as how can I buy the most votes so it is understandable how this question could arise. The answer is no. It is not even relevant or true.
4 :
i can't speak for all republicans.....but what i resent is paying for other people's children.... i had mine...insured mine...raised mine....and i think others should do the same...i didn't look for a handout from uncle sam....and i expect others to be responsible for their own... what a loaded question yours is....and shows how little you understand about responsibility and accountability....
5 :
I don't think they really thought about it. conservatism = economic darwinism. Survival of the fiscally fittest, under the primal instinct to devour and squander. While Liberalism believes all people (including the disabled and meak) can contribute to society and should be supported by the community and not left to die in the street.
6 :
I wouldn't think so. I think the bill is not being passed because it puts too much of an emphasis on the Government to take care of the children. When it should be the PARENTS who should take care of their own children. Having to depend on the Government for things like that tends to be Socialistic. Then again, it also make your statement true. Just change democrats to socialists.....oh wait they are almost one in the same. I guess you are right.
7 :
That's an interesting theory, and that would be very nefarious intent on the Republicans' part if true. But it makes sense.
8 :
No, these kind of policy decisions are not made on such silly assumptions. I think it was a strategic decision on behalf of the private healthcare lobby. If the democrats can get it pushed for children then the potential very seriously exists for the Hillary Plan of universal private healthcare. I think the healthcare lobbying industry very seriously realizes that people on the whole would prefer a socialized system of some kind. (probably something along the Canadian line) Lobbyists don't take these kind of chances. And also factor in if the bill passed tobacco taxes would raise the cost of cigs by 50+ cents a pack. Big tobbaco also has a significant lobby that convinced enough Republicans to vote no. So in answer to your question the Republicans are not that cynical in their decision making.
9 :
If you mean thinning the gene pool herd, the democrats will take care of that running from the global warming myth. If you take away the pain of being poor what motivates them to do better?
10 :
HUH? Stop being insulting! Republicans are not out to get children. Bush vetoed that EXPENSIVE and wasteful bill because it was bad law. I think the dems put extra crap in it, knowing that Bush would veto it, so they could make it an issue. If Congress would get down to business and do what we hired them to do, things would be different. They shouldn't be wasting time with meaningless resolutions or condemning Rush for something he didn't say.
11 :
No, No, No...it's not about the children...it's about giving out federally funded healthcare to people that make 60k+ a year. I don't make that much but yet I can afford to insure my children with healthcare. It's all about priorities people...you don't have to live in the biggest house or drive the nicest car just b/c you can afford it, try using that money to take care of the kids YOU are responsible for.
12 :
$75,000 annual income is hardly "working poor" Besides, do you really want the Bush Administration responsible for health care?
13 :
If you consider $63k/yr to be working poor then I want to live your life. I make less than half that, have a son and his insurance is private not government. Stop taking people that CAN afford private coverage and pushing them into the government system
14 :
NO. Don't be an idiot! It's not the job of me or mine to help you with YOUR children. If you can't afford to take care of children--DONT have any. Nationalized health care is what socialistic countries do--not The Republic of The United States of America. If you want to see national health care service--just go to England--needles in paper cups--no staff-unclean conditions--nasty. Why do you think people from all ov er the world come to the USA for surgery and diagnosis? Because private health care is THE BEST health care system in the world. If you want national health care--go live somewhere else--OR-- stop producing children you can't take care of--or improve your education and get a better job--so you can take YOUR children--which are YOUR responsibility to a doctor. THIS is not a republican or democrat issue--it's just republicans are smarter and realize the huge tax burden and the diminished care we would receive. My parents were poor and they took care of all 5 of us. My Mom and Dad lived through the Great Depression--and THEIR parents took care of them. WE DONT NEED NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!!!!
15 :
WTF? Its not the governments responsibility to insure the nation! If it does your sucking my hard earned money to do it!!!! Have you whining liberals actually opened an S Chip application form...OMG! Basically it says..The more money you make...we will insure you, but you MUST have more children!!!! So now The Dems want to come up with a plan for higher income???? I agree with the person who said..If you give the poor everything, what will drive them to better themselves?? I took care of my wife (homemaker) and 5 boys, paid child support and still maintained insurance for my family!!!...On an Aircraft technicians salary!!! Its called working 600-700hrs of overtime a year! No help from the gov. To say something like this shows your ignorance and lack of responsibility!
16 :
Another LIBERAL. You can take the Democrats out of the majority once and awhile, but you can't take the liberal out of the Democrat. Taxes are a moral issue, not just an economic one. The government isn't just taking our money, they're taking our freedom.
17 :
What ever happened to PARENTS providing for their children? If you can't provide for your kids, keep it in your pants and DON'T HAVE SEX or use a CONDOM. If you have kids and need to get them health care, there are plenty of non-governmental agencies out there that will help you on a sliding-scale. Churches, charities, non-profit organizations, etc. Last I checked, we weren't turning ANYONE away from receiving needed health care at our hospitals and ERs (even if they are in this country illegally). We are not a socialist country (at least not yet). If we start to go down that path, it will cause the bancrupting of the US.
18 :
Yes. Republicans take their lessons from Herod
19 :
many in here have already nailed the reasons Republicans (and people with common sense) are against socialized health care, but the reason Democrats DO want it is because they need people dependent on the government so they can continue getting elected in the future. smarter, financially independent Americans won't let Democrats tax & spend our hard-earned money forever, so the Libs need needy people who will give them the chance to keep doing it. not for the sake of improving their lives, but to keep them in a state of need and dependence for the Dems' own gain. the worse Americans' lives are, the more the Democrats can promise, tax, spend, and increase the size of the government to make sure that the cycle keeps going- making it that much harder for Republicans to fix everything in the time they have in office- so Democrats can claim that Republicans don't follow through on their promises, calling them liars.
20 :
Nothing is being denied to anyone. If you're sick, you get help, although you might have to stand in line now and then. There are some serious problems in health care in need of fixing, but if you think the government can run it better, you're crazy.
21 :
oh my god what a lame question! just because its named the child health care bill , don't mean a thing. a bad bill is still a bad bill no matter what the name is.
22 :
No., YOU had the kids, YOU provide for them. If you can't do this, then keep your pants on.
23 :
yes
24 :
No, Republicans are against socialism. Also, democrats want this coverage to extend to people up to the age of 25. This means that a family of four (mom, dad, two kids) who earn $80,000 gets free health insurance paid by you and me, the taxpayers. Sorry, but they can buy their own because this is not a socialist country. If you want that, go to France.




 Read more discussions :

Thursday, June 24, 2010

What Do You Think Of Hillary Clinton Giving Free Health Care To Children

What Do You Think Of Hillary Clinton Giving Free Health Care To Children?
We COMPLAIN about ABORTION being leagle BUT don't want to SAVE the LIVES of the CHILDREN we ALREADY have. Why don't we IMPROVE the QUALITY of LIFE for the CHILDREN we ALREADY have then MAYBE mother's WILL NOT consider ABORTION because things will be BETTER for CHILDREN. There was a lady whose child died of cancer even though she had medical insurance because the insurance only covered full time students. But having cancer she couldn't be a full time student. So the insurance company just let her die. We can't make up the excuse that sick children dying is God's will because God is the giver of life and the Devil is the giver of Death and disease. So don't pull that one. Also, I think it's selfish to say that you don't want your tax dollars to pay for someone els. That is so unChristian. JESUS gave everybody all he had.
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If she wants to give something for "free" using her own money, I'd say that's noble. If she wants to give something for "free" using anyone else's money, I'd say that's stealing.
2 :
We already have free health care in Texas for children without Hillary. All she is going to cause is more taxes for the taxpayer. Also the strange thing is I work and pay taxes and do not have health benefits. Do you think I can go to the state and get help when I am sick? No, I have to go into debt to go to the doctor and the hospital. What an oxymoron. Hillary Clinton and Jesus in the same sentence.
3 :
Hillary Clinton is going to personally pay for the medical care of needy children with all of those millions of campaign contributions she's collected? That's awesome! Oh wait, she's rich and she wants ME to pay for it. Nevermind.
4 :
There seems a lot more to this story than you're telling. Yes, I am all about saving children. But if the cancer had already metastisized then there was nothing the doctors could do but make her more comfortable.
5 :
I think the folks should put more Faith in Jesus, instead of themselves, and allow their children to be born!! Jesus heals the sick and wounded, if they'll only have a little Faith and believe!!
6 :
in this world nothing is free.
7 :
I'm not meaning to be rude here, but you have a gross distortion of life and death, scripturally. You're giving Satan way more power than what the Bible states he has. He is not in control of life or death. He is a deceiver, that is his only "power". People are born, and people die, because that is all according to God's perfect will. Just because you don't understand why, does not make it not so. You cannot re-write the attributes of God to suit how you want to see Him. He is, how He is. He calls the shots on life and death, not Satan. So you're making Hillary Clinton into this savior of children now? Let me tell you something, there isn't a nation on this planet with socialized medicine that does any kind of justice to the citizens there. It's a govermental red-tape nightmare, and substandard care. Anyone who gets you to go along with socialized medicine could also sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. There are hospitals in this country like the St. Judes Childrens Hospital who would have taken a cancer stricken child, regardless of their ability to pay. And they have done wonders helping kids with cancer. I'd much rather my money go into an organization like this, than some Hillary Clinton led fiasco!
8 :
Great idea. This is only the tip of the iceberg for what she wants to do. If we passed a bill that would require ANY company involved in the healthcare process to become non-for-profit and put a cap on what their CEO's can make the money saved per year would be more than enough to insure the health of all Americans. The Founding Fathers never thought Capitalism would get this out of hand: Greedy CEOs getting richer at the expense of dying children.
9 :
I totally agree with you. There is enough for all kids and babies to get the needed care and prevention. Why does the federal government fund treatment for erectile dysfunction but a college girl can't get on birth control? All of those sign carrying anti abortion people should save their gas and money and adopt a couple of kids with special needs. That would be such a wonderful blessing to a person's life!




Read more discussions :

Sunday, June 20, 2010

If a couple has a high chance of having children born with health issues, can they use birth control

If a couple has a high chance of having children born with health issues, can they use birth control?
According to the church? Say they had a 75% chance of having an autistic child, or one with heart problems.
Religion & Spirituality - 9 Answers
 


Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You should ALWAYS use birth control if you are not trying to have a child.
2 :
My church is fine with BCP, its only the catholics as far as I know that consider it a sin.
3 :
The curch does not believe in birth control. Remember, the only reason for marriage is for procreation. Thus sayeth the church and is given as the main reason for being against gay marriage. If you do not want to have children, or can't because of any reason (homosexuality, unable to conconceive, too old, etc.) then your marriage is illegal in the eyes of God and you are living in sin. Thus sayeth the Church. I disagree, but who am I to argue with so many Conservatives and Christian religious leaders?
4 :
I see a big difference between methods which prevent the ovule getting fertilized vs methods aiming to kill/destroy the fertilized ovule. A couple can use methods following the first approach.
5 :
This is a medical a medical matter, you should speak to your doctors about all the problems, they would be the ones to help you if your child needs help. The church will not be bring up the child. The church cannot give you practical help, only comfort
6 :
Since , according to church, they have sex only to have children, they will not use birth control, they will abstain, should they be so inclined....
7 :
Children who are autistic or have heart problems are still capable of love and being loved. So there is no reason to assume that the birth of such a child is such a horrible tragedy, the couple should not allow their love to be made physically manifest in offspring.
8 :
Personally, I am not Catholic, but I still oppose birth control. My opposition to abortion is based on logic and science; however, my opposition to birth control is strictly religious, because I believe that if God wants us to have children, we shouldn't try and tell Him we know better. Since my stance to using birth control is purely on religious grounds, I do not look down on others for using birth control. After all, I would much rather a couple use birth control, rather than find themselves with a pre-born child and aborting him/her (I'm morally opposed to murder).
9 :
As far as Catholics are concerned the only godly way you can use birth control is if you live in Africa and one of the people in the relationship has AIDS. Other than that - It's a nono.




Read more discussions :

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Starting Today, Why Are All Children Unable To Get Individual Health Insurance

c
President Obama promised that today, "insurance companies are forever banned from denying coverage for children with pre-existing conditions". Well, thanks to Obamacare, ALL children are now banned from individual health insurance coverage. The insurance companies made a business decision to discontinue ALL individual health plans for kids under 19. Children can now only be insured under a family plan. If an adult member of the family is un-insurable, too bad for the kid. Why did Obama assure perhaps millions of kids cannot get insurance?
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Many insurance companies have stopped selling child-only policies because of the meddling government and their insistence that they know best.
2 :
They aren't, 3 companies, decided to discontinue stand alone coverage for children.
3 :
NONO facts are not allowed. Don't you understand it was HISTORIC legislation. Never mind they never read it, even the guy that helped write it, and bribed members of their own party to pass it. It's HISTORIC dammit...or so every house and senate member that voted for it said.
4 :
Really. All those fully employed kids are out of luck, and those free-loader dependant liberal kids get to be sick on the dime of paying, producing citizens. How galling.
5 :
It is not the Healthcare Plans fault that the Insurance Companies only care about their profits. It, the plan, was trying to regulate insurance and get insurance for people who previously had been denied. You cannot 'spin' this saying the intent was to insure 'millions of kids' not getting insurance. The intent was good, if insurance companies are discontinuing plans for kids that is their decision and the blame needs to be place on their shoulders not the administration. And if this is the case, where is your proof, it just goes to show big business are unable police themselves and require regulation. IMHO
6 :
OH WAIT A MINUTE.. .. so You guys fought the Public Option which would have guaranteed everyone insurance...why, "because it would be an unfair business climate for insurers" even though every congressional study showed that a Public option would have the exact desired effect.. a price increase inhibitor.. where as health insurers are now increasing costs to consumers annually at 19%... Now What little teeth the HR bill did have after the friggin mill that both Big money Reps and Dems put it through.. Now.. The insurance companies who absolutely will not be trimmed or held back.. are dropping CHILDREN from their rolls as a "Gotcha" move ...its a travesty Oh No.. it's a Free Market and we are going to keep raising costs until a 3rd of American families Income will go to Insurance companies.. Oh you people are rotten to your Christian Cores.. you really are .. I MEAN WE ARE TALKING SICK CHILDREN HERE.... Obama tries to get them coverage and insurers say ...No? and you lampoon it as a Left right issue.. OMG.. you have me hopping here...
7 :
Rag doll-Yes, I'm movin', Yes I'm movin' get ready for the big time Tap dancing on a land mine Yes I'm movin', Yes I'm movin' Old tin lizzy, do it till you're dizzy Give it all ya got until you're put out of your misery If you can't pass an all encompassing health care bill you have to pass a bill that forces Insurance companies to charge exorbitant prices so you will have a mandate to fix it.
8 :
Only a few companies. I hope you have others in your state. Obama kept his promise to pass that health reform but the insurance companies obviously reneged on their agreement to keep their end of the bargain after several meetings with the President and this was in the discussion last year. Only 3 or 4 companies have ended policies for children. They just did not want to lose any profit in spite of their increased premiums to cover those losses in recent months. They have no shame, no morals.
9 :
healthquotes.awardspace.info - here is my health insurance plan. As I remember they can provide such a service.




 Read more discussions :

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Could Child care be linked to future violence in society thanks to the femi extremist revolution

Could Child care be linked to future violence in society thanks to the femi extremist revolution?
Child Care Linked To Assertive, Noncompliant, and Aggressive Behaviors Vast Majority of Children Within Normal Range The more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half, the more adults tended to rate them, both at age four-and-a-half and at kindergarten, as less likely to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive, according to a study appearing in the July/August issue of Child Development. However, the researchers cautioned that for the vast majority of children, the levels of the behaviors reported were well within the normal range. In fact, a mother's sensitivity to her child was a better indicator of reported problem behaviors than was time in child care, with more sensitive mothering being linked to less problem behaviors. Higher maternal education and family income also predicted lower levels of children's problem behaviors.. The findings are from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. "It's important to put these findings in perspective," said Duane Alexander, M.D., Director of the NICHD. "The amount of time in child care is one of several family and child care factors linked to children's behaviors, both positive and negative." The NICHD launched the study of early child care in 1991. The 27 researchers conducting the study have been following the development of more than 1000 children from across the United States. The children were enrolled in the study at birth and come from an ethnically and economically diverse sample of families. In addition to focusing on time in child care, the current article focused on several other aspects of the child care experience: the quality of the child care arrangement, the proportion of time that the child was in a child care center, the proportion of time that the child was cared for in a group setting, and the number of times that the mother reported that the child started a new child care arrangement. In the current article, the researchers describe how child care experiences in the first four-and-a-half years of the children's lives relate to children's social competence and behavior problems, when the children were four-and-a-half years old, and later, when they reached kindergarten. The study measured children's social behavior by having mothers, child care providers and teachers complete standardized ratings of children's behavior problems and social competence-their ability to get along with children and adults and their ability to follow social rules. Information about the number of hours the children were in child care was obtained from the mothers every 3-4 months. The link between time in child care and problem behavior was greater than the link between infant temperament and problem behavior or maternal depression and problem behavior. This link between time in child care and problem behavior was also greater for children in center-based care than for children in other types of care. The study authors noted that, of the children who displayed problem behaviors, the majority were well within the normal range. A small proportion of children showed levels of problem behavior that should be monitored to see if they developed into more serious problems. The proportion of children showing these higher levels of problem behavior is commensurate with the proportion of children in the U.S. population as a whole who also display these problems. The link between time in child care and problem behavior occurred across all family backgrounds and all types and quality of care. The authors added that the time in child care during infancy did not appear to have a greater bearing on the children's behavior than did the time they spent in care after infancy. The researchers also found evidence that children who experienced better quality child care-in which caregivers provided intellectual stimulation and were warm, positive, and sensitive to child behavior-had fewer child caregiver/teacher-reported problem behaviors and conflict than did children who experienced lower quality care. The researchers noted, however, that high quality child care did not eliminate the link between hours in care and behavior problems. The researchers could find no threshold of child-care hours above which problem behaviors were especially likely to emerge. To illustrate the reported findings that were based on the information from the group as a whole, the researchers classified the children into four groups, based on the amount of time they spent in child care: 16 percent of children were in child care an average of 0-9 hours a week 38 percent for 10-29 hours 36 percent for 30-45 hours 10 percent for more than 45 hours a week. In each of these groups, a minority of the children had a high score on behavior problems. However, the percent of children with high scores increased with the increase in the number of hours children spent in child care. Children were rated by mothers and teachers on items such as: child demands a lot of attention; argues a lot; bragging and boasting; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at home; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; screams a lot. One of the important findings of this study is that the strongest predictor of how well a child behaves was a feature of maternal parenting that the researchers described as sensitivity--how attuned a mother is to a child's wants and needs. The behaviors of the sensitive mother are child centered; the sensitive mother is aware of the child's needs, moods, interests, and capabilities. She allows this awareness to guide her interactions with her child. Children of more sensitive mothers were more competent socially, less likely to engage in disruptive behavior, and less likely to be involved in conflicts with their caregivers and teachers. Similarly, children whose parents had higher incomes and who were more highly educated also were more socially competent and less likely to engage in problem behaviors. The study authors noted that their study was not designed to prove a cause and effect relationship. That is, the study cannot prove whether spending more time in child care causes children to have more problem behaviors. The behavior problems the researchers documented might be due to some other characteristic of the children or of their environment. Accompanying editorials in the July/August issue of Child Development offer possible explanations. Findings previously reported from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development showed that more time in care predicted more problem behavior among two-year olds, but not among three-year olds; less sensitive maternal behavior and less harmonious mother-child interaction when children were 6-36 months of age; as well as higher rates of insecure attachment to the mother if the mother's parenting was relatively insensitive. Preliminary findings pertaining to the research questions posed and answered by the current article were presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in April of 2001. In the future, the researchers plan to focus on the relation between hours spent in child care and children's behavior during the school years. ### The NICHD is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biomedical research arm of the federal government. NIH is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. NICHD publications, as well as information about the Institute, are available from the NICHD Web site, http://www.nichd.nih.gov, or from the NICHD Information Resource Center, 1-800-370-2943; e-mail NICHDInformationResourceCenter@mail.nih.gov. Child Care Linked To Assertive, Noncompliant, and Aggressive Behaviors Vast Majority of Children Within Normal Range The more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half, the more adults tended to rate them, both at age four-and-a-half and at kindergarten, as less likely to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive, according to a study appearing in the July/August issue of Child Development. However, the researchers cautioned that for the vast majority of children, the levels of the behaviors reported were well within the normal range. In fact, a mother's sensitivity to her child was a better indicator of reported problem behaviors than was time in child care, with more sensitive mothering being linked to less problem behaviors. Higher maternal education and family income also predicted lower levels of children's problem behaviors.. The findings are from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. "It's important to put these findings in perspective," said Duane Alexander, M.D., Director of the NICHD. "The amount of time in child care is one of several family and child care factors linked to children's behaviors, both positive and negative." The NICHD launched the study of early child care in 1991. The 27 researchers conducting the study have been following the development of more than 1000 children from across the United States. The children were enrolled in the study at birth and come from an ethnically and economically diverse sample of families. In addition to focusing on time in child care, the current article focused on several other aspects of the child care experience: the quality of the child care arrangement, the proportion of time that the child was in a child care center, the proportion of time that the child was cared for in a group setting, and the number of times that the mother reported that the child started a new child care arrangement. In the current article, the researchers describe how child care experiences in the first four-and-a-half years of the children's lives relate to children's social competence and behavior problems, when the children were four-and-a-half years old, and later, when they reached kindergarten. The study measured children's social behavior by having mothers, child care providers and teachers complete standardized ratings of children's behavior problems and social competence-their ability to get along with children and adults and their ability to follow social rules. Information about the number of hours the children were in child care was obtained from the mothers every 3-4 months. The link between time in child care and problem behavior was greater than the link between infant temperament and problem behavior or maternal depression and problem behavior. This link between time in child care and problem behavior was also greater for children in center-based care than for children in other types of care. The study authors noted that, of the children who displayed problem behaviors, the majority were well within the normal range. A small proportion of children showed levels of problem behavior that should be monitored to see if they developed into more serious problems. The proportion of children showing these higher levels of problem behavior is commensurate with the proportion of children in the U.S. population as a whole who also display these problems. The link between time in child care and problem behavior occurred across all family backgrounds and all types and quality of care. The authors added that the time in child care during infancy did not appear to have a greater bearing on the children's behavior than did the time they spent in care after infancy. The researchers also found evidence that children who experienced better quality child care-in which caregivers provided intellectual stimulation and were warm, positive, and sensitive to child behavior-had fewer child caregiver/teacher-reported problem behaviors and conflict than did children who experienced lower quality care. The researchers noted, however, that high quality child care did not eliminate the link between hours in care and behavior problems. The researchers could find no threshold of child-care hours above which problem behaviors were especially likely to emerge. To illustrate the reported findings that were based on the information from the group as a whole, the researchers classified the children into four groups, based on the amount of time they spent in child care: 16 percent of children were in child care an average of 0-9 hours a week 38 percent for 10-29 hours 36 percent for 30-45 hours 10 percent for more than 45 hours a week. In each of these groups, a minority of the children had a high score on behavior problems. However, the percent of children with high scores increased with the increase in the number of hours children spent in child care. Children were rated by mothers and teachers on items such as: child demands a lot of attention; argues a lot; bragging and boasting; cruelty, bullying or meanness to others; destroys things belonging to others; disobedient at home; disobedient at school; gets into many fights; lying or cheating; screams a lot. One of the important findings of this study is that the strongest predictor of how well a child behaves was a feature of maternal parenting that the researchers described as sensitivity--how attuned a mother is to a child's wants and needs. The behaviors of the sensitive mother are child centered; the sensitive mother is aware of the child's needs, moods, interests, and capabilities. She allows this awareness to guide her interactions with her child. Children of more sensitive mothers were more competent socially, less likely to engage in disruptive behavior, and less likely to be involved in conflicts with their caregivers and teachers. Similarly, children whose parents had higher incomes and who were more highly educated also were more socially competent and less likely to engage in problem behaviors. The study authors noted that their study was not designed to prove a cause and effect relationship. That is, the study cannot prove whether spending more time in child care causes children to have more problem behaviors. The behavior problems the researchers documented might be due to some other characteristic of the children or of their environment. Accompanying editorials in the July/August issue of Child Development offer possible explanations. Findings previously reported from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development showed that more time in care predicted more problem behavior among two-year olds, but not among three-year olds; less sensitive maternal behavior and less harmonious mother-child interaction when children were 6-36 months of age; as well as higher rates of insecure attachment to the mother if the mother's parenting was relatively insensitive. Preliminary findings pertaining to the research questions posed and answered by the current article were presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in April of 2001. In the future, the researchers plan to focus on the relation between hours spent in child care and children's behavior during the school years. ### The NICHD is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the biomedical research arm of the federal government. NIH is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NICHD sponsors research on development, before and after birth; maternal, child, and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. NICHD publications, as well as information about the Institute, are available from the NICHD Web site, http://www.nichd.nih.gov, or from the NICHD Information Resource Center, 1-800-370-2943; e-mail NICHDInformationResourceCenter@mail.nih.gov.
Current Events - 4 Answers
 


Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
There are some mothers who are forced into putting their child/ren into the daycare environment, not because of being a feminst, because of sheer survival. Some women lose their husbands because of death or the husband decides he no longer wishes to be married. Do not lump all women into this category. Until society can come up with a better solution to the problems that women face now days. SHUTTIE.
2 :
Dysfunctional children come from dysfuntional families and child care. Major difference is one group interest in profit only got control of one industry, and politician that regulate it, and in many cases subsidies are given to lowest standards possible.
3 :
From someone who has spent time actually doing a more critical review of the article and the follow-up studies: --------------------------------------------------- Also mentioned in the Times was the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Study of Early Child Care, whose findings were similar to Fuller's study. Four years ago, the Early Child Care study, using a sample of 1,364 kids who were 4 and a half, found that, while the reading and math skills of kids in child care were better than those of their stay-at-home counterparts (regardless of the type of care facility or family income), the more time the children spent in child care, the greater their aggression levels and noncompliance. That study sparked a great deal of controversy because one of its researchers touted conclusions to the media -- that putting a kid in child care caused these problems -- that his colleagues disputed. Last week, the NICHD published a follow-up report on the same kids who were in the 2001 study. It showed that by third grade, the children had swapped one set of problems for another: While the correlation to aggression went away, poor work habits and social skills appeared. (The Times piece suggested that the earlier study also found poor work habits and social skills, but according to Cathryn Booth-LaForce, one of the researchers on the project, that's incorrect. Also misleading is the Times' assertion that kids who spend more than 30 hours in child care are at risk for these problems. "The more hours in child care, the poorer the work habits in school, according to the teachers," says Booth-LaForce. "It doesn't have anything to do with 30 hours.") But Booth-LaForce says that it's important to keep in mind that "all of these effects are small compared to the effects of parenting. Math and reading scores are small, too" -- the difference of a few points. As for what could cause children in child care to develop poor social skills, she's not drawing conclusions: "We don't really have an explanation for it at the moment." And as Coontz points out, reporting on these studies tends to blow small findings out of proportion. "You're talking about a tiny minority of problematic cases, and usually problematic cases come with a whole other set of risk factors." Further, family units are so different, a norm cannot be so easily applied. "Families are changing so rapidly, it would be crazy to take an average generalization and make an individual family decision on the basis of it," she says. Nor should parents feel guilty for working and, thus, having to rely on child care. "A much bigger impact on a child is whether they have a depressed mother or not," says Coontz. "And some mothers are more depressed when they don't work." Philip and Carolyn Pape Cowan, professors emeriti at the University of California at Berkeley, point out that the relationship between two parents can be a much larger influence on the emotional and intellectual development of a child than child care. "We get upset when people get totally focused on child care as if it's the key issue," says Carolyn Cowan. In their longitudinal studies, they've tracked couples, some to whom they've taught parenting skills and others they haven't. "When parents are offered help to become the most effective parent they can be," she says, "and when they feel more effective as a couple, their children do better, academically and socially." ----------------------------------------------------------- and ----------------------------------------------------------- As Fuller suggests, the real implication of these studies is how we think and talk about governmental and company policies, like standardized testing, universal child care and flexible hours for working parents. It makes most sense to look at the third study, which was published yesterday by the American Sociological Review, as evidence of the need for regulated child-care centers. Julia Wrigley, a sociology professor and acting associate provost at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, co-authored the report, which shows that the rate of death among kids who were taken care of by a private caregiver was 16 times higher than for kids in child-care centers. Although it's by far the most alarming finding in any of these studies -- Wrigley is talking about death, not the ability to share, after all -- it is also nothing for parents to start panicking about. Wrigley culled data from news reports, state records and legal cases to create a database of 1,362 child fatalities nationwide from 1985 to 2003, including 203 shaken-baby deaths. (To put those numbers in perspective, consider that each day approximately 8 million kids are in some form of paid child care.) All violent deaths occurred when kids were being watched by a nanny or a caregiver in a private home. In child-care centers, which are regulated by the state, and where a caregiver is often surrounded by other adults, violent deaths were nonexistent. Though death resulting from a child being left in a van or wandering off on a highway did occur at care centers, overall those centers turned out to be far safer than private care. --------------------------------------------------- Soooooooo - do you want child care and the tiny risk of more aggressive behavoir that goes away as the child ages or home care where the child is 16 times more likely to be killed due to violent behavoir of the caregiver? Or maybe neither problem is really all the significant, and the real important message here is that parenting matters a lot? The above listed study isn't nearly as grim as it appears, and plenty of information has been left out in the format it appears from most internet posters. Even the authors of the study don't agree on what the study results mean.
4 :
Yes, the femi-extremist revolution could be linked to a rise in violence amongst people in society. First of all, nothing can substitute the loving bond between parent and child. this bond is unfortunately disrupted because women now have to go to find jobs. It is simply too expensive in the world now to make it on just one income. If you have one income you almost always are on welfare for assistance but that is beside the point. when this bond is disrupted because of the woman working instead of being with her child the child is spending hours in daycare. I have observed in daycares that there is often a very large children to caregiver ratio and it is also evident that these children want attention to fulfill that emotional void that they are experiencing. the caregivers do not provide the children with the emotional interaction that they are needing I have seen this myself in the child care centers that I have went to. Part of a child growing is being able to have emotional needs fulfilled and they are not getting their emotional needs fulfilled because of the way it is in society now. the children have cause to "act out" just to get the attention that they are craving which is understandable. They use bullying: hurtful words, hitting, kicking, throwing tantrums just to get this needed attention. The children who continue to be practically raised in this environment have it almost impossible to learn healthy social interaction because of the lack of interaction between caregiver and child. they tend to carry on with this behavior when they are in school, hence being suspended from school a number of times in a year for their behavior. Or they are the quiet type and they tend to "blow up" and fight. Take the example of the school massacres. these all happened because they were wanting attention. they lacked the knowledge of healthy interactions and healthy relationships. They felt alone both at home and at school. with violence, they used manipulation to get the attention that they were wanting. they have turned their feelings of hurt and loneliness into anger and violence. serial killers, as much as we hate to think about them, stem from a lack of knowledge of proper social interactions. they have not received love and affection at home and their parents did not pay attention to them. if they would have they may have noticed any strange behaviors that the child exhibited. and of course, the lack of a loving parent. in conclusion, children need to have the all important bond of parent and child in order to grow emotionally.

 Read more discussions :


Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Is there any correlation between the age of parents / health of baby

Is there any correlation between the age of parents / health of baby?
Will there be any difference in a child's health / cognitive development etc, say if you have a baby at 18, or if you have a baby at 35? Regardless of environmental factors like being young and stupid at 18, etc.
Parenting - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
There's the common sense stuff, like whether the mother smokes or drinks, which can affect a baby no matter what the age the mother is. However, women are more likely to have a baby with Down's Syndrome if they give birth after 35.
2 :
young mothers have a greater risk of having low birth weight babies (under 18), older mothers have a greater risk of having babies with chromosomal abnormalities such as Down's Syndrome (35+). Some studies have shown that there is an IQ correlation where kids with older parents have higher IQ's.
3 :
yes, there probably will be a difference, like it or not, 18 year olds have a mindset to have fun and party, your boyfriend won't stick around, even if he says he will now, i've seen it all. also, if you want a baby at 18, have you considered £££££ they cost a lot of money, too much. if you have one at a later age it is best because: Your man is more mature and wont run away from being tied down You should both have good jobs to support the baby.
4 :
Rhesus is triggered by a combination of inherited factors... You should consider the discussion that's been going for decades....
5 :
Are you asking for a man or a woman? Yes, there is scientific evidence that the older the woman is when she gives birth, the more congenial problems can arise in the baby, like Down Syndrome.
6 :
I was 18 when I had my 1st one, and 36 when I had my last one ( a few in between), my oldest one seems to be the smartest, both developmentally and mentally, and healthwise, however I don't think it is due to age but do to the learning that I experienced between the first and the last. I learned to trust my own instincts and realize that I am the expert on my child, not a doctor, every child is different, even in the same family, therefore cannot be treated the same way. I have learned about the toxic ingredients in immunizations and have not given them to my last one, I have learned about the ingredients in foods, the hormones, the steroids, the immunizations and the antibiotics, and stay away from those foods. I really don't think it has to do with age, but the research that you find and the choices that you make for everything that goes into their minds (schools, vs. homeschooling, certain people they associate with) and into their bodies. And I don't think that every 18 year old is young and stupid. If we can send them off to get killed in the military and trust them to pull a lever to choose who will lead our country, there is no reason that they should not be able to be parents. This has only changed over time because women feel that they need a career before having children.
7 :
As you get older so do your eggs , which does increase the risk of chromosomal defects , such as Down's Syndrome . It is the greatest risk to older mom's . That being said women are having babies later and later and seem to have healthy babies . The best thing to do before getting pregnant at any age is see an ob/gyn for a routine visit . Start on some pre-natal vitamins which reduce the risk of birth defects .
8 :
The older you are, the older your eggs are and so the more chance there is of having a child with a genetic disorder. As an example, Down's syndrome is far more likely to happen in a woman over the age of 35, however, having said that, 80% of Down's syndrome babies are born to women under the age of 35




 Read more discussions :

Friday, June 4, 2010

Why does president Bush want to veto a bill to make sure all children have health insurance

Why does president Bush want to veto a bill to make sure all children have health insurance?
and why is he paying blackwater international while they are not running missions in iraq?
Politics - 16 Answers
 


Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
who gets to pay for the insurance?
2 :
till age 25 yea thats right.
3 :
Now the argument will be the cost of the program mostly from the right. Excuse me! How much is the war costing?
4 :
Why are democrats trying to pass a bill that will cost poor people (they are generally the smokers). Plus it will make children who already have health care give it up for government issue healthcare that will cost tax payers more money. Especially when there is already free healthcare for all uninsured children in every single state.
5 :
Follow the money...
6 :
Good question. Strongly bipartisan bill but Bush wants to veto it. Over 180,000 "contractors" in Iraq. Only 160,000 troops. It's privatized war-be afraid.
7 :
Because he is ideologically opposed to any sort of national health care system, and sees the expansion of the children's insurance program as a first step in that direction.
8 :
Because it's a bad bill.
9 :
Let me ask, do you work? Do you pay taxes? I do. My paycheck starts off $800, and then they take away $200 for taxes every two weeks. I don't have kids. If you can't afford to buy health care for your kids, don't have them. It's not like kids just drop from the sky. We all know what causes them, we all know how to keep them from being conceived.
10 :
because he would have to tax billionaires and curtail war spending and oh he can't sign his name
11 :
because his children and grandchildren will be living on his million acre ranch in paraquay with solar/wind farm and a private army of blackwater to guard them and private health facility. that may be why he has run our country into the ground. i'm sure he will pay his domestic staff peanuts
12 :
Site one instance in which a poor child was not treated. Oops, I forgot, that doesn't happen, unless the parents aren't smart enough to find the help, which is all over the place!!
13 :
Dave is correct.
14 :
it's not a bad bill.bush opposes anything that can help the people by vetoing it.he hasn't put a dime in no child left behind,there's no money in the government because he plundered it in this useless war,he vetoed research for stem cells,that is one of the biggest killers in America right now and that damn fool so ass backward right now.why again did the court put bush in office?so things like this happen and don't get corrected.
15 :
Oh,thats not health insurance. Translation:Thats to inlist you in the army,when your old enough.
16 :
I may be wrong, and not trying to provoke any bad statements. However I beleive the increase of funds was not intended to put children of well to do families say $82,000 and up on government insurance but is to cover more eligible children, and families that currently they are not able to take care of. Those families that are working good paying jobs, most already have good employer, and employee paid insurance already. So to me this idea that they will join government paid insurance does not add up. Our usa has paid at least close to $600 billion dollars and more to come !!!! on the Iraq invasion. With little or no talk what soever of what is being cut in our deserving u.s. citizens tax paid benefits to divert these huge funds to a needless occupation. Well folks, the bills are coming due !!! The money being alloted almost $200 billion every three months for bombs and bullets does not grow on trees. I think the idea of taxing cigarettes was a poor choice of finding funds... Who on earth would tax a system of death and addiction as cigarettes to promote funds for life giving insurance? While the bill does have some good and bad sides. It was a poor choice to choose cigarrettes. Surely they could find some other way to find funds. Hmmmm $35 billion for needed child insurance for the future of our country, or $ 200 billion for bombs and continued war and death. ?????? Which will it be ????





 Read more discussions :

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Where is the president priorities? $120 billion for war & a veto to $35 billion children health insurance

Where is the president priorities? $120 billion for war & a veto to $35 billion children health insurance?
Bush give it up, Iraq was a mistake. You failed in catching the man responsible for 911. Our tax payer $$ should be invested in THIS country & not in the never ending mission to restore peace amongst the shiites and the sunnis. That is THERE war, not OURS!!!! I can't wait for 2008!!!! sorry *THEIR Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday. A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him. If his mother had been insured. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html Correction, $120 billion so our soldiers can keep acting as peace keepers until the Iraqi government decides to get itself together. It is the government responsibility to take care of it's citizens. And one should not harshly judge those who cannot afford health insurance, who could if a family had a wage of only under $10 an hour to work with. Jodie, wrong!!!, the government does take care of you. From the FDA making sure food/drugs are safe, to the Police department keeping criminals off the street, to the grants and loans the government has given me/college students in order to go to college, from the civil service jobs who clean your streets. (it goes on) We take these things for granted. (even though it does comes of tax-payer money) Illegal immigration is a whole different topic. This question is providing health insurance for the millions of US CITIZEN children who are uninsured. If you are concerned of illegals taking advantage of it, complain to the US department of defense in their failed efforts of securing our borders.
Government - 14 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
stop watching oprah and listening to documentaries that are spun for the dem's pleasure
2 :
It's almost as if he values protecting the lives of everyone in the country more than he wants to give handouts to people who would not be turned down for medical treatment anyway. Later note: There was a point when I was unemployed and nearly living on the streets. I was able to get a tooth extracted for $5 at a dental college. I'm sure if I couldn't pay the $5, they would have done it anyway to save my life. Is that your best case? It is the government's responsibility to provide security and a level playing field for it's citizens to be able to provide for themselves. Charitible organizations abound that will provide for people who are unable to provide for themselves.
3 :
$120 billion for the war which protects your rights and freedoms or $ 35 billion for a hand out to those who won't buy their own insurance even if they make $80k a year makes no sense. At least Bush has his priorities rights and the Democrats are showing their true - can't find an expensive social program they don't like - colors.
4 :
It still kills me that you guys are only telling part of the story on this SChips bill.
5 :
There's no 'profit' in insuring poor kids, is there?
6 :
He doesn't care he is rich, not by one day of working, Arabia and Daddy took care of him and his little family. WE need our American children taken care, Bush lied and made this whole damn war is his. Let our children live the hell with Iraq , Saddam was taking care of his own people but oh, no old ignorant wanted his gun for Daddy and Oil, I still say the people of iraq was better off with Saddam watching over them.
7 :
Actually, Gates wants $200 billion more for the war. Why? This is an administration that started with an annual budget surplus and a national debt of 5.6 trillion, slowly being scaled back by the previous Clinton surpluses. WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - With the U.S. government fast approaching its current $8.965 trillion credit limit, the Senate on Thursday gave final congressional approval of an $850 billion increase in U.S. borrowing authority. The Senate voted 53-42 to raise the debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion, the fifth increase in the U.S. credit limit since President George W. Bush took office in January 2001. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the higher debt limit earlier this year as part of the overall budget resolution and the legislation now goes to Bush for his signature. "We have no choice but to approve it. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling soon, the U.S. Treasury will default for the first time in its history," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Yes, you read that correctly. 5.6 trillion to 9 trillion with a republican congress and president. The sad thing-this was not on the front page or in top stories or even politics. It was in investments. http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-09-28T003622Z_01_N27415556_RTRIDST_0_USA-CONGRESS-DEBT-UPDATE-1.XML
8 :
We wage this war,spending an outrageous amount of money, while our own borders are open and unprotected. Even after the lesson of 9/11 the government is not doing its primary function which is to protect its citizens . Mr. Bush you should be ashamed .
9 :
Sorry, toots, no where in the Constitution does it talk about providing for health benefits, but it does talk about protecting the country. If the Mother of that child had brought her to an ER faster than she did, they would taken care of the problem, at no cost to her.
10 :
For those of you who didn't read that bill; it was vetoed because it included "children" up to 25 years old and people making $80,000. I don't make that much and I can pay my own health care. Wake up and check your facts please before you post a question IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF US!!!! I CAN TAKE CARE OF MYSELF!!!
11 :
All that money just so we can cover illegal immigrants health concerns. Our nation is so screwed up. Edit for rebuttal: No it has everthing to do with it. There is NOTHING in the bill which would prevent an "Undocumented" indivdual from receving this benefit. As a matter of fact, the increase in this bill is intended to directly offset the cost of treating them.
12 :
Just a little correction to your data: Total cost of war (Iraq , Afghanistan), over $700 Billions so far? By the end of war the cost could go as high as $1 Trillion. Quiz : How many zeroes in 1 T? Best Regards.
13 :
Picture this: Terrorists are everywhere, all over the cities, killing everyone, in your own town, in your backyard, bombing the heck out of the public schools...in our country, what would you do if that were to happen? Don't think for a second that it cannot happen in our country (9/ll/01)...if we don''t support the military and what their mission is, then it can happen. President Bush and his military advisors, military intelligence know what they are doing. That's this country's PRIORITIES!!! There are so many free medical insurance in this country, you just have to make the effort to find information about them...and you always can rely on the welfare system. That's not a priority right now...defending us and our country from terrorists is.
14 :
Sounds like more of a statement than a question. But I hope you are not putting too much hope in 2008 unless you see someone other than the two major parties being in charge. You are expressing views which you consider common sense and common sense is not allowed in the halls of government ............. and won't be until the citizens organize and take it by the hand and walk it in there.





 Read more discussions :