Tuesday, April 28, 2009

How does the health of your UNVACCINATED child compare with that of your friends' vaccinated children

How does the health of your UNVACCINATED child compare with that of your friends' vaccinated children?
Have any of you decided not to vaccinate your child? Why? How do you think it has effected you or your child?
Parenting - 15 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I have because i look back to when we were younger and we never had any of that stuff and i find that we are actually healthier than what the kids are now a days who get filled with all that medication...I am a big beliver in how they used to do stuff in the olden days
2 :
don't know any as my school district requires all kids to be vacinated before kindergarten
3 :
You are kidding, right? You want to leave your child unprotected against whooping cough, meals, mumps? Just one of those illnesses can be fatal to a child and when they get them they are horrific. A terrible way to day or to suffer long and hard and then recover, all because you do not vacvcinate? There is no medical evidence that shots cause mental retardation or SIDS or autism - only old wives tales. In fact, they have recently discovered autism is genetic! How you could even consider not giving your child every possible protection against polio and other diseases that routinely killed children just 50 years ago is totally incomprehensible to me.
4 :
our grandson had a very bad reaction to a vaccine. ever since we are wary of vaccines. we read all the stories that relate vaccines to autism
5 :
no, i vaccinate my child...im not willing to risk his health for my own judgements...he is very healthy.
6 :
No, I vaccinate my children. I do not want to risk them getting an of those diseases, its not worth it.
7 :
I do not vaccinate my children, (3 year old and 10 month old). I do not notice much of a difference in my children from those who are vaccinated around him. I do take note that it takes my children a significantly shorter time to get over things than others. Whether that is attributed to vaccine status, I'm not going to speculate because I don't think it is really that important. As for not vaccinating, here are a few reasons why I made the decision not to: A person would not normally contract 5 diseases at one time naturally, yet at 2, 4 and 6 mth. visits a baby is injected with five vaccines. There is no proof that vaccines are responsible for the decline in certain diseases - improved sanitation, medical care and less crowding may also have contributed to the decline in certain diseases. Most diseases decreased by over 95% BEFORE the introduction of vaccines. By vaccinating children, many cases of certain diseases (ex. measles, chicken pox) have now shifted to the adult population where the disease is often more serious and debilitating. Vaccines have not been tested for any possible carcinogenic (cancer causing), teratogenic (gene altering) effects or their effects on the reproductive system (it says this right in the product inserts from the manufacturers). Vaccines are not 100% effective so the child can still get the disease even if they are vaccinated and a child can actually get a disease sometimes from the vaccine if it is a live vaccine. After researching many of the diseases(like measles, mumps and polio), I found they are not as scary as the media hyped them to be, especially for a healthy immune system. Example: Polio is 90% asymptomatic. The same amount of vaccine that is given to a 4 yr. old is given to an 18 mth. old and a 2 mth. old, etc. I beleive the chance of dying or getting a serious side effect from the actual disease is much less than the chance of dying or getting an adverse reaction from the vaccine. The dieseases are not dangerous or deadly in most people. I believe that injecting my children with things such as formaldehyde, mercury (trace amounts), aluminium, paint thinner, coolant, anti-freeze, detergent phenols, MSG, plus dead animal tissue, aborted fetus tissue, mutated human and animal viruses, bacteria, antibiotics and animal, bacterial and viral DNA, is not particularly a good idea.
8 :
I don't know how old w_damara2002 is, but I was vaccinated as a kid and if your under 50 you probably were too. Thats why we were healthy, now you have parents who decide not to vaccinate and THAT is the reason why we see these diseases coming back. It is completely irresponsible to not have your child vaccinated and quite frankly it borders negligence. The "crap" that we are filling our children with, gives them a chance the kids in olden days didn't have, think about the childhood mortality rates then and also in countries that can't afford to give these kids vaccinations. The reason our children are so sick is because of drug-resistant bacteria due to not finishing prescriptions! Oh and you won't notice a difference in your childs health until they contract measles, mumps, rubella or polio and then you will. The reason that the diseases aren't as bad now is because of vaccinations!
9 :
After doing the research, weighing the risks/benefits, I vaccinated my children, but NOT on the "suggested" schedule. I was a year behind on most vaccines and didn't go with multiple shots in one visit. It's amazing to me how FEW parents actually research what is being put into their children and let "THEY say to do this" be the only guideline needed... sad.
10 :
well my son (8) has most of the vaccinations. By the time I had the baby(2 1/2) had done the research and decided that no shots till at least 2. she has had 2 major bouts of the stomach flu that her brother brought home from school but that is only sickness. where her brother who has had the shots seems to get sick at least once a month. weather a cold or some stomach thing
11 :
We vaccinate our young children. So far our oldest has only been sick once...a 24 tummy bug right after we moved into our new house (which my husband and I also had...ah stress!) Our youngest hasn't been sick at all! I strongly believe in protecting my children from any disease I have the power to prevent. I think they are at a GREATER risk of being exposed to harmful chemicals/additives from the polluted air/water and processed foods then they are from any vaccination! I don't personally know any parent who ISN'T vaccinating their children, so I honestly can't make a comparison between the health of their child and my own.
12 :
It is a ridiculous self indulgence to avoid vaccinating your children. Vaccination has made the world a far safer place. You may not realise it, but an illness like measles can leave your child disabled or even kill them. The medical profession is working to protect your child. To disdain that help is foolish, pure and simple.
13 :
The health of your unvaccinated child is definitelly at risk!! Why would you put your child in jeopardy and why would you put your child at risk of not being immune to virus' that are around us all of the time? This would not affect you, the parent, if you had been vaccinated, however, it will always affect your child because as they enter the school community, they would have to be red flagged as not being vaccinated and at risk of spreading certain virus' or diseases or at risk of catching various virus. The risk of being vaccinated out weighs the risk of not being vaccinated. Research and statistics on this topic back up my decision. I had all four of my children vaccinated and all four have been healthy and had no adverse side effects. I also have taught school for many years and all of my students have been immunized except for one. The one not vaccinated had to be reported and noted.
14 :
The media has done a great dis-service by hyping wrong information about vaccines causing autism etc. Go to the Center for Disease Control website and read all of the misinformation surrounding vaccines - they have a whole section devoted to debunking these myths specifically for concerned parents. Go and read what the SCIENTISTS have to say.
15 :
My children are vaccinated, and frankly, I'm glad that they are safe from the kids who aren't. I recently found out that a friend of mine doesn't vaccinate her boys. One of them is a classmate of my son's. He and his brother are always ill. Having a daughter prone to certain illnesses b/c of being born with a cleft lip/palate, I'm relieved to know that she is protected, especially now that she'll be starting kindergarten. As for not vaccinating, yes, it's one's personal choice. A friend of mine chose not to vaccinate her first child... the little one ended up dying of complications from the chicken pox, sadly. Well... this friend now vaccinates. :)

Read more discussion :

Friday, April 24, 2009

Does the child of an investment banker deserve better health care than the child of a mechanic

Does the child of an investment banker deserve better health care than the child of a mechanic?
Oprah's question, not mine, but I just want to see what answers are here. Studies are showing that mortality rates are higher for lower income families due to poor or no health insurance in the United States. Those who do not believe in government sponsored health care are failing to come up with any answers, just criticisms of a government system. What are your thoughts?
Law & Ethics - 17 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
28 other civilized countries don't think so...Universal with all its flaws is a more civilized option.
2 :
Health care is not an entitlement. So, if the banker is able to provide better coverage, then so be it.
3 :
it shouldn't be so but that is the life our government is put us in...thats why we need to change them an chief executive like obama
4 :
no, not at all, but an investment banker can afford better health care for his child. Thats the thing, the more money you make, the more you can afford. Moral of the story is, stay in school, get an education, even if its as a mechanic.
5 :
Mechanics actually make pretty decent money.
6 :
Keep it up and you'll be asking." does the child of an investment banker deserve a better cell phone than the child of a mechanic?" A big lesson for you to learn is, life isn't fair. You can bet Oprah has better health care than either a mechanic or an investment banker,
7 :
Health Care programs are all different. Some plans have broader coverage than others which make some plans more expensive than others. From what I've seen, some mechanics today make as much or more than an investment banker and they could afford a better plan. As with all things today it's about the $$$$. If you've got the $$$$ you'll have better than most and not as much as some others.
8 :
"Deserve"? What an odd choice of wording. It's really not meaningful in the debate, IMO. And shame on Oprah for continuing the idiotic emotionalization of the issue. It's not about "deserving" better care or not. That's for over-emotional dimwits to whine about. The issue is about the proper Constitutional role of the federal government with regards to extra-Constitutional excursions into the areas of health care or health insurance. The framers of the Constitution were quite clear on the point that the Constitution did not allow for charity or welfare, that such things were the province of state government. "Deserve" is a bullsquat argument that avoids the issue.
9 :
Health care, as Michael Moore showed in his movie Sicko, is a privilege for the privileged. If you trust a multi-billion dollar corporations with your health care (which nearly all American do) then we're putting our lives in the hands of these corporations. A corporation, no matter it's service, is about money. Even a health care organization is not focused of making you healthy, they're focused on making money and becoming bigger and more powerful. If the question is about ethics, than certainly not. All human beings are unique and beautiful, and all of us deserve the highest quality of care regardless of social class or income. When greed, power, and money outweigh human life than we know we have serious problems. If people demanded a universal health care system (like England, France, Canada, and Cuba) then we would have it. Complacency is what allows those corrupt few to make decisions that directly affect us all. Then we have the skeptics saying universal health care is bad because we shouldn't trust the government with our health. They may point at public education as an example. That's because the government purposely provides inferior services to make private companies look better by contrast. Why would they do that one may ask? Our government is not a sentient being, it's merely people collected together making decisions. Who are these people? Businessmen. And these businessmen want to ensure their side-business thrive and succeed. Even our vice president Dick Cheney's Carlyle Group owns Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins.
10 :
The government of this country has a program in place to provide health insurance to people who do not make enough to provide health insurance for their children. It is called the SCHIP program. It provides insurance to the working poor on a sliding scale. These are people with incomes up to $30,000 dollars a year. (Most mechanics make considerablely more than that, they are very highly paid they just get dirty at work.) President Bush has already raised the amount of money in the SCHIP program, what he vetoed was increasing the amount of money to cover people who make up to $80,000 a year and would insure children up to the age of 25. (Don't know about you but 25 is not a child.) However, the problem I have heard is that people who are eligible are not signing up for the program. There have been various reasons given for this. The biggest one is the pride people have in providing for their own. What should we do? Most counties in this country have a public health care system. This program should be expanded. It is not that I don't want my tax dollars used for health care it is just that I don't want the federal government to do this. The feds are too loose with my money and the folks at the county level are close enough to feel the voters wrath if they waste our tax dollars. Another thing that would help is if teaching hospitals saw more patients. The patients could pay on a sliding scale. This would be a win/win situation as the doctors to be would get more practice and the patients would be getting state of the art care at a price they could afford. Lastly, malpractice lawsuits. I do not have a problem with a harmed patient receiving money to cover the original problem plus the problem the doctor caused through the wrong treatment or no treatment. I do have a problem with that patient becoming wealthy off this doctor's mistake. Needless to say the award should also cover reasonable attorney's fees. The lawyers do not need to become wealthy off the doctors either.
11 :
I honestly don't have a grand opinion on this going in, but since I have some training in business and economics, let me brainstorm.... I guess you are implying that unlike other uses of the Investment Banker's money, he shouldn't be able to purchase better quality health services by spending more of it? Economically speaking of course :) OK let's look into that. Somehow, that would mean that health coverage is enough of a special case that we would try to distort the open market for it and it alone because we have decided it is important for the benefit of society. So, now that we have reframed the question, what would we have in such a world? Well, if more money couldn't buy better health care, then that means the quality of all health care would be exactly the same, right? It also means that the amount of money people were wiling to pay (and doctors are willing to accept) would be enough for the doctors to make a living they want to make. And that no additional amount of money could act as an incentive to either attract potentially better doctors to the field, or for existing doctors to imporve their skills (violating the principal that all have equal quality). All of this is contrary to the rest of our entire economy's principles and I don't see how it could be done. I know Canada and others have socialized medicine, and I don't know how they address these economic issues. I am not familiar with their details, but it is my impression that Canadian medical quality is more consistent if not unifrom. Because doctors do not need to be as entrepreneurial as here inthe US, overall the delivery of medicine is less sophisticated as an organization that evolves. And also, both the lowest level of quality and the best level of quality that you will find in the US are not available. What would be interesting to know is if the proverbial Canadian Investment Banker will come to the US when he needs bettter quality or more specialized care then would be available in Canada but *is* available outside Canada? I think he would, or truth be told, at least the best American medical care is available to him, but not to all Canadians, and so the example that Canada's system is somehow more equitable because the rich can't get better care with their own money would be a fallacy. Just some thoughts, sans emotion, from an economic point of view, in what is usually presented aas an emotional and political topic.
12 :
I find this one of the most laughable arguments that people like to sling when pointing the finger defending the bogus system we already have. I am Native American and I get free health-care through my tribal clinic. This has hardly made me a socialist. My health care is good! my prescriptions free! How come the rest of the country is not being looked out for, for all the money we keep paying in to the government? I'll tell you why. No politician wants to tell their sacred cash-cow (the pharmaceutical companies) they are no longer going to be a controlling power broker in this country. Its like a revolving door watching Pharmaceutical executives leave their companies for a short spell to enter into government offices like: the FDA, Department of agriculture and EPA. Those facts are all there for anyone who wants to look them up on the net. This is another reason why you see the witch doctor medicine of today treat symptoms and not find cures...there is no money in cures.
13 :
There are so many factors to consider, but if studies show that income is reflected in mortality rates it could show that lifestyle has a big factor as well does the quality of the type of insurance that is available for each one. I used to be a lib and would have welcomed care for all, but being the working poor for most of my life, as well as being a single mother, and raising my son without any kind of help from the government, I see it differently now. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and this type of aid will only let parents use the money that they should be paying for health care go to dining out, new cars, and vacations and such. If you were to look at say those that would be eligible for this aid you would find that most if not all have two cars, cable TV, and eat out often and take vacations often. I bet they would also have large credit card debt, and live was beyond their means. I have family members that have health care available with their jobs, but do not get it because the premiums are too great, so their families go uncovered, but they have two new cars, remodeled homes and vacations yearly at the very least. So when we cover their health care we are just subsidizing their lifestyle PS> I used to be a cashier at a Chevy dealership, I don't think they made as much as a banker, but I would bet the money they made was more than enough to cover their families health care, what they charged was more like highway robbery than minumm wage
14 :
Oprah likes to talk about children. I don't know why exactly. It's not a question of merit; it never has been. It's a question of who can afford it. And it's also a question of fairly compensating doctors who incur staggering tuition bills, and then staggering malpractice premiums every year after graduation. They can't charge what they're worth because the insurance carriers won't pay. But bad as things are, the government screws up everything it gets its greedy little hands on. I have no confidence in the government's ability to fix health care in the US. So when I get the tumor that will eventually kill me, it's good-bye Charley!
15 :
Your question, Oprah's question in your spurious disclaimer, is loaded and you well know it. You imply that in the interest of "fairness" that lower income people deserve national health care and throw in the ever-emotionally charged issue of the "children suffering." Why not simply ask how long someone has been beating their mother? "Oh, not long" and "Oh quite a while" are equally damning answers to a pre-loaded response necessitated by such an inquiry as that, and so is the case with your inquiry. Why not instead ask why the more productive members of society who statistically speaking have eschewed unfettered breeding in favor of advancing education, career and productivity, should be obliged to pay for the profligate lifestyles of an underclass who have children they cannot afford to support with critical amenities like health care? The answer does not lie in why the productive class is not doing more to address the problem. It lies in why the less productive class is creating the problem in the first place. Take some personal responsibility!
16 :
These arguments are always so bogus - you want to us to assume that Little Sally mechanics daughter is living in squalor and dying of scurvy while the Little Johnny the bankers son is eating bon bon and getting treated for disease he doesn't even have! It's crap. Health insurance is available to all children through SCHIP if the income is below a certain amount. Many companies offer health insurance as a benefit - but you have to pay a portion. The issue is that people will pay for cable, internet, new cars, big TV's - but they don't want to make a co-pay for freakin health insurance! That is the FIRST damn bill that should be at the top of the pay category each pay day! My daughter works RETAIL PART TIME and is offered health insurance, but she'd have to pay a portion of the premium (about $200 a month). She has the option - and she knows that health insurane is extremely important - but luckily she is a college student and covered under our insurance (which we pay a hell of alot more for than $200 a month!). She would take the insurance in a heartbeat if she was not covered - and she would adjust her living around a necessary bill! The tear jerker garbage is ridiculous - the "haves" as people would like to think those who have health insurance and good income didn't get their with their thumb up their butt whining about how unfair the world is. They got off their butt and made their way in the world.
17 :
No, and that child does not deserve a better attorney, or a better education, or better nutrition, or a safer neighborhood, but their parents can afford it. That is not an excuse for our nation's failure to provide decent health care, equal justice, adequate education, proper nutrition and a safe environment for all children.

Read more discussion :

Monday, April 20, 2009

cigarette smokers To Pay for child health care

cigarette smokers To Pay for child health care?
This is very odd.. I have to say, I smoke but don't drink.. . Drinking causes far more health risks then smoking ever did, look at all those people killed by drunk drivers?.. Children die in car accidents, children become homeless, we pay for parents to drink when we pay for medicaid., to take their child to a doctor, yet they have the money to go sit in a bar. I can't believe the people who hate smokers, but will sit under a tree smoking pot.. How about the congress and their fine parties where Alcohol is drank? I hate it so I think we should charge a 1.00 per drink to pay for that tax..lol at least we would be fair in doing that.. What do you say? Oh and lets also tell people who drink and gamble, to pay a speical tax also.. How about Chocolate eater, or people who eat to much at McDonalds.. Yeah..lol Do you see where it is going?.. They have no better ideas to help this country, they just throw stuff around to show they over paid!! Wake up People!!
Law & Ethics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Oh us smokers pay a chunk of taxes every time we buy our cigarettes. If our government really cared about Americans health then we'd all have insurance.
2 :
People in South Carolina aready pay too much to drink. Not that they need to drink. In restaurants it's really expensive to get a mixed drink.
3 :
They complain about how smoking kills and all they do is tax it. Way to go dems. If it is so bad they should ban it. But alas they will not too much money to be made.
4 :
I know. It7s just law after stupid law. The problem is because lawmakers are not thinking logically and in the long term when they make these laws. They just make a snappy decision to shut people up like giving a pacifier to an infant. They have no regard for liberty and will not stop until our freedom is gone completely. People just don't believe in personal responsibility anymore. That's why we ALL need to VOTE for RON PAUL '08.
5 :
If those political jerks in Washington, all the State assemblies and Senates and in the municipalties stop getting extra perks, subsidies, and free health care not a single soul in this nation need to pay for somebody else's health care!
6 :
tax junk food as well! all the ads are for kids and that's who pays for it in ill health anyway so why not pay for their health care!
7 :
Oh brother. If you are polluting the air, then pay the price. If your pollution is making your children sick, then pay for that. That goes for any smoker. I don't drink, smoke or take drugs, I do not like chocolate, and rarely eat at McDonald's. But MY eating chocolate will not endanger another human. YOUR smoking will and does. MY eating McDonald's will not endanger another human, but YOUR smoking will. If your children are sick due to your smoking, then why should I in any way pay for their care. You chose the habit, that you know can hurt them. It is more like, 'I love these smokes, more than I want my children to have good health.' I do wait eagerly, where smoking in a closed car, with children 12 and under, is illegal. Drinking and driving is illegal. So why not killing your own children slowly, be illegal? Anyone that smokes where someone else has to breath that dirty air, thinks only of themselves and the other people are second, that includes your children. You may say you would do anything for them, but smoking near them belies that statement. They come second to your cigarettes. Solution: quit smoking, it can be done, has been done, and is really not that hard, if you want to, that is if you want to put your children's health before your cigarettes.

Read more discussion :

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Will medicaid cover otoplasty surgery for a child 8 yrs old is it possible for Indian Health to contribute

Will medicaid cover otoplasty surgery for a child 8 yrs old is it possible for Indian Health to contribute?
My child has Medicaid and Indian Health Services coverage,is it possible for either of these programs to cover or help cover otoplasty surgery.
Insurance - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It is certainly worth a shot. Unfortunately I dont think anyone on yahoo answers can answer this question. Because for procedures such as these you often have to obtain pre approval on a case by case basis where they evaluate and determine how much they would pay. good luck i hope it all works out.

Read more discussion :

Sunday, April 12, 2009

can certain woman die or have severe health risks if she has a child

can certain woman die or have severe health risks if she has a child?
is is possible for a woman to die or have major health risks if she has a child? why is this? im doing a resaerch paper, i need to know this info.
Pregnancy - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
If she has pre-eclampsia (not sure if that is spelled right) she could have seizures and get organ damage. Gestational diabetes is dangerous, just like regular diabetes. If she has a heart problem that could also kill her to have the extra exertion.
2 :
well for one... women die in child birth! they lose to much blood sometimes or get a hemerag. also if you dont eat right during pregnancy the baby will suck whatever they need out of you. including fat, calcium( which will make your teeth week or give you caviteys) also if women have heart conditions before having a child it can increase there chances of dieing during child birth because its to hard on there heart. there are many different senarios for health risks and suck. you should look up risks of child births and bearing of children and the possibility of death in labor.

Read more discussion :

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Does anyone know if there are child health nurse jobs in Adelaide

Does anyone know if there are child health nurse jobs in Adelaide?

Adelaide - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yes, we have children in Adelaide so I guess there would be child health nurse jobs in Adelaide. Currently there is a major shortage of nurses in Adelaide. You can try finding vacancies here. http://www.careerone.com.au/
2 :
Yes - see http://jobs.careerone.com.au/texis/jobsearch/details.html?id=49681fc548d14c0 and http://www.healthstaffrecruitment.com.au/ Good Luck
3 :
I dont work in the industry sorry but yes', I know we are always looking for nurses. You can try a job search engine like Seek.com.au (I always find this one is the best) or careerone.com.au or jobsjobsjobs.com.au or a dedicated nurse site OxleyNursing.com.au or a health care nursing site www.healthstaffrecruitment.com.au/nursing-adelaide-sa.php Good luck!

Read more discussion :

Saturday, April 4, 2009

What's better for health and social care/ child care

What's better for health and social care/ child care?
What's better for health and social care/ child care sixth form or college? Because i'm not sure which to do and i was wondering what would be better because i want to get the best grades possible and do as well as i can HEYA are you doing it at college?
Other - Education - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
i did health and social care, and am in my final year now with the Edexcel exam board It's quite interesting :) You need a teacher who is really good and marking and giving courswork back though, if you have a teacher that never marks work, dont do it But if you do, go for it :D Also, if you wanna go to uni, look at the entry requirements :) helppp http://www.quibblo.com/quiz/aaBgN3u/Does-he-like-me-or-is-he-just-a-flirt?view_quiz=1

Read more discussion :

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Can I have a dependent care FSA for child care expenses & an HSA with a HDHP health insurance plan

Can I have a dependent care FSA for child care expenses & an HSA with a HDHP health insurance plan?
I know there are specific limitations regarding medical FSA's and such but I wasn't sure regarding dependent care. My wife and I have a High Deductible Health Plan and HSA through her work and we are having a child soon so we are considering the dependent care FSA through his work for upcoming day care expenses and such but we don't want to get hit on taxes or do anything that would effect the medical side. Any accountants and tax professionals with advice? Thanks!
Insurance - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You can have both; the FSA will not affect the HSA. Here is the IRS publication for information on both plans: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p969.pdf
2 :
They are separate and unrelated.

Read more discussion :