Ironic, that the state will pay for foster care (to take a chil away because of supposed medical neglect), rather than pay so that the child can have access to health care - thus preventing the "neglect" from the start.
Right, stefanie, and it's not even as though the foster care system is without its own problems. It makes me wonder how many cases of neglect and abuse could be mitigated by addressing the poverty that so often affects the families where these things occur. I know very little about how this kind of policy is crafted, but it's something I'm interested in educating myself about.
As someone who has been through the whole gamut of healthcare scenarios: homeless and on public assistance, working and on public assistance, working without insurance OR public assistance, AND working WITH insurance, I can say that I understand why the parents did what they did. Not that it makes it right, but I've been there (my daughter had mental disabilities, though, not physical ones). (And I've also been the parent that racked up over $20,000 worth of medical bills for a child, without having any sort of insurance: public OR private.)
The sad fact is, 9 times out of 10, if it's a married couple and at least one of them is working, public assistance will laugh them out of the office if they ask for help. Been there, done that. It's horrible, because you know that you don't have enough money to provide your child with the care they need, but nobody will help you. You become desperate and don't know where to turn.
I live in the UK now and have experienced Universal Healthcare myself for the last 4 and a half years. And yes, it has its faults, but that poor baby wouldn't have gone without care if the US would implement a system like the one they have here.
The concern I have with universal health coverage stems from the stories we've been hearing from the UK and Australia of fat people being denied surgery because they're "too fat." From what I've read, they try to claim that the surgery wouldn't be "safe" at the patient's current weight, but when the patient gets a 2nd opinion outside of the state health care system, they usually don't have much trouble finding a decent doctor who will do the work - though the patient has to pay.
With all the focus on the EVUL FAT here in the US, I can easily see services for fat people being denied because we're "too expensive" to care for.
I know our current system sucks, but if we do go to a universal system at some point, I hope they somehow work it so that we can't be denied treatments because of our weight.
kriselda, you have a good point there. But also keep in mind that patients in the US are receiving effectively the same (non)treatment. A lot of doctors in the US take a blanket "lose weight and all your problems will go away" approach to fat people. Which isn't the same as actually coming right out and saying "we won't treat you because you're too fat," but it's not addressing whatever problems the patient actually has, either.
what makes this happening especially sad is that from what I understand, cleft palate is fixable relatively easily.
There are even charitable organizations that arrange for doctors to come and do the surgery on kids in third world nations. Maybe the baby wasn't old enough for the surgery yet?
http://www.operationsmile.org/ab.../aboutus/facts/
This is another sad story of an infant that fell through the cracks. I believe the physicians and social workers in Oregon are at fault for not referring that baby to a pediatrician in Spokane and then following up to make sure she was seen... had an appointment been made and parents not shown up then CPS could have been alerted and parents given the help they needed to care for their high-needs infant.
There's an article in Time about the hits Michelle Obama took to her career in service of marrying and having a family with Barack.
It makes me a little queasy that the article is titled "Michelle Obama's Savvy Sacrifice," since it implies that Michelle made a calculating and clever move, letting Barack's career take precedence over her own. But who knows, maybe she'd be the politician by now if she'd stayed on her career track.
Most women who go down this path aren't setting themselves up to be First Lady. They're setting themselves up for letting their degree waste away in a filing cabinet, and possibly financial insecurity after divorce or their husband's death.
Thank You.
=====================================
JOHN
Idaho Alcohol Addiction Treatment
Commenting by HaloScan
