US Health Care Debate

I'm sure it's tempting to go on and on and on about the US health care debate, but really, the less said the better. So, the Democrats (a party nearly as sad and as spineless as the Liberals in Canada) barely managed to get what they consider a reform package thru the Congress where they have a massive majority. A lot more people will be able to access health care, that's about the only good news. The bad news is found all over the place. The skyrocketing share prices of major insurance companies tell you who the real winner of this exercise is: shareholders of insurance companies. There's no public option, so the milking of individual patients by insurance companies will continue. Wow, amazing reform this is! Then there have been those right-wingers (teabag, sandbag and otherwise) that went on and on and on about a government takeover of health care. I only wish there had been a government take-over. Sadly there wasn't. All this silly hand-waving about losing lack of control over one's health care was just mind boggling. I would prefer a government controlled health care system over one controlled by for-profits at any time. Why should control over my access to a given surgical procedure by an employee of a for-profit insurance company give me any more choice than if the same was undertaken by a doctor in a public health care system? Well, what can I say, having lived in countries with public health care (UK, Australia, Canada), government health care is preferable to for-profit health care at any time. It is that simple. It's cheaper and more efficient in terms of bang for your buck. You wouldn't expect US Americans that rely on Fox agitprop to realize that. Well, and Mr Obama, much like the Canadian Liberal's Ignatieff, should probably have gone into academia as opposed to politics. I wouldn't call his last minute scramble a 'fight' (of the political kind) for health care reform. More of a sell-out in terms of progressive politics.

Compulsory HIV testing for pregnant women in NJ on the cards

Anita Kleinsmidt sent this news item... interesting.

New Jersey Aims At Compulsory HIV Test For New Borns, Pregnant Women

New Jersey plans to become the first state in the United States to make HIV testing mandatory for pregnant women and newborns, under a proposal introduced Thursday. The new proposal, which was suggested by Senate President Richard J. Codey, D-Essex, eyes at introducing legislation for compulsory HIV testing for all pregnant women and newborns, unless the mother refuses in writing.

Currently four states, Arkansas, Michigan, Tennessee and Texas, have a legislation that requires health-care providers to test a mother for HIV, unless the mother refuses to do so in writing. The only two states that have compulsory HIV test for newborns are Connecticut and New York.

Strongly advocating his views for a compulsory HIV test, the Democratic leader believes that early detection and treatment can save lives of many by reduce their infections and improve the quality of life.

The bill, if passed would make an HIV test compulsory for all pregnant women as early as possible in their pregnancy and again during their third trimester. Also, each birthing facility in the state would have orders to test every newborn in its care for HIV.

According to AP reports, the current law in the New Jersey only requires HIV testing to pregnant women. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says that early detection can prevent many HIV-infected women from transmitting the virus to the infant.

Experts believe that drugs during pregnancy can minimize mother-to-child HIV transmission to 2 percent, compared to 13 percent if no drugs are used until labor and delivery. It was also found that the HIV risk was reduced to 25 percent if no drugs are ever used.

According to the Kaiser Foundation, New Jersey has about 17,700 AIDS cases, which includes about 5,800 women. It is the fifth-highest total for women in the United States. It was also found that 772 pediatric AIDS cases in the state make it the third highest in the nation behind New York and Florida.

New Jersey also had 409 child HIV cases in 2005, which is the second highest in the nation behind New York.

Article © Copyright All Headline News, Inc. - all rights reserved.