One of the left’s favorite topics is women’s health. We’ll leave the obvious affection Bill Clinton has for women’s issues – or just women – out of the equation for now. Conservatives certainly care about women’s health issues too, but we are often seen as just the sexist elephant in the room. It is silly, but that’s the progressive way.
The left has had a lock on the female voting block for some time. They use women’s health and women’s choice (AKA abortion on demand) as prominent issues to maintain that lock. The current Health Destruction Bill before congress is being marketed to women with those topics as selling points. The Planned Parenthood brown shirts have warned women that those opposing this health reform bill have “geared up for an all-out assault on women’s health care.” The rant continues: “They’re using the reform negotiations to pursue their number one goal: preventing women from accessing comprehensive reproductive health care, from birth control to abortion.” Of course, being Planned Parenthood, they devilishly left out any mention that reproductive health includes that taboo notion of “wanted pregnancy”. Anyway, as you can see, young women voters are in their sites.
Well, what would the current health reform bill do for women’s health? Let us approach it from the Democrat perspective.
The Democrats tell us that the public option in the plan is based on Medicare (they say that with affection despite the fact that Medicare will be insolvent in just a few years). But sure, fine, I’ll accept that for now, but since when has Medicare been a great plan for prenatal care? I know the media has had a fascination recently with elderly pregnant women, but that really is not the norm. To see what a government run option would do for pregnant women we have to look at Medicaid (obligatory shudder).
It has been shown that women under Medicaid have poorer prenatal and postnatal outcomes than women who are insured privately. In fact, officials in Obama’s birth state, Hawaii, came up with an interesting fact. The Hawaii State Department of Health conducted a study that showed a higher infant mortality rate for babies of mothers insured through Medicaid than for babies of privately insured mothers. That kind of throws out the notion that the favorite marker of a nation’s health used by the WHO – infant mortality – would improve under a government run health system.
The idea that a public option will increase access to women’s health care is another tool used by the Democrats to entice their female voting block. What is conveniently left out is the fact that OB/GYN’s are finding it increasingly difficult to provide Medicaid patients with prenatal care. The low reimbursement rates have “kept many physicians out of the program, or limited the number of patients they are willing to see” according to the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research . Try telling an OB in Connecticut who has to spend upwards of $150,000 per year in malpractice insurance to see a patient whose government option insurance won’t even allow them to break even. A study conducted by Dr. Leonard Ferrucci showed that Connecticut was losing its OB/GYN population and medical liability costs were a major factor. Many states across the nation have the same problem but no one in Washington is willing to confront that issue. On top of that, Democrats insist that the health reform plan will not force doctors into accepting the government option. With that one-two punch, it would seem the increased access argument fails to hold water too.
There are many things wrong with the idea of a public option, but these few simple truths regarding women’s health may help to truly push the momentum to squash this monstrosity over the edge. NOW, Planned Parenthood, and the leaders of the Democrat party may have an aversion to pregnancy, but many young women are still looking forward to having children some day. I just hope those children will be able to grow up in the America I know and Love. Conservatives have got to get hold of the GOP and lead on this issue.
I knew there was a good reason to ask Andrew to contribute here! Thanks, Andy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll just come out and say it:
The current SOCIAL programs tend to support young women who became mothers by being irresponsible.
This irresponsibity continues in pre and post natal behaviors.
Why is it then such a surprise that the health of children isn’t a good as it could be?
Far too many government workers are “clock watchers.”
Why is then such a surprise when support for these children aren’t as good as they could be?
Why………..WHY would we want ANY system that would mirror the local DMV, Building Permit or Municiple Administrative Office?
What did you say? YOUR local DMV is OK? You are NOT in the majority.
WHAT? ….. You work at one of these places and take offence? If the shoe fits wear it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0