“The Texas Department of State Health Services finalized strict new abortion regulations on Friday, claiming that none of Omega-3 fatty acids – If you want to save money, have more than one 100 mg tablet in a day can increase … Continue reading
Although we have entered 21st century, but men of today do not want to talk about their erectile dysfunction or premature ejaculation problems, there are those who sit for hours on the internet researching for the best results, make it … Continue reading
Sandhya Somashekhar’s recent article in The Washington Post, “States find new ways to resist health law”, provides a nice overview of some of the ways that states are throwing up obstacles to effective implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). With the Affordable Care Act set to be implemented, blocking its effective implementation raises serious moral issues. Though it is an imperfect solution, I believe that these state-based obstacles to its implementation are deeply morally problematic because the costs of non-compliance fall on individuals while the politicians who have put these obstacles in place face little or no personal or political cost, and indeed stand to gain.
While I am arguing here that blocking implementation of the PPACA is deeply morally problematic, it is important to acknowledge that it is an imperfect solution to America’s glaring problem of uninsured persons and expensive, inefficient provision of health care. The PPACA or ACA, known colloquially as “Obamacare”, will work to get more Americans into the health care market and provide more access to preventive care for high- and low-risk patients, alike. Aside from the very valuable limitations on health insurers’ ability to refuse to provide coverage for high-risk patients and stop providing coverage for ill patients, it is still based on the for-profit health insurer model as evidenced in part by the early elimination of a government-based “public option” which would have competed with insurance industry plans. In addition, a large number of Americans who get insurance through their employers, yet find the premiums taxing and fall into otherwise-subsidized income ranges, will not have access to the federal subsidy system which is designed to give financial support to those entering the market through the health insurance exchanges.
Continue readingRead more here.Christopher Snape is viagra tablets online the Lighting Designer for your next production. Contact your health care provider at once if your erection continues for longer than four hours, or if you have a painful erection or it … Continue reading
Tuesday night, Senator Wendy Davis, a very vocal supporting crowd at the Texas capitol, and very engaged online communities fought for women’s reproductive rights in Texas.
And won.
The issue, if you haven’t heard — and you may not have, as mainstream media ignored this yesterday (most hilariously on CNN, where the caloric value of blueberry muffins were discussed during the climax in the TX Senate) — the issue was Texas Senate Bill 5. This bill would make illegal any abortions “at or later than 20 weeks post-fertilization” on the basis that “substantial medical evidence recognizes that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain by not later than 20 weeks after fertilization” (SB5). This, along with other restrictions about meeting ambulatory care facility standards, would restrict the number of abortion providers in the state of Texas by 80-90%, leaving just five. FIVE PROVIDERS. For the entire state of Texas.
Continue readingA recent story in Mother Jones highlights the issue of the decrease in psychiatric beds nationwide, reductions in support for the severely mentally ill, and the terrible price paid by both the severely mentally ill and their families. Several times in the article McClelland refers to E. Fuller Torrey’s arguments that in addition to funding services for the severely mentally ill, states also need to change involuntary commitment laws to make committing people against their will depend on things in addition to imminent dangerousness. These issues take on a new salience with the recent mass murders perpetrated by people believed to be psychotic at the time of the murders, and often previously diagnosed with serious mental illness, and with the responses in the media that call for curtailing the rights of the mentally ill.
From a feminist bioethical perspective I find this issue quite perplexing. On the one hand, severely mentally ill women are often left to live on the streets where they are victims of sexual violence and live in deplorable conditions. Yet at least in some cases they choose this over available treatment and other assistance, including assistance from loved ones. Some severely mentally ill women and many severely mentally men end up in prison, which is more and more becoming the primary treatment locus for the severely mentally ill. Also of concern is that some mentally ill people are violent, most often towards family members, and in particular towards their mothers. Yet under the current system family members have no recourse until violence is perpetrated, and that recourse is typically, in the first instance, to involve law enforcement. Mothers and other family members of severely mentally ill adult children still love these adult children and recognize that they will likely end up on the streets without the care of their families. Yet at the same time they are afraid of their sometimes-violent adult children and are left with nowhere to turn for help.
Continue readingThe State of California recently banned discrimination against transgender patients in the provision of health insurance. It was only the third state to do so. Lack of access to health care is common for transgender persons. Reasons include—but are not limited to—fear of encountering stigma, employment discrimination which limits access to health insurance, and insurance providers refusing to cover medically necessary care.
In the state of Missouri, 5% of transgender adults report that they were refused EMT care, 13% report that they were refused Emergency Room care, and 24% report that they were refused care in a doctor’s office. The context of California’s policy change is thus one of serious health disparities for transgender patients and constitutes a step forward in public policy including transgender folks in our moral community and giving credence to their health care needs.
Continue readingThe proposed rewording and amendment of Kansas House Bill 2183, which, having passed the Kansas Senate, is now making its way through the state legislature, is sounding alarms in the HIV/AIDS communities — and with good reason. Although originally intended to assist first responders who might, by virtue of their work, be potentially at risk of contracting HIV, the bill, as amended by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, now effectuates sweeping deregulations of the criteria and methodologies for the determination of the need for isolation and quarantine by bringing all infectious diseases under a single statute. Moreover, HB 2183 invalidates a state law from 1988, explicitly banning the quarantining of individuals diagnosed with AIDS. This broadening of the state powers to isolate leaves wide open the possibility that individuals with HIV/AIDS could be quarantined without consent or right to appeal. While the Republican-controlled Kansas state legislature has denied this charge, and has, in fact, promised that the state power to quarantine will not be used against individuals with HIV or AIDS, they have nevertheless defeated a Democratic push, led by Senator Marci Francisco, to specifically exclude those with HIV/AIDS from the isolation/quarantine provisions on the grounds that HIV/AIDS is not spread via casual contact…
Continue reading