Keep in mind---the US was ranked #1 in the world with the healthiest citizens and growing longevity before Reagan/Clinton/Bush/Obama far-right Wall Street global pols defunded and dismantled all social Democratic structures to protect citizens. Remember, the people harmed by this---people with disabilities are not only Democrat---this is not a partisan issue. Republicans fought ADA because it cut profit but Republican voters have these several decades grown used to the benefits for their families.
THIS PROCESS OF FAR-RIGHT DEVALUING OF DISABLED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE HUMAN CAPITAL HURTS EVERY FAMILY.
This stat below places the US out of developed world status and into third world status and Baltimore is tops as worst in the nation health outcomes because Baltimore City Hall and Baltimore's Maryland Assembly pols work for a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development.
10,996,447: Disability Beneficiaries Hit New Record
By Terence P. Jeffrey | May 20, 2014 | 10:45 AM EDT
(CNSNews.com) - The total number of disability beneficiaries in the United States rose from 10,981,423 in March to 10,996,447 in April, setting a new all-time record, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.The number of Americans receiving disability benefits continues to exceed the populations of Greece, Tunisia and Portugal, and is approaching the population of Cuba, which according to the CIA World Factbook is 11,047,251.
The 10,996,447 total disability beneficiaries includes 8,942,232 disabled workers, 153,475 spouses of disabled workers, and 1,900,740 children of disabled workers.
None of those individual categories of beneficiaries set a record in April, but the combination of all three was the highest it has ever been in the history of the disability program.
The number of disabled workers peaked at 8,942,584 in December—with 352 more workers receiving disability than in April.
When you have far-right Bush neo-cons meeting far-right Clinton/Obama neo-liberals add global corporate rule wanting the US to look like Asian International Economic Zones ----and VOILA---you get eugenics. Again, I am a decade's long medical scientist so I am not a Luddite. I am a social Democrat who sees value-added in the opposite way far-right Wall Street global pols see value-added tied to human capital as profit-makers. Genetic screening is not all about improving the species---it has value in allowing people to have choices in medical care for one---
Sadly what we are seeing over these few decades is genetic screening soaring in third world nations as a way towards eugenics---the Chinese parents tied to one child created hundreds of billions of dollars for this genetic screening industry and most have embraced aborting or abandoning children with disabilities because they feel a need for that one child to be a productive worker. Other Asian nations tied to International Economic Zones have genetics screening soaring because they often do not have the health support system developed nations have and opt to abandon these children. If we are heading towards the breakdown of developed nation policies supporting disability---this is to where Americans will gravitate---it happens all the time. As I said-----genetic screening was front-and-center of the preventative care package for Affordable Care Act as that screening will replace the health policy of supporting our disabled.
Religious citizens fighting this for decades are joined by social Democrats who may not see this as a religious issue---but a justice issue----we are not the party of ONLY EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE SURVIVE---social Darwinism.
DNA screening is part of the new eugenics—and that’s okay
Jon Entine | July 8, 2013 | Genetic Literacy Project
A provocative, heartfelt, and misguided article in the Denver Post decried “the rise of a new eugenics.” It was written by two prominent, thoughtful people, Lloyd Lewis and Julie Reiskin, officers with the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition (CCDC).
My issue is not with their stated mission to advocate for social justice for people with all types of disabilities—but with their simplistic and counterproductive demonization of DNA screening tests reflected in this opinion piece. Their premise is this: Over the past decade, technological advances have led to the development of simple and inexpensive genetic screening tests that can determine whether a fetus has a genetic disorder. If a disorder is identified—and if the laws of the state or country in which the pregnant woman resides allow—the fetus can be aborted. This is all very much like amniocentesis, which is widely embraced around the world. The CCDC focuses on fetuses with Down syndrome (DS) to argue that modern DNA screening techniques (but not amniocentesis) present a moral hazard.
Abortion is a prickly issue, contentious and personal, entangled with legal and moral standards that vary from community to community. Lewis and Reiskin advance a moral argument as a backdoor way to promote changes in the legal landscape, and I believe they do so disingenuously. If successful, their efforts would lead to curtailments in abortion rights and limit genetic health screens.
Amniocentesis, abortion, and DNA screening
Almost all communities in the United States, Europe and most other Western countries allow for the termination of pregnancies when the mother is found to be carrying a fetus with a genetic disease. The raw truth is that prospective parents would prefer having children with no genetic defects. As the Denver Post article states, 80 to 90 percent of women who receive a positive amniocentesis test for DS choose to terminate their pregnancy.
There is already broad national support for screening fetuses to determine whether they contain genetic abnormalities: amniocentesis. It involves inserting a needle through the uterus to withdraw fluid and fetal cells from the amniotic sac. Although controversial in its early days, it’s now a broadly accepted procedure that ultimately results in the termination of tens of thousands of pregnancies every year. But amniocentesis is an invasive test; some women refuse to ask for it for that reason alone.
The CCDC’s opposition to genetic screening is based on its belief that because genetic screening is a non-invasive technique (and now booming in popularity), it will result in even more terminations. “To be blunt, this test will likely result in a rapidly decreasing population of people with DS,” write Lewis and Reiskin. That’s almost certainly accurate.
It appears the CCDC is a responsible organization that promotes the rights of the disabled. They are good guys. Most of the people linked to CCDC have or are associated with children with one form of genetic disability or another, often DS. They have a compelling, deeply personal moral argument that’s not unlike the one promoted by anti-abortion groups—terminating human life in any form and at any stage of development is wrong. The CCDC however appears to take no position on abortion—which means in effect it voices no concerns about terminating healthy pregnancies--but it wants to establish unique moral and legal rights for fetuses with genetic defects.
Lewis, Reiskin, and the CCDC have the right to advance any policy position. Their engagement is part of how democratic societies have chosen to work through this moral thicket. But positions should be based on sound science and reasoning, not on appeals to emotion and hyperbole.
Playing the anti-biotechnology hysteria card
My concern is that the CCDC’s framing of the issue undermines support for genetic testing, particularly pre-conception. Lewis and Reiskin deploy the word “eugenics” as if it’s a synonym for genocide. It’s a reckless, socially fraught way to manipulate historical facts, and is an all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States. They write:
“Adolf Hitler’s embrace of eugenics would discredit the movement, but unfortunately it didn’t disappear… Today, in fact, we see the rise of a new eugenics, made possible by the rapid development of bioscience and biotechnology, especially from the mapping of the human genome. This is obviously technology and philosophy that the American eugenicists in the 1920s would have embraced, along with their counterparts in Nazi Germany.”
The authors are either ignorant of history or willing to misrepresent it to promote their cause. Eugenics is typically portrayed as morally repugnant by today’s standards, but classical eugenics (meaning “good genes”) has its roots in the progressive era at the turn of the twentieth century, not in Hitler’s twisted vision of a Final Solution.
ACTUALLY PEOPLE TIED TO THAT PROGRESSIVE ORIGINAL DARWINISM ARE SHOUTING THE CURRENT SOCIAL DARWINISM IS NOT THEM---IT IS FAR-RIGHT.
The scientists who formulated these ideas were very much mainstream, and their proposition sounded reasonable to an American and European establishment trying to come to terms with waves of ill-educated immigrants from Southeastern Europe.
Scientists offered what they considered to be a progressive solution: “positive eugenics,” which focused on better pre-natal and natal and health and encouraged society’s healthiest citizens to have more children, thus improving the overall health of society. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, along with many major Protestant and Jewish clergy were eager proponents of positive eugenics. Those eugenic views remain a central tenet of modern society today.
The “negative” wing of eugenics, which was popular in the late 20s and early 30s but never widely embraced, wanted to legally prevent the mentally ill, poor, immigrants and non-whites from having children. Some Social Darwinists also propagated the belief that progress could only be attained by phasing out “undesirable genes.” Again, we practice mild versions of this today—that’s what amniocentesis accomplishes. It was only later however, that ideologues of the far right twisted eugenics to justify Nazism and genocide. Their exploitation and abuse of the concept led to the “eugenics movement,” but this movement casts a shadow over the modern focus on improving individual and societal genetic health in a non-coercive way.
Nathaniel Comfort, professor at the Institute of the History of Medicine at The Johns Hopkins University, addressed many of the complicated moral and legal issues raised by in the eugenics movement his book The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine, published last year. As Comfort argues, the impulse to use genetic screening reflects complex motivations:
“The eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, to live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence and a better adjustment to the conditions of society. It arises whenever the humanitarian desire for happiness and social betterment combines with an emphasis on heredity as the essence of human nature. It is the aim of control, the denial of fatalism, the rejection of chance. The dream of engineering ourselves, of reducing suffering now and forever.”
We are in the “second age of eugenics” wrote Discover blogger Razib Khan, citing the growth in the number of terminated DS pregnancies. Because of advances in genetic screening, we are in a position to reduce the prevalence of many Mendelian diseases caused by single gene mutations (e.g. sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, PKU, Huntington’s disease). The mostly small, start-up genetics companies that Lewis and Reiskin mischaracterize as “Wall Street backed corporations” are actually marshalling their resources to educate the public on these thorny issues. For example, we are now able to identify mutation carriers before conception so diseased embryos are never conceived and abortion is never a question. And yes, that would mean fewer babies born with Down syndrome.
New eugenics, old fears
The potential power of the “new eugenics” has put both the far left and right on edge. They share a quasi-religious belief that nature and life should be considered inalterable. Pro-life groups and activist groups on the left that argue for the dignity of people with disabilities often campaign vigorously against aborting fetuses known to carry debilitating diseases.
Their case has been taken up by activist writer Alex Knapp who holds that no one is “eugenically unfit” and society has advanced too far scientifically and morally to allow such practices. He focuses solely on negative eugenics and not the positive impact that family planning and genetic screening have already had on society.
His focus on negative eugenics is rampant on the hard-edged ideological left, (SOCIAL DEMOCRATS ARE ALWAYS CALLED FAR LEFT IDEOLOGUES BY FAR RIGHT NEO-LIBERALS) promoted most vociferously by the Center for Genetics and Society, which considers itself a progressive advocacy group but is actually the opposite on many genetics issues. It takes every opportunity to conflate prenatal testing and gene therapy with negative eugenics, arguing that it is socially and ethically reprehensible to alter the genes that we pass on to our children.
It’s an odd argument given that CGS supports planned parenting—which attempts to achieve the same goal as preventative screening but with far less precision and more unintended consequences. Their fear stems as much from the tool itself (biotechnology) than its intended consequences.
The limits of eugenics
Scientist and blogger Gerhard Adams, writing last year at Science 2.0, raised more sophisticated cautions about eugenics and genetic fetal screenings. The concept itself is potentially flawed, he maintains, because there is no way to determine whether what appears to be a negative mutation may confer unexpected or unknown benefits. The sickle cell mutation, for instance, protects people from contracting malaria. Eliminating the mutation entirely would put many populations at suddenly increased risk of malaria infection.
“Some may argue that we have plenty of evidence from our experiences in animal domestication,” he writes, “yet who would claim that these results are an improvement of the original species? The modifications [may] have made these animals more compliant with human demands, but improved the original species?” If given a choice, he writes, humans will converge toward genetic homogeneity—which is also bad for the species.
One key problem with Adams’s line of reasoning is that screening and abortions do not necessarily eliminate a trait—it would be very difficult to actually wipe out many genetic diseases. Eugenics-inspired screening in the Jewish community has all but ended Tay Sachs among Orthodox Jews, but the frequency of the mutation in the larger non-Jewish population has not changed. Furthermore, Down syndrome is a spontaneous, not inherited, trait—screening and abortions would have no direct impact on its prevalence.
The Gattaca argument: more “fi” than “sci”?
In the grand scheme, the biggest bugaboo haunting personal genomics is the specter of Gattaca: as more people adopt genetic screening, the choice to use it could become less voluntary—or at least harder to turn down. Science 2.0 founder and editor Hank Campbell argues that once it becomes possible to engineer “superior” qualities in human beings, then a parent’s only moral choice would be to have genetically superior children. That’s the ominous theme behind the Lewis and Reikin’s Denver Post opinion piece.
It may sound like a real argument but it’s sci-fi in the extreme. The CCDC, Knapp, CGS and Campbell may believe they are warning against Big Brother but their positions would seem to favor Big Brother-like restrictions.
Should we limit personal choice, including the right of prospective parents to terminate their pregnancies? In a post from last year about prenatal sex selection and reproductive rights, science blogger Cameron English struck a sensible balance:
“There’s no doubt that we need to consider the difficult ethical questions that arise as our ability to manipulate nature improves… But making ominous predictions and restricting personal choice shouldn’t be a part of that discussion, at least not without evidence.”
Modern eugenic aspirations are not about the draconian top-down measures promoted by the Nazis and their ilk. Instead of being driven by a desire to “improve” the species, new eugenics is driven by our personal desire to be as healthy, intelligent and fit as possible—and for the opportunity of our children to be so as well. And that’s not something that should be dismissed lightly.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see the progression in genetic engineering and treatments----global health corporations have it built into their global health tourism model as in Baltimore's Johns Hopkins. It will be the wealthy who can afford this treatment as prices will rise and the American people's ability to afford anything other than preventative care health plans was sealed with the Affordable Care Act. So all this technology will not bring enlightened medical use as 90% of Americans are pushed towards poverty they will fall into the category of being FORCED by preventative care VALUE-ADDED data saying it is less expensive to abort a pre-tested fetus than have global health systems involved with supporting a disabled child. Remember, Affordable Care Act was written by global health corporations giving the power of procedure to global health insurance agencies and global health institutions geared towards SAVING MONEY in treatments. We already read about this dynamic in procedures being developed by Obama/global health corporation think tanks writing these ACA guidelines.
THIS WAS WHY SOCIAL DEMOCRATS SHOUTED AGAINST AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THROUGHOUT AS WALL STREET GLOBAL CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS PUSHED IT--BRINGING UNDERSERVED CHILDREN AND LABOR TO SUPPORT IT.
'This technology is expensive -- about $20,000 for each cycle of IVF -- and many insurance companies do not cover most of the cost. Hence, wealthy parents can afford to eliminate certain diseases from their offspring, while poorer and middle-class parents will not be able to do so'.
The article below is too long to post but does a good job in detailing global attitudes towards eugenics and this is easily followed to these nations being the source of research and development for global genetics testing and policy. I am speaking about this from a disability right angle but much of this is tied to nationalism----the old supreme race issue is strong in Asian nations.
Eugenics Is Alive and Well:
A Survey of Genetic Professionals
around the World
A survey of 2901 genetics professionals in 36 nations suggests that eugenic
thought underlies their perceptions of the goals of genetics and that directiveness
in counseling after prenatal diagnosis leads to individual decisions based on
pessimistically biased information, especially in developing nations of Asia and
Eastern Europe. The "non-directive counseling" found in English-speaking nations
is an aberration from the rest of the world. Most geneticists, except in
China, rejected government involvement in premarital testing or sterilization,
but most also held a pessimistic view of persons with genetic disabilities. Individual,
but not state-coerced, eugenics survives in much modern genetic practice.
The paper concludes with a discussion of
the ethics of individual voluntary eugenics and the meaning of "voluntary" when
genetic services are state-financed, when a nation has few public health-care
resources, and when both medical culture and popular culture hold pessimistic
views of disability.
It is the fact that this will be tied to class status that makes this anti-Western nation----as too the religious factors.
This is why all the medical protocol being written behind closed doors has not allowed any national ethics or morality discussion as they push these health policies forward----MOVING FORWARD AS CATHERINE PUGH SAYS----TOP POLICY PUSHER FOR JOHNS HOPKINS. Baltimore Development's 'justice' organizations only allowed establishment candidates for Mayor of Baltimore every election KNOW THIS---they knew ACA was a global profit-driven health policy that would exclude ---especially our disabled.
Is genetic testing humans playing God?
By Robert Klitzman
Updated 1:25 PM ET, Sat February 22, 2014
- Robert Klitzman: Testing to screen embryos of gene mutations raises ethical issues
- Klitzman: The upside is it can eliminate mutations that cause untreatable diseases
- But this technology can be abused and some may use it for selective breeding, he says
- Klitzman: We need to know where to draw the line and not cross over into eugenics
"It's a miracle," she told me. "We can now have a baby that won't have Huntington's disease. I thought I'd never be able to have any kids -- because of the disease." Her father had died from this disorder, which results from a gene mutation. She feared that she might have the mutation, too. But she was too scared to undergo testing for it. She also worried that if she had it, she might pass it on to her children.
This disease causes severe neurological and psychiatric problems, and eventual death at around the same age as one's parent died of it -- usually in one's 40s or 50s. If a parent has the disease, each child has a 50% chance of inheriting it.
Woody Guthrie, the singer and songwriter, died of this illness. His children then had to debate whether they wanted to know if they, too, had the lethal mutation. His son, Arlo, for instance, decided not to find out. Many such offspring feel that to undergo this genetic test is to risk "getting a death sentence," i.e., while they may feel fine, they know they have a mutation that will kill them.
The woman with whom I spoke was afraid to learn if she had this gene. But she wanted to make sure that her children did not get it.
Genetic testing: Good medicine or TMI? 05:32
Luckily, a relatively new procedure -- pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD -- allows doctors to test embryos before they are implanted into a woman's womb, to help ensure that certain gene mutations are not passed on.
Using In Vitro Fertilization, sperm fertilize eggs outside the womb, creating embryos. When the embryos are a few days old, one cell is removed and can be tested for hundreds of genes.
This woman struggled with what to do. She feared she would be playing God. But she decided to undergo the procedure. The doctor told her that embryos without the mutation were implanted inside her. He did not tell her whether he had identified any embryos with the mutation. Thus, she was able to have a child free of the gene mutation that would cause Huntington's disease, tremendously relieving her and her husband of worries. She still does not know if she has the bad gene herself.
But this procedure is raising myriad complex ethical and social issues. It can eliminate gene mutations for untreatable diseases that kill infants and adults. But it can also be used to select embryos based on other genetic factors.
Many parents decide that they want to choose, for instance, their future child's gender, and many doctors now use this technology to do so. At some point in the future, tests will no doubt be marketed for genes that, companies will claim, are associated with behavioral traits such as intelligence, sexual orientation, possibly even perfect musical pitch, or physical characteristics like height, blond hair and blue eyes. Many of these claims will be highly questionable.
Among diseases, Huntington's is rare in that the gene mutation predicts the disorder. But for most people, common diseases and traits result from combinations of both nature and nurture -- multiple genes, along with various environmental and other factors. So, a particular mutation may contribute in some small way toward a disease or trait, but it would not be the sole determinant. A gene mutation might double your chance of getting a particular disease; say your risk may rise from 5% to 10%, but you would still have a 90% chance of never getting the disease.
Profound dilemmas emerge concerning for which genes doctors should use PGD, and who should decide. Most Western European countries ban or heavily restrict use of this technology to serious diseases like Huntington's -- not gender. In contrast, the United States doesn't have laws governing when it can or cannot be used.
For example, the procedure has been used to avoid embryos with the gene that increases the risk of breast cancer, though the disease wouldn't affect the child for perhaps 40 or 50 years. Individuals with one of the breast cancer mutations can have their breasts and ovaries removed to prevent disease. Also, by 2065, treatments may exist. And what about gene mutations that have, say, a 20% or 30% chance of causing disease when the child is in midlife? Should parents discard an embryo based on that percentage?
This technology is expensive -- about $20,000 for each cycle of IVF -- and many insurance companies do not cover most of the cost. Hence, wealthy parents can afford to eliminate certain diseases from their offspring, while poorer and middle-class parents will not be able to do so.
Consequently, over time, certain disease will become relegated to certain social groups, but not others. The gap between the wealthiest 1% and everyone else is already expanding. Should we allow this method to widen it more in the genetic pool? Some people argue yes: Wealthy parents can already afford to send their children to private schools, private tutors, SAT prep classes, while other parents cannot do so. But eliminating diseases is in some ways more extreme.
Others see this technology as raising troubling issues of eugenics, which had horrific results under the Nazis, who sought to "purify" the gene pool in Germany, and eliminate people whom they felt were genetically inferior. The film "Gattaca" and Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel, "Brave New World," depict the dark problems that can ensue.
So far, we have allowed parents to choose when to use this procedure. Government regulations might be cumbersome. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the professional organization for physicians working in this area, has issued some guidelines, permitting broad use, but these are not really enforced.
Yet many patients, and even doctors, know little about this technology. More education of both physicians and the public is critical. We also need broad discussion and debate about what is at stake, and where to draw the line.
"How beauteous mankind is," Shakespeare's Miranda exclaims optimistically in "The Tempest." "Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!" Huxley used these words ironically. Between her hope and his pessimism may lie the reality -- depending on how we all now respond.
Affordable Care Act as a Republican health policy that ends public health, our Federal health agencies, and access to all but preventative health care for what is a growing group of Americans---over 80% will fall into the preventative care only category during this coming economic repression/depression. Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals had to tout all the preventative features because they were removing ordinary health access to what are now considered low income including our Medicaid and Medicare. So, we see lots of testing---and then often citizens finding a problem have plans that will not allow hospital procedures. This is already causing shortened life-spans for disease vectors but with this week's talk on disability there is an emphasis on pre-natal testing. They may say they are giving families a choice----but affordability means just that. No support---no afford. These genetic tests were developed in developing nations these few decades are still without data proving efficacy ----meaning 'being right or producing good results'. It does create concerns and sometimes actions directed at future families. How does a citizen with disabilities tie into a preventative care only amount of health care? Much of their support system will be gone.
No Cost Sharing on Essential Preventive Care Thanks to the Affordable Care Act
ObamaCare includes preventive care at no out-of-pocket cost on most health plans. ObamaCare’s free preventive services help to put the focus on wellness, early detection, and prevention, instead of treatments and cures.
FACT: At least 15 free preventive services and one wellness visit are covered on Major Medical Plans sold after 2014 without copays and coinsurance, regardless of whether you have met your deductible yet. Services must be done in-network to avoid cost sharing.
Scroll down the page for a list of all of ObamaCare’s preventive services for adults, women, children, and seniors as well as tips and tricks on cost sharing and correct coding.
Are Vaccines safe? In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year. During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths. See our list of vaccine facts and myths and find out the truth on vaccines and immunizations.
What Preventive Services are Covered Under ObamaCare?
Preventive care covers everything from immunizations, shots, screenings and tests. You’ll also get a free annual wellness visit on all major medical which can be used to facilitate preventive care. We have a full list of services below.
FACT: According to the Department of Health and Human Services, by 2014 more than 76 million Americans have received essential care at no-out-pocket costs
What Part of Preventive Services isn’t Covered Under ObamaCare?
For most preventive services, only the screening or vaccination itself is covered at no charge. The actual services required to facilitate the preventive care can be subject to cost sharing, and that is based on what plan you have. It’s important to check with your plan before assuming everything related to preventive care will be covered. Learn more about exactly what is covered at no cost sharing.
This is Preventive Care:
Preventive care focuses on evaluating your current health status when you are symptom free. Preventive care allows you to obtain early diagnosis and treatment, to help avoid more serious health problems. Through a preventive exam and routine health screenings, your doctor can determine your current health status and detect early warning signs of more serious problems. Your preventive care services may include immunizations, physical exams, lab work and x-rays. During your preventive visit your doctor will determine what tests or health screenings are right for you based on many factors such as your age, gender, overall health status, personal health history and your current health condition.
This isn’t Preventive Care:
Medical treatment for specific health conditions, on-going care, lab or other tests necessary to manage or treat a medical issue or health condition are considered diagnostic care or treatment, not preventive care.
Am I Eligible For ObamaCare’s Free Preventive Care?
Under ObamaCare most health plans are required to cover certain preventive care services at no out-of-pocket costs. These services don’t require you to meet your deductible or other limits and should have no copay or coinsurance. If you are on a plan that doesn’t cover essential health benefits and free preventive services check out your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace to see if there is a better plan for you.
You may be eligible for free preventive screenings, like blood pressure and cholesterol tests, mammograms, colonoscopies, and more. This includes coverage for vaccines and new preventive services for women.
FACT: No matter how you get coverage, if you have minimum essential coverage, you have free preventive care.
Obama Care Revives and Expands Preventive Health
Some of the first benefits that the American public received under the Affordable Care Act went into effect on September 23, 2010. The Affordable Care Act required that all major medical health insurance policies that went into effect on that day or afterwards had to cover certain preventive services. In addition, these 15 services could not have any cost sharing. No cost sharing simply means no out-of-pocket payments and no need to wait until to reach a deductible.
What Types of Preventive Care Does ObamaCare Cover?
While adults get 15 services covered for preventive care, women get 22, and kids get 26 covered services. These services include some of the most important types of prevention like immunizations, mammograms, and wellness visits. Medicare patients also gain some new benefits under the ACA as the 2010 preventive health mandates apply to them as well.
Included in the 15 preventive services for adults are immunizations, screenings for depression, blood pressure, colorectal cancer, and high cholesterol. Diet and alcohol abuse counseling, though not screening services are also included as no out-of-pocket services.
Children are entitled to 26 preventive services. These include a host of developmental and other screenings and immunizations.
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
Blood Pressure screening for all adults
Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
Depression screening for adults
Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
Immunization vaccines for adults–doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
Influenza (Flu Shot)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk
Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
Women’s Preventive Services ObamaCare
In 2012, women became entitled to benefits under specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions include well-woman visits, counseling for domestic violence victims, domestic violence screenings, and contraception counseling and dispensing.
Anemia screening on a routine basis for pregnant women
Breast Cancer Genetic Test Counseling (BRCA) for women at higher risk for breast cancer
Breast Cancer Mammography screenings every 1 to 2 years for women over 40
Breast Cancer Chemoprevention counseling for women at higher risk
Breastfeeding comprehensive support and counseling from trained providers, and access to breast feeding supplies, for pregnant and nursing women
Cervical Cancer screening for sexually active women
Chlamydia Infection screening for younger women and other women at higher risk
Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, as prescribed by a health care provider for women with reproductive capacity (not including abortifacient drugs). This does not apply to health plans sponsored by certain exempt “religious employers.”
Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women
Folic Acid supplements for women who may become pregnant
Gestational diabetes screening for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes
Gonorrhea screening for all women at higher risk
Hepatitis B screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
HIV screening and counseling for sexually active women
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Test every 3 years for women with normal cytology results who are 30 or older
Osteoporosis screening for women over age 60 depending on risk factors
Rh Incompatibility screening for all pregnant women and follow-up testing for women at higher risk
Sexually Transmitted Infections counseling for sexually active women
Syphilis screening for all pregnant women or other women at increased risk
Tobacco Use screening and interventions for all women, and expanded counseling for pregnant tobacco users
Urinary tract or other infection screening for pregnant women
Well-woman visits to get recommended services for women under 65
Children’s Preventive Services ObamaCare
Autism screening for children at 18 and 24 months
Behavioral assessments for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Blood Pressure screening for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years , 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Cervical Dysplasia screening for sexually active females
Depression screening for adolescents
Developmental screening for children under age 3
Dyslipidemia screening for children at higher risk of lipid disorders at the following ages: 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Fluoride Chemoprevention supplements for children without fluoride in their water source
Gonorrhea preventive medication for the eyes of all newborns
Hearing screening for all newborns
Height, Weight and Body Mass Index measurements for children at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Hematocrit or Hemoglobin screening for children
Hemoglobinopathies or sickle cell screening for newborns
HIV screening for adolescents at higher risk
**Hypothyroidism screening for newborns
Immunization vaccines for children from birth to age 18 —doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis
Haemophilus influenza type b
Influenza (Flu Shot)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Iron supplements for children ages 6 to 12 months at risk for anemia
Lead screening for children at risk of exposure
Medical History for all children throughout development at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years , 5 to 10 years ,11 to 14 years , 15 to 17 years.
Obesity screening and counseling
Oral Health risk assessment for young children Ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years.
Phenylketonuria (PKU) screening for this genetic disorder in newborns
Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling and screening for adolescents at higher risk
Tuberculin testing for children at higher risk of tuberculosis at the following ages: 0 to 11 months, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years,11 to 14 years, 15 to 17 years.
Vision screening for all children.
Senior’s Preventive Services ObamaCare
Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers:
Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening
Alcohol misuse screenings & counseling
Bone mass measurements (bone density)
Cardiovascular disease screenings
Cardiovascular disease (behavioral therapy)
Cervical & vaginal cancer screening
Colorectal cancer screenings
Diabetes self-management training
Hepatitis C screening test
Nutrition therapy services
Obesity screenings & counseling
One-time “Welcome to Medicare” preventive visit
Prostate cancer screenings
Sexually transmitted infections screening & counseling
Hepatitis B shots
Tobacco use cessation counseling
Yearly “Wellness” visit
More About the Affordable Care Act and Preventive Care
All plans starting January 1, 2014 or later feature these no-out-of-pocket preventive health exams.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, more than 76 million Americans have received no-out-pocket care by 2014.
Now that you understand some of the preventive care that is covered on new plans it’s time to go see if you qualify for cost assistance on a new marketplace plan or to learn more about ObamaCare’s new benefits, rights and protections.
As corporations become the ones controlling what employee health plans look like they also now have unlimited access to the results of all that testing even if Wall Street global pols pose progressive in protecting our privacy. This affects health care policy costs but for people with disabilities it will create employment issues even when a disease may be detected through genetic testing that will not surface for decades. A citizen become pre-selected out of the hiring process. What happens when citizens cannot get those jobs with corporations still paying a living wage? That citizen gets pushed into the lower tiers of hiring---global corporate factories. White collar global corporate sweatshops paying poverty wages will look better than the lower tier. When a disease vector appears, global corporations do not keep people on---they are fired. There is no workman's compensation for disabling injuries----ask our immigrant citizens here in Baltimore they will tell you the Inner Harbor is famous for workplace injuries/illnesses leading simply to firing.
Remember, the FDA under a Wall Street global pol has a corporate executive at the top so decisions on food and drug are not public interest
'The FDA’s stance on DIY genetic testing could very well drive up healthcare costs. Besides premiums being raised on those forced to report DNA results to insurance companies, in-office testing is far more expensive. As tests are priced anywhere from $300 to $3,500, this could significantly add to the overall cost of healthcare'.
We do not want citizens exposed to this new technology without knowing what results mean----but the entire structure being built with no openness or public participation is just as bad.
Has this been discussed in your neck of the woods---don't worry, the exceptional people are the deciders!
A Survey of Genetic Professionals
around the World
'Questionnaires included a range of fifty ethical questions, covering a wide range
of situations that might occur in the practice of medical genetics. Most were
presented as case vignettes, but there were also some more general opinion
questions. Topics included privacy of genetic information, disclosure of ambiguous
test results, access to banked DNA, testing in the workplace, testing children,
disclosure of genetic information to spouses or to relatives at risk, parenthood for
persons with genetic disabilities, prenatal diagnosis for sex selection or paternity
testing, attitudes toward disability, nondirectiveness versus directiveness in counseling,
and personal attitudes toward abortion. Responses for a sub-set of questions
related to eugenics are reported for the first time in this paper. Responses for other
types of questions, notably on privacy and on sex selection, have been reported
elsewhere (Wertz 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, Wertz and Fletcher 1998)'.
DNA Testing: Do You Have a Right to Test Your Own DNA? FDA Says No!
By anh-usa on December 10, 2013
Healthcare Monopolies, Reform the FDAThere’s a reason your government is whittling away at your healthcare options and driving costs out of control—and not a good one.
America spends over $2.6 trillion a year (18% of our GDP) on healthcare. At the same time, government is tightening the regulatory reins on nutritional and natural methods to support health—an approach that isn’t lowering healthcare spending, but raising it!
On November 22, the FDA sent a warning letter to 23andMe.com to stop its inexpensive ($99 per test) “do-it-yourself” genetic testing service for health screening and ancestry purposes, because consumers could be “misled” and harm themselves by “self-treating.” For example, the FDA posits that an individual who learns they have a predilection for cancer would, as a result, undergo unnecessary preventive surgery, chemotherapy, and other “morbidity-inducing actions.”
The FDA’s argument is, quite clearly, a straw man: of course patients have to obtain medical advice before making major health decisions—it’s not as if consumers can go under the knife without significant medical consultation! The FDA’s true message is clear: because individuals can’t be trusted to make sound health decisions, they don’t have a right to private information on their own DNA.
It’s also worth noting that FDA action against 23andMe was sparked, in part, by a complaint by UnitedHealth Group, the largest publicly traded health insurer. UnitedHealth isn’t exactly an unbiased observer--they want access to information about your DNA. After all, if individuals were allowed to keep their DNA test data private, they wouldn’t have to share their results with insurers who, for example, could use an inherited health risk to deny insurance or charge exorbitant rates.
The FDA’s stance on DIY genetic testing could very well drive up healthcare costs. Besides premiums being raised on those forced to report DNA results to insurance companies, in-office testing is far more expensive. As tests are priced anywhere from $300 to $3,500, this could significantly add to the overall cost of healthcare.