Thanks to you guys, I'm thinking a bit differently about everything I posted about on Thursday. Your comments are so smart and informative, it helped clear up a great deal. I thought I'd highlight some of what you all had to share.
Tori, School, and the "Corn Incident"
I was worried about Tori being forced to color things in a specific way, and the fact that Tori did follow direction so well made the teachers think that she should be "moved up a class." While I still don't know specifically what they mean by that (I haven't had a chance to talk to the preschool's director), I feel less alarmed about Tori being "forced to conform." Here's why:
Celeste said: I feel like you're reading something into it that the teacher didn't mean. Also, Tori will make new friends and relationships, but also she will have some of the ones she knows now, joining her before long. It's really important to move preschoolers up as their skills advance; it helps them stretch and be challenged. They get a charge out of becoming a Bigger Kid who can Do More Things.
Leah said: You should be very pleased that Tori follows directions and does what she is asked. Think about it, how frustrating is it for you when she doesn't follow your directions? Why wouldn't you want her to follow the directions the teachers give? I get where you are coming from, don't misunderstand. The non-conformist in you would like to pass some of that along to your daughter. But at her age it is very important for her to learn to follow directions from the adults in charge of her (within the proper context and boundaries of course). It is also important for her to learn her colors and be able to recognize that different things are different colors. She will still also have opportunity to experiment with colors both at school and at home.
Sarah said: I take the teacher's suggestion of moving to another group to mean that Tori has met/exceeded the goals for that group. At this age, testing isn't what is typically thought of as testing. It's more observations and anecdotal notes of the teacher.
The New Mammogram Rules (and, by default, the PAP Smear Guidelines
This was really interesting. Lots of stuff I didn't know came up in the comments on this one. Generally, though, apparently the new guidelines bring the US in line with the rest of the world, mammograms can CAUSE cancer, and are not terribly helpful in actually improving health or survival chances for those under 50.
Alexicographer said: I'm 41, and have been debating whether to get one (before this latest report came out I was already debating) because truthfully? I know that they just aren't that effective and that they do lead to useless procedures (e.g. surgeries) as well as to saving (a few) lives from breast cancer. And honestly? I don't know whether cost/benefit ratio of mammograms to women in our 40s is or isn't on the "right" side of the line, but I do actually believe that medical care should be rationed on a cost/benefit basis -- in my opinion that's a lot better than how it's currently allocated. Some procedures should be strongly encouraged. Some shouldn't be covered at all. And some should probably be allowed, but only if the patient/doctor really truly madly deeply wants them done. Mammography in women 40-50 may fall in that last category; I don't think it falls in the first. I am actually (in this crazy system where many people have no coverage at all) open to the possibility that it falls in the middle.
Betty M offered this great link that breaks it down beautifully.
Rosemary mentioned this: As an Australian who has also lived in the USA, I was shocked to get to the USA and find you guys have dental checks every six months, paps every year and mammograms starting yearly at 40. That is just way overservicing. The only people they recommend yearly pap screening for in Australia are those with a previous history. The rest are biannually. Annual dental checks are apparently just as effective as six monthly (and we don't have government subsidised dental care, so it is not government rationing at work.)
The Stupak Ammendment added to the HCR Bill
Here, well, it gets even more confusing. It could end up far worse for women than we thought.
Uccellina linked to a great article at The Nation about what isn't covered in regards to women's healthcare. It includes this startling statement: "None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover."
Maura said: Cecily, since I read an analysis yesterday that concluded that the Stupak Amendment would lead to the end of private insurance coverage even for *medically indicated* abortions for policyholders who pay their own premiums, I've been thinking of your situation a lot. ... For-profit insurers already pad their profit margins by denying coverage for medically necessary treatments. I can see them jumping at some justification to turn down claims for medical treatments like what you faced with the boys, which I can only imagine cost at least in the tens of thousands overall. Not sure if this is information you'd be wiling to share, but it might be useful if you were able to share how much your treatment cost.
For the record, to the best of my recollection the cost of being hospitalized, monitored, and then ending the pregnancy with the twins cost basically the same as my emergency c-section (+ five days of recovery in the hospital): about $50,000. Which is more than we make in a year.
Suzanne summed up my ambililance: Regarding the Stupak amendment, why throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak? Today only 13% of abortions are paid for by insurance. Only half of employer provided health insurance plans include coverage for any abortions. Federal employees' insurance plans and most state medicaid plans do not cover abortion. So what's worse - to have no health insurance at all or a plan that would not cover something that you may never need?
So, what do you guys think? Did this change your mind at all?



