<p>
</p>
<p>That premise has been de-bunked many times on this forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That premise has not been debunked, because it’s obviously true. The whole point of preventative care is to prevent catastrophes.</p>
<p>A different premise has been debunked. Preventative care doesn’t seem to pay for itself, or at least nobody has proved that it does. That’s because preventative care prevents things that might happen, not necessarily things that will happen. If a young woman doesn’t take prenatal/pregnancy vitamins, she still probably won’t have a baby with neural tube defects. If she doesn’t get any prenatal care, she will still probably have a healthy baby. But she might not, and if she doesn’t have a healthy baby because she didn’t get adequate prenatal care, it’s going to be a catastrophe that could have been prevented.</p>
<p>I thought neural tube defects were more closely linked to the age & health of the father preconception.
On further research I see that defects are multi causal, but many are linked to health before conception.</p>
<p>
Um, no. There are plenty of people who ar not “priviledged”, whatever we are now taking that to mean (and apparently it now means bipeds?) who are ignorant and discriminatory. </p>
<p>@momofmusician17,
Excuse my ignorance, but what was the long response at 1:20pm all about in response to my apparently-failed effort at humor of lady gaga’s nudity on stage? Seems we are getting very general (not just you, momofmusician) in the definition of privilege. I have several “minority” issues. my religion, by handedness, my height. I guess I am not “privileged”. Then again, for the mostpart, these issues aren’t preventing me from doing something, so in that sense I would think I am privileged. My head is spinning.</p>
<p>
With all due respect, thats silly. The name is old, and needs, like crayola crayons did, to be updated. Its made it into the vernacular, but it should say “beige” or “champagne” or something. But just because a shoe color is called that does NOT mean they are “made with caucasians in mind”. Thats absurd. I wear brown shoes. Wore a pair today. DOes that mean they were for a different target audience? And I have seen AA women wear beige shoes. The premise that these shoes are made for women of color (whatever that color is) is simply over the top.</p>
<p>Saintfan, you’re saying that you don’t want a world where only people of a particular group can be considered “stakeholders,” but that seems to be where these discussions of privilege are leading. </p>
<p>Hunt keeps bringing the conversation back to Fortgang specifically, and in his particular case yes, I think it may well be true that he is making truly extreme, ignorant, deliberately provocative statements, in which case all he would have to do to avoid hearing “check your privilege” would be to stop making extreme, ignorant, deliberately provocative statements.</p>
<p>But, as the link I posted about Harvard Kennedy School several pages back makes abundantly clear, in a lot of cases the definition of “extreme, ignorant, statement” has become so narrow as to lose all meaning. In those cases, it would seem that the only way to not have your opinions dismissed as privilege is to either shut up or change your opinion to whichever one your speaker supports.</p>
<p>I should have been more specific: annual physicals do not lead to better health outcomes.<a href=“Evidence Brief: Role of the Annual Comprehensive Physical Examination in the Asymptomatic Adult - NCBI Bookshelf”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK82767/</a></p>
<p>Where I live in CA, vaccinations are free from the County Health Dept.</p>
<p>
Spell this out: S-I-L-L-Y .There are plenty of different mesh colored outfits. Dark, light, whatever. You are trying to hard to make a point and its looking silly. Dancers wear skintone outfits for their skintones. The name “nude” is in need of a change. Fine. But dont try to say that dancers of different skintones cant find outfits that are right for them. Hogwash. Here’s a thought-- in tribute to the late, great Richard Pryor, let’s change the name from “nude” to “honkey colored”.</p>
<p>And while we’re at it, I think the phrase “check your privilege” is obnoxious.</p>
<p>Neural tube defects like spina bifida are closely linked to the mother’s consumption of vitamins B9 and B12 in very early pregnancy. I’m sure they are also linked to other issues, but fortifying foods with folic acid has led to a decrease in neural tube defects.</p>
<p>Bay, Oh. Yeah, annual physicals don’t lead to better health outcomes. But other preventative measures like well-baby checks and regular monitoring of diabetes do lead to better health outcomes.</p>
<p>Uh oh, Cardinal Fang, the non-vaccinators will derail this thread…</p>
<p>*** Ahhh you edited that out. Wise choice.</p>
<p>“And people who have experienced hardships also don’t always realize that the so-called “privileged” people they are deriding may have suffered hardship in their own way - just not necessarily with respect to socioecon status. That’s what’s galling. You could be calling Richie McRich privileged because he’s white and affluent and for all you know Richie was beaten senseless every night by his alcoholic father. Oh, but he’s “privileged” because he doesn’t have to worry that storekeepers won’t wait on him. Please. Everyone has crosses to bear. EVERYONE. “Check your privilege” is a statement that works under the assumption that if you are white and higher SES your life is just la-di-da bed of roses perfect. THAT is ignorant.”</p>
<p>So true. I believe there are some on this thread that would have the same thought as I have had, when talking with a socially normative child of any race, any socioeconomic status, who is not on the spectrum. Wishing their child could be as privileged and not have to deal with such burdens that most everyone else takes for granted. Everyone has their burdens, you often have no idea what they are.</p>
<p>The fact that there are people griping about shoes and bandaids really takes away from the realities that there are people who are truly discriminated against and suffer serious hardships.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I can’t find any running shorts. All the stores I’ve been too only carry really short shorts, that look like they’re for skinny teenagers. So should I feel discriminated against, or should I check my privilege because I’m lucky to have legs? </p>
<p>I edited. I don’t want to derail the thread with irrelevancies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>saintfan,</p>
<p>You are making the bigoted assumption that people who can afford $120 and were against the law, were ignorant about the plight of the less fortunate, when in fact, they may have just been better educated about the value of the check-up than you. </p>
<p>Annual checkups for healthy adults don’t produce better health outcomes. Annual well-baby checkups absolutely do.</p>
<p>Bay, are you being serious or tongue in cheek? I honestly can’t tell.</p>
<p>And busdriver-- theres just one person a HS’er, I believe, trying to raise a ruckus with the bandaid and shoe and bodysuit skintone thing. That said, I think I should have gotten royalties for having come up with the bandaid idea in the late 50’s, maybe early 60’s. I wuz robbed, robbed I say.</p>
<p>Not being tongue in cheek, but I agree that if well-baby check ups do produce better outcomes, they should be done, but not necessarily at no cost.</p>
<p>My point is that people often jump to the conclusion (and my apologies to saintfan if I misapplied my point in her case), that when people with money are against something provided to low-income people for free, that it is because they are ignorant about the less-fortunate, or don’t care. Oftentimes, that is not the case at all, and their reasons are true. To use PG’s terminology, it “galls” me that those erroneous assumptions are made out of hand about the “privileged,” but if the same was done to the “unprivileged,” (i.e., they are ignorant or selfish) you know the screams of racism, sexism, classism, etc would ensue.</p>
<p>“And busdriver-- theres just one person a HS’er, I believe, trying to raise a ruckus with the bandaid and shoe and bodysuit skintone thing. That said, I think I should have gotten royalties for having come up with the bandaid idea in the late 50’s, maybe early 60’s. I wuz robbed, robbed I say.”</p>
<p>Ah, just one person, and a HS’er. So understandable that the things I think are trivial may be of huge importance to her. Okay, I won’t generalize on that one point though, while it does illustrate the overall fact that some are obsessed with trivia while ignoring the larger issues. And yes, you were robbed. I think everyone who uses those bandaids needs to pay a dividend to you, immediately.</p>
<p>
from your lips to g-ds ears…</p>
<p>Bay said:
You are making the bigoted assumption that people who can afford $120 and were against the law, were ignorant about the plight of the less fortunate, when in fact, they may have just been better educated about the value of the check-up than you.</p>
<p>Response: I am not talking about our current health care law and have no interest in wading into that discussion. You cannot reconstruct my causal structure backwards. I said that people who make policy might arrive at more effective and targeted solutions to common goals if they are aware of inputs and limitations. I DID NOT say that if they are against any given mode of implementation they are ignorant. Absolutely your words not mine. </p>
<p>You, as well as emeraldkitty, noted that vaccines can be obtained from the county health department on a sliding scale. Why is that? Maybe it’s because someone who has the pull to make those kinds of decisions and put those kinds broad policies into place had some understanding of the challenges of obtaining them for many in the population (who we have temporarily agreed should have them). Early childhood health care and parent contact with a doctor, nurse or nurse practitioner for education purposes around that improves health and education outcomes later. I picked that as my example only because I thought it was something that people COULD agree on. I guess I was wrong. b-( </p>
<p>saintfan,</p>
<p>I understand your intention, but you said this:
Doesn’t that mean you assume that people with money who objected, did so because they thought “pfft $120 is nothing” and were ignorant about what was affordable for everyone?</p>