Stage 8: Childcare Surveillance

Childcare Regulations tend to stay off of most of our radars unless you are a parent or have an interest in the child development field. After reading Olive's blog about Texas enforcing a surveillance camera in the preschool room, I realized it should be a topic more people discuss in order to get different views and thoughts.

Olive is both a mother of a three year old and a teacher, so it's pretty safe to say that her understanding of child safety is relatively high. She brings up excellent points to defend the concept of recording the child's classroom such as: a positive step to confirm any accusations and a way to give parents a peace of mind about their child's safety. These are comforting and reassuring measures that a childcare facility can take in order to reassure the parent(s) that it is a secure and exceptional environment with honorable staff members.

Having experience with teaching a classroom of preschoolers, its understandable why a parent would want to have the option to see what goes on in the room. Preschoolers are extremely active and unfortunately do not have full coordination development or understanding of what can hurt them, so it is easier for them to fall down, bump their head, bite/hit each other, or even have an accident. It is inevitable that any classroom will have at least one child that falls into this category, and that is something a parent has to understand from the very beginning. It is both the facility supervisor's (or director) and the teacher's job to maintain an accommodating environment to minimize any harmful activities or behavior. Camera surveillance will not stop an abusive act, it will simply reveal it, and that can be helpful for suspicious situations.

It is important to explore the disadvantages of surveillance, as well as all the advantages. A comment made on Olive's blog gives a different approach to the camera recording idea. If the facility were to create a webpage for parents to access in order to watch in on their child, the facility is putting a lot on the line. If a sexual predator were to hack onto the site, it can compromise the safety of each child in the classroom, as well as the teacher. Nothing on the internet is private these days, so the phrase "password protected," does not mean a thing.

The cost of camera will be expensive initially or later down the line. Unless the facility has the means to fund this type of security, it will create a financial burden that could ultimately run it out of business. Childcare facilities in lower income neighborhoods cannot afford to be shut down because the parents depend on them for help when they are working countless hours or multiple jobs.

The parent(s) need to understand that by putting their child into someone else's hands, there will always be a risk. At some point the child will attend school or outside function that the parent will not be present and neither will a camera. It is vital that the parent do thorough research on the facility before enrolling or dropping their child off. Yes, anything can happen, but it is less likely when the facility has an outstanding reputable background/reviews.

As helpful as the surveillance would be in certain circumstances, making it mandatory does not seem like the best choice. It should be further explored and most definitely optional. The risks will always be there, and to enforce camera recording, the government is literally opening the door for all the avoidable risks to walk right through.

Blog Stage 7: Texas Universities Tuition Increase

According to the Austin American Statesman, Texas Universities are trying to devise a plan to appease Governor Perry after his criticism regarding how universities spend their money. The boards are considering the idea of raising tuition 2.6 percent for residential undergraduates and 3.6 percent for non-resident undergraduates. This plan will raise millions of dollars that will help improve academic advising and expand classes/programs made to help students graduate in four years. 

While this could be a beneficial change for the universities, the stress of being able to afford this will cause more problems for most of the families that already need financial assistance. Unless the universities are willing to distribute more scholarships or provide substantial financial assistance, students will be forced to take out loans and eventually graduate in four years with thousands of dollars in debt. How is a university supposed to sell itself to a student knowing that when he or she walks away, they are taking added expenses that should have been aided or paid for from the beginning? The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M have the Permanent University Fund which provides extra funds for academic and university expenses. The remaining public universities in Texas do not receive money from this fund and therefore do not have as much room to spare when it comes to where their money is spent. It is the job of the university to manage their spending in ways that benefit the quality of education for each student as well as any activities associated with (or funded by) the school. If they have been able to produce successful students before with tuition being less than it is today, they should be able to provide the same, if not better, quality of education (i.e. better technology, more classes, department advances, internships) with the increase in tuition since then.

The whole concept of attending a university is get the education that will award the student with the bachelor or master degree in which so many companies and businesses now require. With that in mind, is Governor Perry implying that the those who have already graduated from Texas universities within the past 10, 15, 20 years lack the academic essentials necessary to succeed in today’s society? Clearly, there are thousands of Texas university alumni from the 70’s and 80’s who have built independent businesses or professional careers with the help of their degrees without paying a ridiculous amount in tuition.

Stage 6: Planned Parenthood

After reading Emily's blog post about Rick Perry's attempts to eliminate Planned Parenthood altogether, I can undoubtedly say that I agree with her response to this nonsense. The services that PP provides for women and families all over Texas are far more positive than negative on every level. Unfortunately Perry has done everything in his power to give Texans a false understanding of what Planned Parenthood actually stands for. For those who do not use/need PP services, they are oblivious to how much help PP gives to women who cannot afford treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, medical screenings/tests, or contraceptions.

Emily makes a very important point that once PP is no longer in existence, taxes will most likely rise in order to support welfare, and women will be forced to either pay astronomical amounts or no longer have the opportunity to seek these services. As a woman, I find it incomprehensible that people would actually support this decision. How can denying women access to these servies help our society, let alone our economy? For women who cannot afford full priced prescriptions and expensive health care, how will they be able to maintain proper health? Clearly this will not be helping women, so who will it be helping? The truth is, no one will be benefiting from the elimination of PP.

It is almost embarrassing for me as a Texan to have my Governor blatantly disreguard the services that aid women's health. I really do believe that this will create chaos and resentment in our society and economy. In some cases, it will overshadow any good Perry has accomplished throughout his years dedicated to the state government. It is vital that we inform people of the positive things that PP provides for women. People need to realize that without PP, a friend, sister, mother, girlfriend, or wife could be in jeopardy, and we had the ability to stand up for them and we didn't. Expensive insurances and prescriptions are not a solution, instead they are addiontional barriers for those who already have plenty in their way.

Pharmacists' fear of Medicaid expansion

Recently, state lawmakers approved pharmaceutical changes in hopes of saving Texas millions of dollars. Despite the fear of many pharmacists throughout Texas, the state pushed for the expansion of prescription drugs to appear on the Medicaid managed care plan. This change will most likely cut the pharmacies reimbursements, and eventually some will be forced to shut down.

Travis County and many other urban or metropolitan areas have successfully used the managed care plan for years. Pharmacists simply looked up the reimbursement rates on the state health agency's website in order to accept most, if not all, client Medicaid plans. Now, pharmacists' no longer have that luxury of accepting numerous different plans. They will have to choose which managed care plans they are going to accept based on reimbursement rates that are still up in the air. If a pharmacy decides to sign a contract that agrees to accept a specific managed care plan, they cannot deny any patient, no matter how low the reimbursement rate, that has that health care plan.

It won't take long before pharmacies start cutting back on deliveries, staff, and any other possible additional expenses. This will create a dramatic drop in pharmaceutical jobs around Texas, and in some cases lead to some shutting down. Medicaid and other health insurance plans are not easy to join, much less switch. Patients that used the same pharmacy or pharmacist for years could potentially be denied their medication because the pharmacy no longer accepts their managed care plan. For those who are older, have little or no transportation, and  have specific needs, picking up their prescription will be extremely difficult and inconvenient. Although the urban areas continue to sign agreements for the managed care plans, the more rural and local pharmacies will not thrive the same way. Patients who need specific medications that are not held in chain drug stores will no longer have the ability to visit their local pharmacy because most will be run out of business.

Including prescription drugs in this expansion of the Medicaid plan scare pharmacists for understandable reasons. Not only does their business suffer, but the quality of service and health of their patients are now at risk. Lawmakers believe this will save Texas $100 million dollars, and it probably will by putting more people out of jobs. The fact is, the state government is more focused on saving money than protecting the rights, jobs, and health of managed care patients and clients.

Assignment #3: Sonogram Law Makes Women Pause

A recent commentary article in the Austin American Statesman discusses how the new Texas sonogram law should give women the opportunity and the responsibility to pause before going through with the abortion procedure. In regards to abortion, most people tend to think and focus on the woman's rights before thinking of the fetus. Ashley Sanchez reports in favor of the law, making the statement, "Asking 'mom' to sacrifice 24 hours is a lot less of an imposition than asking the fetus to sacrifice his or her life." Sanchez uses Steve Jobs' story as an example to support her argument. Sanchez's comment, "I  suspect that most people believe that the world is a better place because Jobs was part of it for 56 years," alludes that technology growth would not have boomed if his biological mother had gone through with an abortion. Because Jobs was and still is such an iconic figure in the turn of the twenty-first century, Sanchez uses this to target a greater audience. She also references the story of Melissa Ohden, a survivor of abortion, in order to draw attention to the positive consequences of going through with unwanted pregnancy. Ohden's story, relatively different from Jobs, reveals the "miracle" that occurred when her mother tried to have an abortion at seven months and the fetus did not die. Ohden, now a mother, advocates and "seeks to raise awareness for abortion's intergenerational impact."

It appears that Sanchez uses the success of these two individual to reinforce the idea, "Any abortion has the potential to deprive our world of someone who could found an innovative company, be an inspirational speaker, help cure cancer, or be our future co-worker and friend." And while that is a very true statement, it is still our responsibility to respect the decisions made by each individual. Women have abortions for several other reasons besides unwanted pregnancy. In many cases, going through with pregnancy can cause health hazards for both the woman and the fetus. In other circumstances regarding sexual abuse, having a baby that is a result of rape can lead to depression, resentment, and ultimately further abuse. Because Sanchez does not address any of these reasons for abortion, she intends on persuading others to understand and agree with her personal opinions.

I can respect Sanchez's efforts to stick up for the rights of the fetus, but one comment she quotes regarding the actual procedure/surgery turned me away from agreeing with her article completely. Elizabeth Graham's (director of Texas Right to Life) statement, "Can you think of any other surgery that you can walk in and receive on the same day? Abortion should not be held to any lower standard of care than any other surgeries," is not entirely accurate. Many women view abortion as an emergency procedure, and how many people are rushed into surgery almost immediately after entering the Emergency Room? In my opinion, I feel that the evidence Sanchez uses to support her logic and argument will reassure those who are already pro-life, but will not convince someone who is pro-choice. Personally, I believe that adoption is an ideal alternative to abortion, but I still consider myself pro-choice. The new sonogram law, in my eyes, seems to be an attempt to guilt trip a woman into following through with her pregnancy as opposed to the supposed intent to improve her health care and safety.

Assingment # 2 - Two Dogs Euthanized

According to the Austin American Statesman, last week (Friday) in Hays County, two dogs were caught killing twelve chickens on camera and consequently euthanized. Because the owner of the chickens had installed a game camera due to previous incidents with his livestock, he was able to figure out which dogs were getting into his chicken coop. He shot one of the dogs, a black Labrador retriever-pitbull mix, but only injured and scared it off. The Hays County Sheriff's Office collected both dogs into their custody on Sunday and Monday morning. The officials had to visit the owner of the two dogs, explain the situation and demand the owner give up custody in order to follow through with the regulations regarding animals killing livestock. In Texas, the animal responsible for killing livestock is to be euthanized. I think this law is extremely drastic and unnecessary. Although the dogs were physically responsible, it is their owner's job to keep them contained. If an owner cannot prove himself/herself fit to be a responsible caretaker of an animal, the law should address that issue first and foremost.