Television – not in front of the children?

Television – not in front of the children?

Get out of our living rooms. This country is in danger of becoming a politically controlled nation closer to communist China. That's all very well if you have three hours to wash the dishes, but some of us need to get things done. Gee, these toddlers are up to no good. What are they up to? Wait for it – they're watching television!

The outrage that has greeted reports that the Australian government is to issue cautious guidelines advising parents and carers to prevent children under two from watching television seems remarkably acerbic. Across the world, however, the same debates flare up every time it is tentatively suggested that the electronic screens we began by placing in one room at home and now carry everywhere in our pockets may not be good for the development of children's brains.

Television is no longer merely the drug of the nation, it is the pacifier, babysitter, wallpaper and teacher for our children. Increasingly it intrudes on the very first months of their lives. In Australia, young children spend more time watching television than any other activity. The average four-month-old gazes at the box for 44 minutes every day. In the United States, under twos watch 1.2 hours a day on average. In Britain, older children have been calculated to spend five hours and 18 minutes watching TV, playing computer games or online each day, just over an hour less than the US average.

Behind the fury about strictures suggesting television is bad for our children is guilt. Parents are uneasy about the effects television has on their children and are quick to get defensive about switching it on. "Whether it is the slack-jawed look their children have when they put them in front of the television or the tantrum when they turn it off, most parents have this unease about it but it's a battle they choose not to fight. They have enough battles getting them to eat the right food," says Dr Michael Rich, director of the influential Center on Media and Child Health at Boston Children's Hospital.

We may now be highly tuned to what we feed our children's bodies but we are less careful about what we feed their minds. Academics researching the impact of television on the very young compare debates over its adverse effects with those over smoking a generation a half ago, or seat belts and cycle helmets more recently.

A draft of the Australian government's guidelines says that screen time for young children "may reduce the amount of time they have for active play, social contact with others and chances for language development", and may also "affect the development of a full range of eye movement [and] . . . reduce the length of time they can stay focused". Jo Salmon, associate professor of epidemiology at Deakin University, was one of the researchers who informed the Australian government's draft guidelines. "Children aged six to 30 months who are watching television have less developed vocabulary, display more aggressive behaviour and have poor attention spans," she says. "Parents and childcare centres are not justified in encouraging children, under the age of two, to watch television." While there is no evidence that so-called educational programming is harmful, she would discourage under twos from watching it. "I really would not put my young one under two in front of a television. Generally, the evidence that's out there says it could be detrimental," she says.

We may sense TV is bad for young children but what evidence is there really? There is a booming market in educational computer games and DVDs, such as the Baby Einstein range, and if our modern multitasking lives are saturated in electronic screens, isn't sitting children in front of them at least good training for the modern world?

Rich worked in the film industry before having a "midlife crisis" and retraining as a paediatrician. He is not evangelical about governments enforcing how television is used in homes but barred his own two young children from television and computer games before they were 30 months old. While there is good television that children can consciously learn from at a later age, he says scientific studies show young children are not able to consciously learn from television.

As Rich explains, humans have the most sophisticated brain on the planet because it is relatively unformed when we are born. Our brains triple in volume in the first 24 months. We build our brains ourselves, by responding to the environment around us. The biggest part of this is a process called pruning, says Rich, whereby we learn what is significant – our mother's voice, for instance – and what is not. "TV killing off neurons and the synaptic connections that are made in order to discriminate signals from 'noise'," he says.

Experts in child development have found that three things optimise brain development: face-to-face interaction with parents or carers; learning to interact with or manipulate the physical world; and creative problem-solving play. Electronic screens do not provide any of this. At the most basic level, then, time spent watching TV has a displacement effect and stops children spending time on other, more valuable brain-building activities.

Scientists concede that they do not yet know precisely how TV affects the cognitive development, not just in terms of understanding the inner workings of the brain but because the way we use television and other electronic screens is changing so rapidly that we do not know how it will affect people by the time their brains stop developing in their mid-20s. But the weight of evidence about the deleterious impact of TV on child's ability to learn is alarming – to say nothing of its impact on children's sexual activity.

The Australian government's advice is supported by the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics that under-twos are not exposed to any television time. Dr Dimitri Christakis at Seattle Children's Research Institute found that for every extra hour watching DVDs, 8- to 16-month-olds learned six to eight fewer words than children who spent no time in front of the screen. Marie Evans Schmidt at the Centre for Media and Child Health found that even just having television on in the background while under threes play with their toys disrupted their attention span even when they appeared to pay little attention to it.

While there is a paucity of evidence that television is beneficial to early cognitive development, there are studies that show it is not as influential as the educational status and income of parents. Schmidt found that an apparently negative relationship between TV viewing and cognitive development disappeared when she factored in the mother's educational status and household income – parents' education and finances mattered more. "TV viewing is an outgrowth of other characteristics of the home environment that lead to lower test scores," said Schmidt. Other research suggests these include less mother-and-baby interaction and less reading to children.

Unlike the Australians, the British government does not offer any guidance on how much television toddlers should be allowed to watch. It has introduced an "Early Years Foundation Stage" for 0-5s which implies that television should be part of children's learning. Carers, the guidance states, should help children become familiar with "everyday technology" and use it to support their learning. Only the French government has been brave enough to ban stations from showing programmes targeted at under-threes. Last year it also insisted that overseas cable channels must incorporate a tobacco-style warning: "Watching television can slow the development of children under three, even when it involves channels aimed specifically at them."

Aric Sigman, a UK psychologist and author of The Spoilt Generation, a broadside against permissive parenting, says while governments are happy to offer advice on suncream and portions of fruit and vegetables, they are less willing to provide guidelines about TV. "Of course they don't want to because it is a vote-loser," he says. "It is society's favourite pastime and it makes parents feel guilty. The convenience of us parents is seen as paramount as opposed to the wellbeing of our children. When it comes to our childrens' wellbeing, our guilt as parents has to come second."

Part of the problem, argues Sigman, is we have a nostalgic view of our own experience of television when we were young. "We say, 'I watched Blue Peter and I'm OK'," says Sigman. "But the editing speeds and the colours and the number of hours spent watching TV and the age at which TV watching starts are a whole different thing now. We can't compare now with before."

Rich agrees. Television is so different now that the "it didn't harm me" argument is irrelevant, he says. Instead, frustratingly, he finds the debate around young children watching TV is played out as part of the culture wars in which the educated, ruling classes of academia and, when they dare, politicians, are perceived as self-righteously restricting the freedom of expression of ordinary people. Rich instead hopes the debate could be examined more neutrally – and scientifically – as an issue of "health and development". He accepts that TV is not like smoking: it is not simply bad for your health. He would like a return to a "respect" for TV and other electronic screens so they are treated like a trip to the theatre or a novel, as something to be consciously watched in moderation. This may sound like another culture wars value judgment but, as he argues, it is not about good or bad TV but about the good and bad ways in which we consume it.

Swine flu jab 'is safe in pregnancy'

Swine flu jab 'is safe in pregnancy'

The vaccine against swine flu is completely safe for pregnant women and could also help to protect their unborn child, the government's chief adviser on immunisation said yesterday.

Pregnant women have been identified as being particularly vulnerable to complications from the virus, but a poll last month said that almost half of expectant mothers could refuse a vaccination over fears about its safety.

Professor David Salisbury, director of immunisation at the Department of Health, said that such worries were "theoretical, with no evidence".

"The evidence is cumulating that it is worthwhile vaccinating pregnant women and that there is a benefit both to them and to their infant," he told a seminar of health professionals at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

A government leaflet giving advice to pregnant women who are considering the vaccine has been drawn up, he added.

The government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, told the seminar that, in contrast, the risks of contracting the swine flu virus were very real: "We know that pregnant women are at a higher risk of miscarriage and they are at higher risk of stillbirth and they are at higher risk of serious illness themselves. The problem is that we haven't really got enough data to be able to put numbers on it. We can't say to somebody what their risk is."

Having a vaccine in the midst of a major outbreak was a unique opportunity, Donaldson said. "In all previous pandemics we've been chasing after the virus and it's been almost too late to give a vaccine. This is the first time ever that it has been possible to have a vaccine in place close to the main peak of the pandemic."

Senate finance committee votes to pass healthcare reform bill

The US Senate finance committee today voted 14-9 to pass a bill to extend health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, boosting President Barack Obama's hopes of securing the elusive goal of universal care.

Although the debate will continue in Congress for several more months, the Senate finance bill is significant, suggesting the argument has moved beyond whether Obama will get legislation passed to what will be in it.

The bill offers a basic framework for eventual legislation, the closest glimpse yet into what reform might look like.

Obama has managed to go further towards securing universal healthcare than any of his predecessors, who have been struggling since Theodore Roosevelt's presidency in 1912 to introduce it.

Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the finance committee, had made a last-minute plea to Republican senators to vote for the bill, saying: "This is our opportunity to make history."

The Democrats enjoy a 13-10 majority on the committee.

Most Republicans were opposed to the reform bill, expressing concern about the estimated $829bn (£520bn) cost. Charles Grassley, one of the most senior Republicans on the committee, described the bill as a "march leftward".

The most anticipated vote was that of Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine, and the only member of her party on the committee who voted for the bill.

Snowe had previously hinted at her support when she said: "Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it. But when history calls, history calls and I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time."

The Senate finance committee bill follows one passed in July by the Senate health committee, and three from House committees. But the finance committee is the one that has attracted the most interest, in part because it was the only one where a serious effort was made by the Democrats to win over Republican support. Democratic senators are now set to sit down to resolve differences between the health and finance committee bills before putting a compromise bill on the floor of the Senate possibly later this month for further debate.

Discussions between the Democrats and Republicans on reform began last November.

The finance committee bill would extend health insurance coverage to an estimated 30 million Americans and would for the first time in US history come close to providing health coverage for all. Excluded would be an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants, even though they form an integral part of the US economy.

The bill will disappoint liberals because it does not contain a public health option offering a government alternative to private health insurance. It proposes instead individuals gathering in cooperatives to use their muscle to negotiate lower prices from insurance companies.

The Senate and House disagree on how to pay for the reform. Democratic senators favour a tax on high-value health insurance policies to raise revenue. The House wants to charge millionaires.

The vote was the focus of a last-minute onslaught from the US health insurance industry. Yesterday a report by America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, claimed that proposals in the bill would see the average cost of health insurance policies for families rise from $12,300 to $25,900 by 2019.

John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential candidate and a member of the finance committee, described the report as a disgrace, coming as it did at the last minute with claims that did not stand up to scrutiny.

Snowe echoed this, saying: "I don't think it was based on any valid assumptions."

Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, said: "The misleading, and to me, harmful claims made over the weekend by the profit-driven health insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst."

Liar, Liar … Well, Healthcare Pants on Fire

So, we've been told over and over again that under the healthcare reform plans currently defended and pushed by the President and Congress that we can keep what we've got if we like it. No one will take your health insurance bennies away. Not under our employer-based, for-profit system.

Well, tell that to the latest batch of employees in Chicago to have their insurance benefits cut right out from under them – they sure didn't get to keep what they had.

The workers at SK Tools had no choice. Their health insurance benefits were cancelled. Sick family member? Too damn bad. Need a doctor. Tough luck. The company representatives say the recession has hurt them, and they have no choice. The company is also asking for 20 percent cuts in hourly wages. Wow.

Now, the workers have voted to strike. And there will perhaps be some resolution for this bunch of employees. Folks will cry out, perhaps even President Obama will step in, and this situation will probably get resolved – though folks will suffer in the interim.

But the larger issue remains. Just how gullible are we when we trust that any private company will be forced to keep any benefit plan it chooses not to keep?

Employers will still be able to change up healthcare plans to meet the company's needs – and if that means you have to see another doctor or pay a higher co-pay or drive to a more distant in-network provider, that will not be your decision. And health insurance companies will still be able to change their provider lists and covered services and all sorts of other things without any input from policyholders.

So, America, it just isn't true that you can keep what you have if you like it when it comes to private, employer-based healthcare benefits. It's a big, fat lie. And the company noted in the article above provides but one example. There will be many more.

The House bill on healthcare reform, the Senate plan for healthcare reform and the President's plan for healthcare reform – none of these actually guarantee that you can keep what you have if you like it, because tomorrow your employer or your insurance company may change what you like to suit their bottom line. That's the truth.

If this big lie about healthcare reform rolls off their messaging engines like melting butter on a warm slice of bread, what else do you suppose they are lying about? Come on. Get real. We won't have what we want in terms of truly having the freedom to choose and keep or change our doctors, our providers and our own treatments until we break free from the lies and produce reform that guarantees a progressively financed, single high-quality standard of care for everybody. Everybody in, nobody out.

Then you can keep what you like. Your choices. Your decisions. Your health. Your healthcare. Your money. Period.

It's not just the right-wing selling myths in this discussion. We need to admit that and work to be as honest as we can. Too many lives depend on this. There will be no death panels to order Grandma's demise, but there are also no guarantees that you can keep what you have if you like it under this system. Both things are lies.

We can provide one another the healthcare security that we're being misled to believe is in the current reform plans. But we will have to help our fellow Americans to understand that a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system – like Medicare – for all of us is the most reasoned, most economical and most freedom-protecting choice.

And that's the truth.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for the California Nurses Association and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

Town hall focuses on health care system's ills

PETERSBURG - Opponents of health care reform have been trying to scare the public with stories of death panels and government bureaucrats rationing health care, but the really frightening prospect would be to leave the system unchanged, according to a group of reform advocates who held a town hall here Wednesday night.

Tri-City Medical Town Hall held a panel discussion at Union Station billed as "What Health Care Reform Should Be," but by far the largest part of the talk focused on why they believe the current system needs to be changed.

The most dramatic presentation was that of Cynthia Wilson, a teacher at the Appomattox Regional Governor's School who commanded the attention of the audience of about 50 people as she recounted her ongoing battles with breast cancer - and her health insurer.

Wilson described long waits on the telephone as she tried to get approval for tests and treatments; of seemingly capricious decisions such as approving payment for a $400 pressure sleeve but denying it for a $100 model; of being told she shouldn't have an important test because a positive result might prompt her insurer to cancel her policy.

Some legislators have said they oppose reform because they say " 'We don't want to put a government bureaucrat between you and your medical treatment,' " Wilson said. "Well, I've had constant battles with corporate bureaucrats."

Andrea Miller, an emergency operations trainer and former Democratic candidate for Congress in the Fourth District, noted that insurers "are trying to make mastectomies an outpatient procedure." She noted that a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, that would require doctors to keep women in the hospital for at least 48 hours after a mastectomy.

Dr. Lerla Joseph, a Charles City internist, echoed some of President Obama's recent presentations by directly addressing what she called the "myths" that opponents have spread about reform proposals. But she also described some of the problems that the current system creates for doctors as well as patients.

Health care "is costing us too much, and not enough people are covered," she said. The existing system is "convoluted" and "not fiscally sustainable." Some opponents have predicted that reform "will bankrupt America, but it is bankrupting individuals today," she said.

The current system also is a burden to business, Joseph added, noting that high health care costs were a major factor in the bankruptcy of General Motors earlier this year.

The system is so complicated that many doctors themselves don't fully understand it, said Dr. Stephen Vaughan of Petersburg-based Convenient Health Care Inc. "It wasn't until my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer - terminal - that I understood how complicated Medicare is," he said.

"We need to make some serious adjustments," Vaughan said. "We have to modify a lot of things."

Introducing The FAIR Health Plan

Introducing The FAIR Health Plan (Federal Act Insurance Restructured)

Nearly everyone in America can agree that the current healthcare system is broken. Now we have a real solution, the Federal Act Insurance Restructure (FAIR) Health Plan, a functional and cost-effective healthcare system. The FAIR Health Plan is designed to meet all of the strategic goals that the American people deserve. It is largely based on successful healthcare systems that are proven sustainable over the long term.

The FAIR Health Plan allows the uninsured to have access to healthcare in a way that is very cost effective, and saves over $200 billion in its first year in Medicaid expenditures alone, without an adverse effect to the care provided. Compared to Medicaid today, which is projected to increase annually at the rate of 7.9%, the FAIR Health Plan is estimated to save over $3 trillion over its first 10 years, yet provides coverage for all Americans under the age of 65.

The plan gives maximum flexibility to American people, allowing them to see any doctor at any time without the need to get a referral. It encourages people to only use the healthcare system when they really need it by implementing a yearly Utilization Fee, which will discourage overuse and keep premiums low. The government has no need to raise taxes as the plan pays for itself, and covers everyone that wants coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions. The FAIR Health Plan implements a 7% cap on administration costs, the same as existing Federal Health Plans.

As for doctors, the FAIR Health Plan pays them for 100% of the services they provide, instead of the all-too typical 50% reimbursement that they receive from many insurance companies. Also, with its digital payment system, medical providers are compensated in days instead of months, removing the need for costly billing and collection agencies.

This innovative and proven solution to our healthcare crisis needs the American public to go online to http://www.fairhealthplan.org, read over the facts and encourage our law makers to consider this option before moving forward. The time has come for Americans to take back control of our health care, and the FAIR Health Plan is the solution.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy -- Health Care Champion -- Dies

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy had a hand in nearly every piece of health care legislation that moved through Congress during his eight-term Senate tenure. He died Tuesday night of brain cancer at age 77.

NPR: "Kennedy had hoped to be at the center of this year's debate over a landmark bill remaking the American health care system. Even after suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, he again returned to work. He took part in early legislative skirmishes on behalf of the new president - whose nomination for the White House he had given a boost with an early endorsement. But as his illness advanced, Kennedy was unable to take the gavel when the Senate committee he chaired took up the bill in June" (Elving and Naylor, 8/26).

The Boston Globe recounts that Kennedy's health care work was marked by his return to the Senate in December 1969 after his car accident at Chappaquiddick, which killed a former aide to his brother Robert. In that year he "began a long campaign 'to move now to establish a comprehensive national health care insurance program.'"

The Globe also recounts Kennedy's differences with President Carter over health care policy: "The ideological divide between the two was profound. Senator Kennedy thought Carter's health care programs were timid."

Last summer, "(d)espite his illness, Senator Kennedy made a forceful appearance at the Democratic convention in Denver, exhorting his party to victory and declaring that the fight for universal health insurance had been 'the cause of my life.' He pursued that cause vigorously, even as his health declined; when members of Obama's administration questioned the president's decision to spend so much political capital on the seemingly intractable issue, Obama reportedly replied, 'I promised Teddy'" (Nolan, 8/26).

The New York Times: "While Mr. Kennedy had been physically absent from the capital in recent months, his presence had been deeply felt as Congress weighed the most sweeping revisions to America's health care system in decades. … He built federal support for community health care centers, increased cancer research financing and helped create the Meals on Wheels program. He was a major proponent of a health and nutrition program for pregnant women and infants." He was among then-President Bill Clinton's and Hillary Clinton's "strongest allies in their failed 1994 effort to enact national health insurance, a measure the senator had been pushing, in one form or another, since 1969." In 1997, he teamed up with Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah to help "enact a landmark health care program for children in low-income families, a program now known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-Chip." He also "helped win enactment of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, one of the largest expansions of government health aid ever" (Broder, 8/26).

The Washington Post: "His legislation resulted in access to health care for millions of people and funded cures for diseases that afflicted people around the world. He was a longtime advocate for universal health care and was instrumental in promoting biomedical research, as well as AIDS research and treatment." For example, he was "a leader in the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill" which provided employees with the ability to keep health insurance after leaving a job.

"Health care reform is 'a defining issue for our society,' Kennedy told fellow senators during a 1994 debate. 'Do we really care about our fellow citizens?' It was a question he asked countless times, in one form or another, during his long Senate career. He faced opposition from most Republicans -- and more than a few Democrats -- who insisted that Kennedy's proposals for universal health care amounted to socialized medicine that would lead to bureaucratic sclerosis and budget-breaking costs and inefficiencies."

He first became involved in health care issues in 1966 "after he became aware of the difficulties facing Boston public-housing residents who had to rely on the city's teaching hospitals. Although they lived only four miles from the hospitals, it took them up to five hours to get there and back on buses and subways, including the time it took to wait in an emergency room" (Holley, 8/26).

The Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Kennedy died with one of his lifelong goals, universal health care, tantalizingly within reach yet struggling on Capitol Hill. Some advocates have said his absence has hurt the chances for legislation, and hope Mr. Kennedy's passing will give new momentum and emotional force to his favored cause. … Mr. Kennedy's final months were marked by the poignancy of a man who had fought his whole career for universal health care facing his last window of opportunity to accomplish it, even while engaging in his own devastating health battle" (Bendavid, 8/26).

USA Today: "Congress will make Kennedy's unfulfilled goal his legacy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., predicted in a statement early today. 'Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration'" (Kiely, 8/26).

President Obama called Kennedy "the greatest senator of our time," The Associated Press reports. Kennedy was key in getting Obama elected, Obama also said. (Kesten, 8/26).