I think that the blame is shared in the sharp increase of the ADHD diagnosis. The major blame falls into parents. Modern society has lead parents away from their children, leaving them to be raised under less than optimal conditions. Many parents don’t worry about their child’s success as in previous times, and discipline is harder to teach. This alongside the rapid development of technology has contributed to a decrease in the attention span of the younger generations. Also, some of the guilt lays on those in charge of the education policies; they have seen it easier to find excuses why the children are not learning than to find alternative ways to help them learn. By diagnosing this disorder, the school is practically washing their hands and stating that if the child cannot adapt into the learning environment they are not responsible. The education system is opting for the easy way out and so is the government.
“The authors suggest that when schools are under pressure to produce high test scores, they become motivated, consciously or unconsciously, to encourage ADHD diagnoses.”
If ADHD medications help students perform better in a quick turnaround, I think there could be strong correlation in schools with relation to test scores and students diagnosed with ADHD.
We all have ADHD to a degree. These drugs would help anyone, diagnosed or not, focus. Schools are just incentivized to medicate their students for the sake of high test scores.
It is hard to teach discipline, it always has been. But, recently it has been harder. The young generations are self-entitled. They deserve things; they don’t make an effort to get them. Technology has fostered a fast moving world, and that inhabits the child’s ability to concentrate. School stopped a challenge. It is unbelievable the little children read today, the lack of common sense and the negligible workload. Parents are no longer capable of asserting their authority, as any punishment can be penalized by law. It is easier for everyone to just force the kid to take a pill, it would be less stressful. Let’s ignore the potential future consequences, let’s ignore the problem by doping the children’s problems.
“Also, Perez could pay lower tax rates on the income if it were treated as long-term capital gains. Eggs could be considered property she had possessed since birth, in which case the sale could be seen as a long-term capital gain.”
If eggs and sperm can be sold, and are considered income from self-employment, why can’t we sell organs? It has similar considerations, taking into account that they are selling a part of their body. Where do we draw the line between what part of the body can be sold and which parts are not? Also, there is a thin line between selling and donating, so we are opening a topic that can be highly controvertible.
The fear of the Democrats reflects the flaws of Obamacare. If this reform were to be as comprehensible and effective as some claim, Democrats should be receiving more votes. The Democratic concern shows that people are not happy with the reform, that they would have something else. We are seeing that the Democrats are always in the bandwagon, they don’t have true ideals; they just support whatever is popular at the time of the elections.
If Democrats lose some seats from California, it would be a major blow to the party. Their biggest stronghold is not fully convinced of the flawed legislation.
It is not a surprise that the enrollment in private insurance is higher; here in America we prefer small government and free market. We choose private insurance because it is more efficient, effective and better than the one provided by the government. I don’t see why this can surprise anyone. It reflects what the country stands for.
eHealth has more plans available because it is not a “selective contractor”. As long as an insurance policy is legal, eHealth will sell it.
Not so with Covered California, California’s Obamacare exchange. It limits choices beyond what insurance regulations require, so that choices are limited.
I think that the blame is shared in the sharp increase of the ADHD diagnosis. The major blame falls into parents. Modern society has lead parents away from their children, leaving them to be raised under less than optimal conditions. Many parents don’t worry about their child’s success as in previous times, and discipline is harder to teach. This alongside the rapid development of technology has contributed to a decrease in the attention span of the younger generations. Also, some of the guilt lays on those in charge of the education policies; they have seen it easier to find excuses why the children are not learning than to find alternative ways to help them learn. By diagnosing this disorder, the school is practically washing their hands and stating that if the child cannot adapt into the learning environment they are not responsible. The education system is opting for the easy way out and so is the government.
“The authors suggest that when schools are under pressure to produce high test scores, they become motivated, consciously or unconsciously, to encourage ADHD diagnoses.”
If ADHD medications help students perform better in a quick turnaround, I think there could be strong correlation in schools with relation to test scores and students diagnosed with ADHD.
We all have ADHD to a degree. These drugs would help anyone, diagnosed or not, focus. Schools are just incentivized to medicate their students for the sake of high test scores.
It is hard to teach discipline, it always has been. But, recently it has been harder. The young generations are self-entitled. They deserve things; they don’t make an effort to get them. Technology has fostered a fast moving world, and that inhabits the child’s ability to concentrate. School stopped a challenge. It is unbelievable the little children read today, the lack of common sense and the negligible workload. Parents are no longer capable of asserting their authority, as any punishment can be penalized by law. It is easier for everyone to just force the kid to take a pill, it would be less stressful. Let’s ignore the potential future consequences, let’s ignore the problem by doping the children’s problems.
“Are Democratic candidates running away from ObamaCare?”
I think everyone should run as far, far away as they can get from it.
“Also, Perez could pay lower tax rates on the income if it were treated as long-term capital gains. Eggs could be considered property she had possessed since birth, in which case the sale could be seen as a long-term capital gain.”
Welcome to 2014…
If eggs and sperm can be sold, and are considered income from self-employment, why can’t we sell organs? It has similar considerations, taking into account that they are selling a part of their body. Where do we draw the line between what part of the body can be sold and which parts are not? Also, there is a thin line between selling and donating, so we are opening a topic that can be highly controvertible.
They are definitely running away from ObamaCare
The fear of the Democrats reflects the flaws of Obamacare. If this reform were to be as comprehensible and effective as some claim, Democrats should be receiving more votes. The Democratic concern shows that people are not happy with the reform, that they would have something else. We are seeing that the Democrats are always in the bandwagon, they don’t have true ideals; they just support whatever is popular at the time of the elections.
If Democrats lose some seats from California, it would be a major blow to the party. Their biggest stronghold is not fully convinced of the flawed legislation.
It looks like the private exchange is a hit. And it should be, eHealth’s website won’t crash if more than four people sign up to enroll.
I have personally used eHealth.com, and found it to be a very good place to sign up for health insurance. Much better than healthcare.gov.
“Are Democratic candidates running away from ObamaCare?”
It doesn’t surprise me considering the awful approval ratings lately. I would disassociate myself from the bill as far as I could.
Once Americans figure out just what America under ObamaCare will be like, they will be in favor of repeal and replacing.
It is not a surprise that the enrollment in private insurance is higher; here in America we prefer small government and free market. We choose private insurance because it is more efficient, effective and better than the one provided by the government. I don’t see why this can surprise anyone. It reflects what the country stands for.
eHealth has more plans available because it is not a “selective contractor”. As long as an insurance policy is legal, eHealth will sell it.
Not so with Covered California, California’s Obamacare exchange. It limits choices beyond what insurance regulations require, so that choices are limited.