Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Opioids have been around for 1000s of years though. Numerous wars have been fought over them in the past. They have been popular recreation ally for a very long time.
We didnt see this kind of thing in the past with unfit mothers and kids ending up without anyone to care for them or in foster care, so I dont think opioids are to blame
It seems like more women than ever are getting pregnant when they can't even take care of themselves.
Liberals have been treating children and parenthood as a joke since the early 70s and now there is a generation of children that will be growing up in foster homes.
Unlike former generations that had family-values, there is all of the sudden a massive amount of females who are having babies and all of the sudden and out of blue they decide parenting isn't for them so they just send their children to foster homes so they can have a vacation from parenthood and form a new relationship and maybe have another baby.
Why are so many female heroin addicts with codependency problems getting pregnant and having as many babies as they can.
I think much of the problem is Obamacare and the health exchanges sending these female heroin addicts to "treatment" for a only a tiny out of pocket expense and then they meet a heroin addict male and the female with issues starts having babies to keep the man.
This increase in foster care didn't start until around the time Obamacare was implemented. So one can't help but conclude that codependent females are forming relationships with men in treatment and having babies and relapsing.
Sadly, because of Obamacare and the free "treatment" programs these female heroin addicts are there is a tremendous amount of children in foster care that hard-working taxpayers are paying for.
Seems like unlike past generations there are a tremendous amount of lonely millennial females who are getting pregnant when they can't take of themselves and then all of the sudden they decide they don't want the baby and that the state should take care of it, while they go on a vacation from parenthood at the taxpayer's expense.
So it's all the woman's fault? Did she impregnate herself?
Opioids have been around for 1000s of years though. Numerous wars have been fought over them in the past. They have been popular recreation ally for a very long time.
We didnt see this kind of thing in the past with unfit mothers and kids ending up without anyone to care for them or in foster care, so I dont think opioids are to blame
As the first article in the OP notes, if you overlay the worst-hit states from the opioid crisis, & the states with the greatest increase in minor children going into state child care, you get a match. Even if opioids aren't the primary cause, they're @ least a related causal (or symptomatic, if you prefer) trigger.
In any event, the question is what to do about the horns of the dilemma. One is to improve control of opioids, to make sure they only go to people with a legitimate Rx, & that patients are weaned off opioids as quickly as possible, consonant with good care.
The second is to provide childcare centers for all the affected children, to @ least give them a good academic start in life - socializing them would also be a good thing. Make sure they get decent, balanced meals, milk, cut back on excess sugar, fat, salt. There's a lot that could be done.
If nothing else, we could brush off the childcare plans & procedures that we used in WWII (women were drawn into factory/office/farm work - wherever there were labor gaps as men were pulled into the military or critical industries. We've done it before, we could do it again. We could also take advantage of the opportunity to educate the children against substance abuse.
Presumably this childcare effort would be temporary, while we figure out how to combat the opioid crisis. Given the amounts of money & poliltical vigorish changing hands in the pharmaceutical/medical/Congressial triangle, however, I expect that childcare would be as temporary as the Quonset huts we still find across the country, here & there. Of course, if this scheme works to help combat the opioid crisis, perhaps we could extend it to help fight poverty? Illiteracy? It's a thought ...
Popular media has created a "Sex in the City" society, and has been teaching women to have willy-nilly sex with anyone without consequence.
Eventually reality sets in, and problems like this are likely to be the result of it.
Yes because we all get our cues for "Sex in the City".
When children are taken by DCS or are abandoned by their parents it is not because they had will-nilly sex. Its often due to drug addictions and often drug addictions that began after the children were born as well it is not always single parents but married parents and divorced parents.
It seems like more women than ever are getting pregnant when they can't even take care of themselves.
Liberals have been treating children and parenthood as a joke since the early 70s and now there is a generation of children that will be growing up in foster homes.
Unlike former generations that had family-values, there is all of the sudden a massive amount of females who are having babies and all of the sudden and out of blue they decide parenting isn't for them so they just send their children to foster homes so they can have a vacation from parenthood and form a new relationship and maybe have another baby.
Why are so many female heroin addicts with codependency problems getting pregnant and having as many babies as they can.
I think much of the problem is Obamacare and the health exchanges sending these female heroin addicts to "treatment" for a only a tiny out of pocket expense and then they meet a heroin addict male and the female with issues starts having babies to keep the man.
This increase in foster care didn't start until around the time Obamacare was implemented. So one can't help but conclude that codependent females are forming relationships with men in treatment and having babies and relapsing.
Sadly, because of Obamacare and the free "treatment" programs these female heroin addicts are there is a tremendous amount of children in foster care that hard-working taxpayers are paying for.
Seems like unlike past generations there are a tremendous amount of lonely millennial females who are getting pregnant when they can't take of themselves and then all of the sudden they decide they don't want the baby and that the state should take care of it, while they go on a vacation from parenthood at the taxpayer's expense.
Your article explains the real reason, so why do you feel compelled to invent a partisan reason of your own?
It seems like more women than ever are getting pregnant when they can't even take care of themselves.
Liberals have been treating children and parenthood as a joke since the early 70s and now there is a generation of children that will be growing up in foster homes.
Unlike former generations that had family-values, there is all of the sudden a massive amount of females who are having babies and all of the sudden and out of blue they decide parenting isn't for them so they just send their children to foster homes so they can have a vacation from parenthood and form a new relationship and maybe have another baby.
Why are so many female heroin addicts with codependency problems getting pregnant and having as many babies as they can.
I think much of the problem is Obamacare and the health exchanges sending these female heroin addicts to "treatment" for a only a tiny out of pocket expense and then they meet a heroin addict male and the female with issues starts having babies to keep the man.
This increase in foster care didn't start until around the time Obamacare was implemented. So one can't help but conclude that codependent females are forming relationships with men in treatment and having babies and relapsing.
Sadly, because of Obamacare and the free "treatment" programs these female heroin addicts are there is a tremendous amount of children in foster care that hard-working taxpayers are paying for.
Seems like unlike past generations there are a tremendous amount of lonely millennial females who are getting pregnant when they can't take of themselves and then all of the sudden they decide they don't want the baby and that the state should take care of it, while they go on a vacation from parenthood at the taxpayer's expense.
That is an outrageous statement that negates the value of everything else you have to say. The opioid epidemic is a huge problem and there is a lot of blame to go around. To lay it at the feet of those who fall on the left side of the aisle is, frankly, inexcusable.
As the first article in the OP notes, if you overlay the worst-hit states from the opioid crisis, & the states with the greatest increase in minor children going into state child care, you get a match. Even if opioids aren't the primary cause, they're @ least a related causal (or symptomatic, if you prefer) trigger.
In any event, the question is what to do about the horns of the dilemma. One is to improve control of opioids, to make sure they only go to people with a legitimate Rx, & that patients are weaned off opioids as quickly as possible, consonant with good care.
The second is to provide childcare centers for all the affected children, to @ least give them a good academic start in life - socializing them would also be a good thing. Make sure they get decent, balanced meals, milk, cut back on excess sugar, fat, salt. There's a lot that could be done.
If nothing else, we could brush off the childcare plans & procedures that we used in WWII (women were drawn into factory/office/farm work - wherever there were labor gaps as men were pulled into the military or critical industries. We've done it before, we could do it again. We could also take advantage of the opportunity to educate the children against substance abuse.
Presumably this childcare effort would be temporary, while we figure out how to combat the opioid crisis. Given the amounts of money & poliltical vigorish changing hands in the pharmaceutical/medical/Congressial triangle, however, I expect that childcare would be as temporary as the Quonset huts we still find across the country, here & there. Of course, if this scheme works to help combat the opioid crisis, perhaps we could extend it to help fight poverty? Illiteracy? It's a thought ...
There is too much money to be made from opioids, insurance companies love them because they are cheap, compared to other treatments. Everyone knows insurance and pharma industries have ALOT of power and influence in our Govt too.
Like i said above, there have always been wars back and forth relating to opioids, even going back 1000s of years, I doubt this is going to stop anytime soon, as long as there is a big demand for them, someone will be there to supply, (legal or not)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An Rx for melancholy
