Re: health care in the States...??????????per n

[Guest guest]

EEK! Well, when I was young, back in the Jurassic Period, most people had

some form of health care simply because there was this concept of " charity "

and

pro-bono or unpaid work on the part of doctors and hospitals, and because it

did not cause much in any event compared to today--even in proportion to in

come! In the 1930's, when every industrialised nation in the world put in

some

form of universal (by which I do NOT mean 'socialised,' although some are)

me

dical care, the United States was and remains the only industrialised nation

not to

have done so. I am astonished by the variations that work: Canada,

Australia,

Germany and Italy; Latin Americal lags a bit, but not nearly so much as

formerly.

The analogy used by my grandfather, who was horrified that Roosevelt did not

institute some form of universal medical care, was that yes, we all paid

taxes, but

the highway department put in the roads and we did not have to pay for them

by

the mile! (private highways having not been invented then!). Eleanor

Roosevelt,

did want the President to put in universal health care--so much for marital

dis

putes and debates, although I do think that women have more influence on so

ciety today! My own theory is that if men were having babies, going into

labor,

and breast-feeding the little ones, a great deal might be different!

That's what this list gets when someone is kind enough to refer to my

possible

views!

I hope you have all survived it; thank you for mentioning my possible

notions!

Love to all at cfparents,

n Rojas, wcf, mom of 3 VERY adult adults, youngest wcf

ps my grandfathers and greatgrandfathers, who were doctors, were often paid

in CHICKENS and PRODUCE!

Re: health care in the States...

> Natalia,

>

> I speak for the state of Tennessee, where I live. By law, all

> children under 18 are insure, either by the state or private. But if

> the parents are in certain higher bracket and no insurance is

> available, unless the disease is catastrophic, cf is, you are out of

> luck. But, there is nothing like private insurance, which has its

> glitches. We have PPO's and HMO's, so it gets rather complicated.

> To summarize, it stinks, either way, it stinks. But, this is all we

> have so we are lucky that we have it. There are two evils, public

> and private and which one is better, I do not know. I do know that

> we are highly taxed and still we have to pay for private insurance

> and private school. So, I guess you are back to point A, LOL!

> Hopefully, you can get n to give you her point of you, she has

> dealt with all of it longer than I have.

>

> Love to you,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > This is something that me and my mom were discussing last night.

> Let me

> > know what you guys think? Which do you think is more beneficial

> for

> > people with specific disease such as CF, where specialized care and

> > research is needed:

> > 1. The Canadian 'free', all inclusive type care, where I feel I

> never

> > have much of a choice which doctor I see - and I think this makes

> > them lazy since no matter how bad a job they do, they are paid and

> I

> > have to see them

> >

> > OR

> >

> > 2. the US system. Speaks for itself, where there seems to be more

> > choice.

> >

> > I always wonder. I find the health care here aweful for

> specialties.

> > When you break a lef, hey its great. but otherwise I am not so

> > convinced.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

My own theory is that if men were having babies, going into

> labor,

> and breast-feeding the little ones, a great deal might be

different!>

Well of course things would be different.....WE WOULD BE EXTINCT!(

heehee, sorry guys, I could'nt let that one go)

e