[OT] Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500875_pf.html

I am *not* pre-pregnant. I am human. If I'm going to worry about
alcohol consumption, proper weight, and vitamins, it will be because
of *my* health, not some hypothetical baby. It's insulting. It's
demeaning. As a blog I found somewhere said, reading this makes me
want to down 20 shots of tequila and throw myself down the stairs.

I am not a baby factory. I am on birth control for a reason. Even if
I weren't, I would still find this kind of patronizing, "We know what
you want better than you do and don't trust you to figure out the
right end of a condom" bull**** infuriating.

Here's a quote from the WP article:

"We know that women -- unless you're actively planning [a pregnancy],
.. . . she doesn't want to talk about it," Biermann said. So clinicians
must find a "way to do this and not scare women," by promoting
preconception care as part of standard women's health care, she said.

Now, that is scary. They're advocating that physicians not make the
distinction between treatments that are good for a woman and ones that
might be good for a hypothetical fetus.

*kicks Bush administration in the nads, hard*

This one really scares me, although apparently it's ongoing and only
tangentially related to the article ... a woman claims she can't get
access to the majority of epilepsy medications because she's female
and therefore potentially could get pregnant, even though she is
asking desperately to try different meds:

http://shadesong.livejournal.com/2871261.html

What an odd moment for me. In the past week, the wives of two of my
male friends gave birth. Certainly healthy babies are on my mind.
But don't call me pre-pregnant. What a crock.

I do find one poster's suggestion (somewhere; I've been googling
around and don't remember all the places I went) that all men should
be advised to start a "pre-child support" account amusing.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

I forgot to mention that the cat litter issue reared its ugly head
again: they recommend that all women between onset of menstruation and
menopause refrain from cleaning litterboxes, you know, just in case.

Aaargh.

After reading some more articles, I can sort of almost see that they
mean well, but the term "pre-pregnant" still makes me want to retch.

The other thing I meant to mention is, this dovetails nicely with the
issue of tax-supported health care. Do we really think the problem
with infant mortality in this country is due to well-off individuals
refusing to take their folic acid, or could it possibly be the large
number of women who don't have access to good medical treatment or
contraceptive information?

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes. That's why Canadian doctors are
moving to the more lucrative US, and it takes weeks or months to get
tests done. In order to get medical coverage with anything near the
responsiveness of our current system with govt-supported health care,
we would need to spend big bucks on taxes. And I just don't see that
happening. If Canadians aren't willing to shell out big tax bucks to
get medical service as prompt as that available in the US under an
insurance system, I just can't see USians doing it.

Sorry if this comes across as more inflammatory than I meant it to be
-- I'm pretty tired, but I wanted to post this. Tomorrow I guess I'll
find out if it was a good idea or not.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health care. Or
did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the taxes?

--
Marina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki.
Stories and pics at http://koti.welho.com/mkurten/
Pics at http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/frankiennikki/
and http://community.webshots.com/user/frankiennikki

"Marina" wrote in message
...
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health care. Or
did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the taxes?

It always ends up sounding like the only people in the US who get health
care are those with employer insurance and those who are wealthy.

There are a lot of provisions for low cost and free health care for low
income families, for children and for the elderly and disabled. All paid
for by our taxes.

There are low cost insurance plans in many states for low income people.

The biggest holes in the system are those who do not have jobs that pay for
insurance. And who in theory earn enough to buy their own insurance but
choose not to.

Of course its a long way from perfect and needs a great deal of improvement.

Jo

Jo Firey wrote:
"Marina" wrote in message
...
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong
--
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health
care. Or did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the
taxes?

It always ends up sounding like the only people in the US who get
health care are those with employer insurance and those who are
wealthy.

There are a lot of provisions for low cost and free health care for
low income families, for children and for the elderly and disabled.
All paid for by our taxes.

There are low cost insurance plans in many states for low income
people.

The biggest holes in the system are those who do not have jobs that
pay for insurance. And who in theory earn enough to buy their own
insurance but choose not to.

Of course its a long way from perfect and needs a great deal of
improvement.

Jo

The problem is the term "families". I have to purchase my own personal
health insurance. I don't qualify for any sort of assistance from the
government because I don't have children. I have NO income; I'm living off
my retirement fund and gifts from my family and friends. I don't get any
assistance from the government because I don't have children. Trust me,
I've checked into it. There also isn't a "national" healthcare plan; all
the rules are up to the individual states. Maybe in another state I could
get some assistance and not have to pay for my own insurance, but not in TN.
I don't qualify.

I also don't qualify for food stamps (WIC), but I *can* go to the food
pantry and get a box of food if need be; they don't have such stringent
requirements.

Somehow I'm managing to hold it all together but I'm not sure how long I can
keep this up.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

I have NO income; I'm living off
my retirement fund and gifts from my family and friends.

I think you are just war weary, as in...

been there done that...

you don't strike me as lazy..

maybe you get depressed when you are pulled from the things you
actually enjoy doing... where mooching from family and friends enables
you to do the things you enjoy...

so you endure the shame of mooching for the benefit of doing the things
you enjoy

but who are we fooling.. nobody rides for free

what do you have to do to get these gifts

take their phone calls?
stroke their egos?

rake in the pity...

pity is love Jill, and YOU are looking for love in the wrong places

you think gifts are love, they are not! that's just money, I bet if the
right guy came along, you would be delighted to quit your career as a
professional moocher.

why don't you just hit your Dad up for a lump sum and start your own
business

stop ****ing around before you become an old woman and find yourself
sitting on side your bed shaking your head thinking "wonder what would
have happened if I would have just..."...

see.. I already know.. Daddy keeps baby with the monies...

Daddy needs his baby, I think he should enrich you with enough at one
time to actually do something with! more than just getting by etc...

If you could just re-assure him of your love regardless of the money, I
think he just might give you a lump (hehe)... that is actually enough
to do something with!

and so what if you fail at that! you won't know till you try and you
won't die with no regrets

I would. what's his number, does he need any sons?

I'd have pops rollin round town with women hanging all over him...and I
flag hanging on the antenna saying "chillin the most"

"Jo Firey" wrote in message
et...

"Marina" wrote in message
...
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health care. Or
did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the taxes?

It always ends up sounding like the only people in the US who get health
care are those with employer insurance and those who are wealthy.

There are a lot of provisions for low cost and free health care for low
income families, for children and for the elderly and disabled. All paid
for by our taxes.

There are low cost insurance plans in many states for low income people.

The biggest holes in the system are those who do not have jobs that pay
for
insurance. And who in theory earn enough to buy their own insurance but
choose not to.

Or can't. Even when I was earning a very good salary in Virginia, even when
I was looking at high-deductible policies coupled to Medical Savings
Accounts, no company would accept me for private insurance as an individual.
There were some options through professional societies, but at $1000/month
or more with 2-3 year exceptions for preexisting conditions.

"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

"Jo Firey" wrote in message
et...

"Marina" wrote in message
...
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health care.
Or
did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the taxes?

It always ends up sounding like the only people in the US who get health
care are those with employer insurance and those who are wealthy.

There are a lot of provisions for low cost and free health care for low
income families, for children and for the elderly and disabled. All
paid
for by our taxes.

There are low cost insurance plans in many states for low income people.

The biggest holes in the system are those who do not have jobs that pay
for
insurance. And who in theory earn enough to buy their own insurance but
choose not to.

Or can't. Even when I was earning a very good salary in Virginia, even
when
I was looking at high-deductible policies coupled to Medical Savings
Accounts, no company would accept me for private insurance as an
individual.
There were some options through professional societies, but at $1000/month
or more with 2-3 year exceptions for preexisting conditions.

I pay $90 a fortnight for *top cover* for myself, Joel & Cary. Pre-existing
conditions aren't covered for the first 6 months of insurance, unless of
course there's some special offer somewhere (and there often is). Pregnancy
counts as a pre-existing condition! LOL.

Boy does your insurance cost heaps!

Yowie

Yowie

Jo Firey wrote:

"Marina" wrote in message
...

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:


I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health care. Or
did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the taxes?


It always ends up sounding like the only people in the US who get health
care are those with employer insurance and those who are wealthy.

"Sounds like" because, for the majority of the employed
population, it's the TRUTH!

There are a lot of provisions for low cost and free health care for low
income families, for children and for the elderly and disabled. All paid
for by our taxes.

There are low cost insurance plans in many states for low income people.

That's true - but the government's definition of "low
income" isn't always realistic!


The biggest holes in the system are those who do not have jobs that pay for
insurance. And who in theory earn enough to buy their own insurance but
choose not to.

I suppose that's true, in a way - unless they "choose" to
provide their families with food and shelter, instead!


Of course its a long way from perfect and needs a great deal of improvement.

They might start the "improvement" by returning to the way
things were, back in the 1950's, when unions were strong,
and all union members were provided with coverage for
themselves and their dependants! Things have deteriorated
considerably since then, without workers noticing and
objecting, unfortunately. True, the premiums were employer
paid, but if you were laid off or changed jobs, it didn't
affect your medical coverage, so long as you were still a
union member.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Jo Firey wrote:


There are low cost insurance plans in many states for low income people.

That's true - but the government's definition of "low income" isn't always
realistic!


The biggest holes in the system are those who do not have jobs that pay
for insurance. And who in theory earn enough to buy their own insurance
but choose not to.

I suppose that's true, in a way - unless they "choose" to provide their
families with food and shelter, instead!



I absolutely agree on both. Low income definitions are unrealistic and
ideas of income levels where you should be able to buy insurance don't even
begin to take into consideration what insurance costs. And that is when you
qualify to buy it.

Yes there are those who chose to buy a new car and take a chance without
insurance. Kind of like Russian roulette with your finances.

In real life many who run up large medical bills end up going bankrupt and
starting over. Counties pick up a portion of the medical bills for the
"indigent" and you can become indigent pretty fast when you can't work.

It is amazing how fast hospitals and clinics can get disability or
MediCal/Medicaid paperwork through when then know its the only way they will
get paid.

When they don't get paid, they either go broke and leave whole areas without
hospitals or they pass the cost on to everyone else.

I'm not sure on this, but in the US isn't it true that any hospital that is
a medicare provider (and that is most large hospitals) have to provide
emergency care to anyone? And keep them until they are stable to be
released?

Jo