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

On 2006-05-28, penned:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-05-27, penned:

These are just recommendations though. No different from the
recommendation that we have yearly mammograms, pap smears, don't
smoke, eat right and exercise. No one's going to throw you in jail
for not taking folic acid. At least, not yet. :-)

Of course it's different. They recommend yearly mammograms and pap
smears for *your* health. Not just in case you get pregnant. Same
for the others.

You missed my point. Point being, the government doesn't enforce those
recommendations. They're just recommendations. I wasn't referring to
the *reason* for the recommendations, which I know is what you're
steamed about specifically.

So in some ways it's like the recommendation for yearly mammograms,
and in some ways it's not. I'm upset about the way that it's not.

I still am curious to see where we next go in this handbasket on a
road paved with curiously marked stones.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2006-05-27, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:


Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2006-05-27, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:

What's your objection to folic acid?


I can't speak for Jill, but my objection is against being told I
should do something for a non-existent and undesired fetus, rather
than for myself.

Forget the fictional "possible fetus", and think of the benefits it
provides for women in general, whatever their age or reproductive
status! Why refuse to take something just because ONE of its many
benefits is to produce healthier babies? (And not just women's
health, if you read what Howard has to say on the subject.)


I'm not going to avoid doing something good for me just to "so there"
the medical establishment. But I'm certainly not going to look out
for my health for a fictional fetus that I don't plan on having. I'll
do it for me.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2006-05-28, Enfilade penned:

As a side note: I took offense to the cat-litter portion of that
article. For goodness sakes, they didn't even mention gloves and
masks and being careful. It left the impression that *no* woman of
child-bearing age should change the cat litter. How silly!


Is there a bright side?

Can I now convince DP that the litterbox is his job, and his
alone????


I tried that on DH. No go. Plus, I don't think I'd trust him to be
terribly diligent about it (which would be pretty bad, as I don't
clean them nearly as often as I probably should).

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-05-28, penned:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2006-05-27, penned:

These are just recommendations though. No different from the
recommendation that we have yearly mammograms, pap smears, don't
smoke, eat right and exercise. No one's going to throw you in jail
for not taking folic acid. At least, not yet. :-)

Of course it's different. They recommend yearly mammograms and pap
smears for *your* health. Not just in case you get pregnant. Same
for the others.

You missed my point. Point being, the government doesn't enforce those
recommendations. They're just recommendations. I wasn't referring to
the *reason* for the recommendations, which I know is what you're
steamed about specifically.

So in some ways it's like the recommendation for yearly mammograms,
and in some ways it's not. I'm upset about the way that it's not.

I still am curious to see where we next go in this handbasket on a
road paved with curiously marked stones.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

Don't get me wrong Monique. I understand exactly why you're ****ed
about this. I also think it's just plain weird. I can only assume the
root reason is the fact that our mortality rate is allegedly three
times higher than, say, Japan and other countries and our government in
its wisdom (?) could only come up with such a cockamamie plan to try to
alleviate that.
What about us post-menopausal ladies? Doesn't the government care what
*we* do? Don't they care whether we take folic acid or not? In the
future, are we just going to be the designated litterbox scoopers?

Sherry

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

I tried that on DH. No go. Plus, I don't think I'd trust him to be
terribly diligent about it (which would be pretty bad, as I don't
clean them nearly as often as I probably should).


I do my litter box duty at least once every day. Rusty demands it.
If I don't do my duty with due diligence, Rusty may leave me a present
on the floor. That will be even more work.
But I don't clean my bathroom every day.


Winnie
--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

W. Leong wrote:
"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...

I tried that on DH. No go. Plus, I don't think I'd trust him to be
terribly diligent about it (which would be pretty bad, as I don't
clean them nearly as often as I probably should).


I do my litter box duty at least once every day. Rusty demands it.
If I don't do my duty with due diligence, Rusty may leave me a present
on the floor. That will be even more work.
But I don't clean my bathroom every day.

Winnie

You just wait; your government (and ours) will mandate mandatory toilet and
tub cleanings in the interest of our health and the health of any possible
children.

Jill

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

True, they are considered "food", so not covered by medical insurance.
However, folic acid is NOT one of the expensive ones. (And many others
you can find in similar strengths for a lot less than the "name" brands -
it just takes a little label-reading.)

I am taking a Waltmart brand of multi-vitamin.
It has 600 mcg of folic acid. That should be enough as
the RDA for folic acid is 400 mcg.

Winnie

I became a firm believer in
supplements after I read a book about the benefits of vitamin E, back in
the 1960's. At the time I was going through a bad patch, emotionally -
almost to the point of considering suicide. I started taking fairly large
doses of vitamin E. True to the author's claims my mood swings improved
dramatically, and I've been a believer ever since!

If my doctor
recommends folic acid, I'll be happy to take it.

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...
W. Leong wrote:
You just wait; your government (and ours) will mandate mandatory toilet
and
tub cleanings in the interest of our health and the health of any possible
children.

Jill


Yes, and when I break my back scrubbing the tub, my government
insurance will pay for back surgery, but not physiotherapy.

On 2006-05-27 18:35:12 -0500, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
said:



Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2006-05-27, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:

What's your objection to folic acid?


I can't speak for Jill, but my objection is against being told I
should do something for a non-existent and undesired fetus, rather
than for myself.

Forget the fictional "possible fetus", and think of the benefits it
provides for women in general, whatever their age or reproductive
status! Why refuse to take something just because ONE of its many
benefits is to produce healthier babies? (And not just women's health,
if you read what Howard has to say on the subject.)

I don't think anyone objects to taking supplements. It's the idea that
you are looked at as a potential baby machine only and treated from
that direction. Viewed from that aspect. The total sum of any woman is
not as a baby maker and to be so pointed about it as this article is,
and to say it's been discussed for 20 years, makes one feel rather like
a cow.



It also seems to start pushing people in the "it's a baby" direction.
With abortion being such a touchy subject in the US, I don't want any
kind of official pronouncements that seem to encourage a thought
process that would make abortion illegal.

Oh well, I'm certainly 100% with you on that! (Even though the days
when I might have personally needed such services are long behind me.)

"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