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

Marina wrote:


As I said, I know this is slanted, but it really sounds very bad to me.
It seems to me that, in a civilized society, the strong look after the
weak and no one is left to fend for themselves. The law of the jungle
can't prevail in a civilized society.

I fully agree! Somehow in the U.S. this issue has gotten
confused with "Socialism vs Capitalism" (which, believe it
or not, was the argument once used against establishing a
national Post Office Department). We lose sight of the fact
that most of the countries with universal health care are
ALSO capitalists!

jmcquown wrote:

Karen wrote:

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.


Exactly! I'll gladly take supplements, in fact I take multi-vitamins every
day and never noticed whether or not they contain folic acid or not. But I
don't want to be made to feel like a potential milk cow. 'cause that ain't
gonna happen.

Well, as I said in my initial reply, I didn't read the
article (probably as well for my blood-pressure that I
didn't). I just wanted you to be aware that supplements
prescribed for pregnant (or want-to-be-pregnant) women may
confer other, more general, benefits as well!


Jill

badwilson wrote:
jmcquown wrote:

I remember working at my second job, I was about 19. Having lunch in
the breakroom with a bunch of older women and the discussion of
having children came up as they passed around photos of their
children and grandchildren. I mentioned I didn't want to have
children. I was given these really odd looks and told, "Oh, you'll
change your mind." Why? Because I have a uterus? I'm sure these
same women pressured their children into reproducing, and rue the
ones who said they didn't want children!

I've been told that I'll change my mind about not wanting kids since I
was 14. I'm now going to be 34 in just over a week. Still haven't
changed my mind. People are now telling me "That's ok, women are
having kids well into their 40's now, there's plenty of time for you
to change your mind!" Aaargh, shut up already, how old do I have to
be before I stop getting comments like this?!?! Surely by the time
I'm 50, it will be too late to have kids and I won't get these rude
comments anymore??? I can't wait for the day...

Isn't it maddening? I'm 46 and still get these comments. Thank goodness
not from my parents, who know better

But those *other people* who are really strangers... just because they
wanted children and now grandchildren, you are *expected* to conform to
their standards and are saying you still have time? Time for what? Less
time, is what I say! Less time to do the things you enjoy because you're
busy buckling a baby into a car seat or a stroller. Less time enjoying
going to a movie in a theatre because the baby starts to cry. Try to cook
dinner with a toddler hanging on your legs. Try to convince a kid to eat
broccoli or spinach. (Not that my mom had any problem; I was eating
artichokes at age 8 and impressed all the neighborhood kids with how to do
it! LOL)

I have *nothing* against those who choose to have children, mind you. But
if you know you don't want them, please don't pressure those of us who
choose to do anything but admire them from afar

Jill

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


W. Leong wrote:


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.

It WAS 800 until recently! (And my doctor put me on three a day of the
800, which means I must now take six of the 400 to get the prescribed
dosage.)

Besides the muti-vitamin, I used to take a B complex which has
1000 mcg of folic acid.
Is 2400 mcg the new RDA for women of child bearing age?
Do you have a condition that needs extra folic acid?

Cheryl Perkins wrote:


Just ignore people who make rude comments about your personal decisions.
It's none of their business, and life's too short to spend time trying to
educate strangers and acquaintances who make rude personal comments. Or to
let them get under your skin.

Besides which, such comments are TERRIBLY rude! How can
they know that you don't desperately WANT children, have
tried everything available to do so, and simply can't? (In
that case, every such remark is not only annoying, but
painfully cruel!)

"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
...

Eye checkups have gone both ways here, depending on funding I suppose. I
can remember when routine ones for adults were covered. Now they aren't.
What really infuriates me is that I have not one, but two private
insurance policies (due to my previous employment; it's a long story). I
pay both premiums; my current employer also contributes to one policy.
Each company reduced their eye exam coverage from every year to every two
years.

My previous insurance at work pay for annual eye exam while the provinical
insurance
has always just covered biannual exam.


My optometrist has recommended I have an examination every year.
Do you think they'll each pay at two year intervals, one this year, the
other next, giving me annual exams? No, even though both are getting
premiums paid! So I'm paying for every second eye examination; the primary
insurance company is paying for the other annual eye exam, and the
secondary insurance company, which is happily accepting premiums to cover
(among other things) biannual eye exams, doesn't pay a penny. I much
preferred the days when the exam was included in medicare, and my
now-retired and much missed opthalmologist gave me eye exams whenever he
thought them necessary.

My opthalmologist will probably retire soon and I will have to look for a
new
eye doctor unless his associate will take his patients.


Dental care (which was never included under the government medical care
program for adults in this province, although varying amounts is
available for children) works the same way, except that my employer's
dental plan is pretty minimalist, so some stuff isn't covered at all.

Dental care is also not covered here. My dental and physio bills
were my major health expenses.


I am generally very grateful that all my medical care isn't covered by
private insurance - and I have more, and probably better private health
insurance than many people in Canada do. The hassle of paying out,
claiming back and arguing with them over stuff like 'my optometrist is
worried about my eyes and wants to see me in one year, not two'
irritates me, even though it's only for comparatively minor stuff.


That is one of the reasons why I didn't buy my own private health
insurance for some years.
I figure I can just pay for whatever I (and my doctors and dentist)
deem necessary and what I can afford, without having to worry
about whether the insurance will cover it.
I have been relatively healthy and didn't need to take any prescription
drugs and my money goes to vitamins and supplements,
which of course, are not covered.
But it could be they kept me healthy enough not to need medications.
I figure my luck may run out so I am buying private health insurance.
Besides, it is easier to get insurance when you are healthy and not too old.

Winnie
--
Cheryl

Marina wrote:

I didn't mean that the viewpoint was not valid, but I wondered if there
was something he was not telling. Maybe he was telling everything. I'm
used to news reporting where at least two sides of a coin is represented.

I see. Didn't realize it was a news program. I'm used to only one side
being represented in the news (although the media claim that they're
unbiased), so I assume that everything is slanted somehow. I read the
lefty media here, but of course they have their bias, too. Somehow you
have to try to tease out what really happened from all these different
perspectives, and I usually end up feeling like I don't know what really
happened.

Joyce

wafflycat wrote:

Well, here in the UK, you can get a kidney transplant if you need it...
heart transplant if you need it... hip replacement... the major stuff all
the way down to the little stuff.. and you don't have to worry about being
able to afford private insurance to get it.

How about if you're over a certain age? Or weight? Or if you smoke, or
have some other serious health condition in addition to the one that
makes a transplant necessary? Do people get disqualified for being too
old or whatever? Over here they definitely do. This is an issue that
probably doesn't have much to do with whether or not you have national
health. There are only so many available organs, and they have to make
decisions about who gets them. Gives me the chills.

Joyce

Yowie wrote:

Here in Oz, we have a two tiered health system. Everyone gets medicare,
which covers the basics and life threatening conditions...

It isn' perfect, and can be infuriating sometimes
(like a woman on medicare only pays nothing to give birth in hospital, a
woman with health insurance can pay $1000 out of her own pocket to have a
baby in the same hospital with the same doctor in attendance)

I'm confused - in the second paragraph you say that only those on
medicare can get care for free as they give birth, but in the first,
you said that everyone gets medicare. So I don't follow, as that seems
like a contradiction.

Could you please type slowly for the dense?

Joyce

badwilson wrote:

Yes, makes you wonder how long it will be before they actually make it
illegal for any woman of child bearing age to drink, smoke, have cats,
whatever. When that day comes, I will have my uterus surgically
removed, rather than put up with those sorts of rules.

Except that by the time those rules are actually in effect, most likely
a healthy woman of childbearing age - especially one who doesn't have
any kids - wouldn't be able to just walk into a doctor's office and ask
for a hysterectomy. Isn't that hard enough to do now?

I'm not even talking about insurance, but rather, whether one can find
a doctor who will perform a sterilization on demand, without there being
a health problem that makes that necessary (or recommended).

Joyce