m…@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>Thalidomide has been completely banned, for use by anyone.
>Appliance of what is so inaptly termed "this kind of reasoning"
>would mean that alcohol should also be banned completely. Not that
>pregnant women shouldn’t be allowed to drink.
Maybe alcohol should be treated like Accutane. For those of you
unfamiliar with it, Accutane is a teratogenic substance, much like
alcohol. Women who wish to use it must be tested and found not pregnant
and must be on contraceptives for the duration.
(this I know because a friend of mine did it)
–
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
In article <1991Apr5.205610….@amd.com> p…@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>Maybe alcohol should be treated like Accutane. For those of you
>unfamiliar with it, Accutane is a teratogenic substance, much like
>alcohol. Women who wish to use it must be tested and found not pregnant
>and must be on contraceptives for the duration.
Maybe alcohol should be banned entirely because men who drink it may have
abnormalities in their sperm, and also might cause cost to the taxpayer in
lost work time, health benefits, etc. etc.
So, where do we stop?
oobl…@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) writes:
>In article <1991Apr5.205610….@amd.com> p…@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>Maybe alcohol should be treated like Accutane. For those of you
>>unfamiliar with it, Accutane is a teratogenic substance, much like
>>alcohol. Women who wish to use it must be tested and found not pregnant
>>and must be on contraceptives for the duration.
>Maybe alcohol should be banned entirely because men who drink it may have
>abnormalities in their sperm, and also might cause cost to the taxpayer in
>lost work time, health benefits, etc. etc.
Sounds reasonable… aside from some medicinal advantages, do people really
need alcohol?
>So, where do we stop?
Wherever the rich people decide we should.
papa sm00sh
—
jadah…@acsu.buffalo.edu
v285r…@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
fi…@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>And I agree 100%. The rate of Caesarian births in this country is
>far higher than average, and there is no evidence it is either
>necessary or beneficial. Certainly the US infant mortality rate
>is nothing to boast about.
The aggegrate USIMR is worse than many other countries. The white
USIMR is not much worse than many other white countries like our
neighbors to the north with their much bragged about socialized medicine.
–
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
In article <1991Apr10.012358.16…@amd.com> p…@brahms.amd.com (Phil
Ngai) writes:
The aggegrate USIMR is worse than many other countries. The white
USIMR is not much worse than many other white countries like our
neighbors to the north with their much bragged about socialized medicine.
Is this supposed to make us feel better? Try again.
—
Amanda Walker ama…@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. …!uunet!visix!amanda
—
"If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about
other people." –Virginia Woolf
In article <2800AA7C.2…@intercon.com>, oobl…@intercon.com (Mikki
Barry) writes:
|> So, where do we stop?
I personally think we should have killed Hamurabi(sp?) and nipped this
law stuff in the bud.
d’baba Duane M. Hentrich …!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
or b…@opus.tymnet.com
Claimer: These are only opinions since everything I know is wrong.
Copyright notice: If you’re going to copy it, copy it right.
is the fact that the WHITE infant mortality rate is approximately the same as
in other countries supposed to excuse the fact that the non-white rate is
higher? i dont buy it. it simply means that if you don’t have the money for
pre-natal care, as many non-whites AND many whites do not, your baby can die
for all society cares. doesnt make it any better to me.
socialized medicine has its drawbacks, but it at least helps even out infant
mortality rates between middle- and upper-class women, and poor women.
also, my atlas shows the u.s. having only one neighbor to the north.
-cindy kandolf
ci…@solan.unit.no
trondheim, norway
In article <1991Apr11.164639*Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no>, Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
> is the fact that the WHITE infant mortality rate is approximately the same as
> in other countries supposed to excuse the fact that the non-white rate is
> higher? i dont buy it. it simply means that if you don’t have the money for
> pre-natal care, as many non-whites AND many whites do not, your baby can die
> for all society cares. doesnt make it any better to me.
This assumes that lack of pre-natal care caused by lack of money is the
cause of the problem. This MIGHT be true — bit it needs to be
demonstrated. Alcohol and tobacco use is MUCH higher among blacks than
whites in the U.S., and not surprisingly, both are associated with
infant mortality problems. That’s not a problem of lack of money,
but of too much. Anyone that has money to drink or smoke, clearly
isn’t poor.
> socialized medicine has its drawbacks, but it at least helps even out infant
> mortality rates between middle- and upper-class women, and poor women.
It does? Based on what? Is it possible that countries with socialized
medicine are also dramatically more homogenous than the U.S.? Does
anyone have infant mortality rates for Canadians by race?
> -cindy kandolf
–
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;" — from New York’s
request for a bill of Rights, July 26, 1788.
cra…@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>It does? Based on what? Is it possible that countries with socialized
>medicine are also dramatically more homogenous than the U.S.? Does
>anyone have infant mortality rates for Canadians by race?
As far as I can tell, Canadians are almost all white or honorable
whites. They like to brag that they are not all white, they don’t
tell you the non-whites are the yellows. This is based on half an
hour in two libraries trying to look up racial stats for Canada.
You can also walk down the streets of cities like Vancouver and
come to the same conclusion.
–
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
>is the fact that the WHITE infant mortality rate is approximately the same as
>in other countries supposed to excuse the fact that the non-white rate is
What it says is that you can’t compare apples and oranges,
socialized medicine for whites and honorable whites vs
non-socialized medicine for whites and blacks, and conclude
socialized medicine is better.
>socialized medicine has its drawbacks, but it at least helps even out infant
>mortality rates between middle- and upper-class women, and poor women.
You’re just making a wild claim without any justification.
–
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
the idea that minority women are more likely to have a stillborn child because
they are more likely to smoke, drink, use drugs or whatever, strikes me as a
simple rewriting of the old "its their own fault"/"they bring it on themselves"
argument. people used to say blacks were poor because they were "shiftless".
now some people seem to feel jusitified in saying more black babies die at
birth or shortly after because of what their mothers did. why cant people
admit that "the system" doesnt work for everyone? why is it so hard to admit
that society has a role in these things??
if you can find me statistics to prove that the larger number of early infant
deaths among u.s. non-whites is because of the mothers behavior during
pregnancy, ill gladly eat my words. until then, i will continue to believe
you just want to wash white societys hands of any guilt.
-cindy kandolf
ci…@solan.unit.no
trondheim, norway
what is an "honorable white"?
okay, perhaps i cant do a strict comparison, because the socialized medicine
scheme i am most familiar with is norways, and norway is something close to
99% white. nonetheless, the infant mortality rates and life exectancy
rates, both of which are partially determined by a persons access to medical
care, are much more level than in the states, between groups at different
income levels. or are you implying that blacks are somehow "medically"
different than whites?
i have experience now with both the u.s. and the norwegian system of care.
permit me to digress into a personal story which does not directly apply to
infant mortality but may help you understand my enthusiasm for norways
socialized system. for about a year before i left the states i had clusters
of terrible sinus headaches, i mean so bad i couldnt see straight, and
sometimes could not walk. i went to the infirmary at my college (which was
free, because i had paid my health services fee), but they could not determine
what was causing them. i would have to go to an ear, nose, and throat
specialist, they said. that of course was not covered by my fee, and there
was no way i could afford it. no way my parents could afford it either, they
said when i asked. so i just learned to put up with the headaches, since
over-the-counter medicines only helped sometimes. then i got married and
moved here to norway. i made an appointment for a medical check up, and to
get a birth control prescription. my norwegian wasnt very good at the time,
so my husband offered to come with me to help with the language. while there,
he brought up the subject of my headaches. the GP listened to the whole story,
and said "i ll put you in touch with a specialist at the hospital." she wrote
down the specialists name, office adress, and phone number for us, then wrote
out my prescription. cost of that visit, about US$12. we visited the
specialist, cost including a seried of face and head x-rays a few days later,
US$20! well, the problem hasnt been totally solved yet, partially because the
headaches have not appeared since december and he wants to examine me while
i am having one before he makes a final diagnosis. but the wonderful thing
for me is to know that i can afford to have this problem fixed. please dont
try to belittle these headaches if you havent experienced them yourself. they
take over your whole life when they happen.
i am certainly not trying to argue that the socialized system is without
flaws. the waits for non-emergency help can be long, though not as bad as
the horror stories (which i do not know for certain are true) one hears from
great britain. this area has some especially long lists for orthopedic
surgery, for example, although if the patient can travel to another city
called roeros about 2 hours drive away the wait is greatly reduced. but i can
tell you from experience how much of a difference there is between suffering
and knowing there will be no help for you (because you cant pay), and
suffering but knowing the time will come when a doctor will DO something
about it.
a question to ask yourself – do you doubt me because you really dont think
this system could work, or because youre afraid of the socialist bogeyman?
-cindy kandolf
ci…@solan.unit.no
trondheim, norway
Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
>now some people seem to feel jusitified in saying more black babies die at
>birth or shortly after because of what their mothers did. why cant people
>admit that "the system" doesnt work for everyone? why is it so hard to admit
>that society has a role in these things??
>if you can find me statistics to prove that the larger number of early infant
>deaths among u.s. non-whites is because of the mothers behavior during
>pregnancy, ill gladly eat my words. until then, i will continue to believe
Since the white infant mortality rate of the US and Canada are very
similar, how can anyone think the US medical system is inferior to
Canada’s?
>you just want to wash white societys hands of any guilt.
Yes, I’m very white, how perceptive of you.
–
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
>okay, perhaps i cant do a strict comparison, because the socialized medicine
>scheme i am most familiar with is norways, and norway is something close to
>99% white. nonetheless, the infant mortality rates and life exectancy
Well, at least you’re honest enough to admit there may be factors you
have no experience with.
>rates, both of which are partially determined by a persons access to medical
>care, are much more level than in the states, between groups at different
>income levels. or are you implying that blacks are somehow "medically"
>different than whites?
Two issues. When you overload a system with patients who abuse themselves,
then either costs go way up, or medical care gets severely rationed.
That’s the down side to your system that you ignore. And you can ignore
because it’s not likely to happen in your society. But you shouldn’t ignore
it when trying to tell Americans what to do.
Second, even if there were infinite resources, which there aren’t, there
is only so much the medical system can do. What really counts is the way
people take care of themselves. Again, you don’t really understand that
your country is different from the US.
>i have experience now with both the u.s. and the norwegian system of care.
>permit me to digress into a personal story which does not directly apply to
<long story about how she got something for practically nothing>
Let’s face it, most Americans don’t like socialism as much as many
Europeans. Maybe because some of us know there’s no such thing
as a free lunch. Somebody always pays. And if you keep stealing
from the rich, then eventually people see no reason to work hard.
~
~
~
~
—
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
i never said the u.s. medical system is inferior to canada’s. i was merely
saying the distribution of care is uneven in the u.s. matter of fact i never
brought up canada. you did.
and i dont think europeans think there IS such a thing as a free lunch.
taxes are very high in norway and most of the rest of europe. it’s just
europeans feel theyre getting a pretty fair deal on what they pay for their
lunch.
-cindy kandolf
ci…@solan.unit.no
trondheim, norway
p.s. if you’re going to continue this argument, now that it’s gotten silly,
could you at least READ what i write first? thank you.
Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
>and i dont think europeans think there IS such a thing as a free lunch.
>taxes are very high in norway and most of the rest of europe. it’s just
>europeans feel theyre getting a pretty fair deal on what they pay for their
>lunch.
Fine, why don’t you try buying lunch for all of the US’s citizens
including the ones who think graduating from high school is something
to be ridiculed, before telling us how great a system it is and how we
should do it your way.
–
The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
p…@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> As far as I can tell, Canadians are almost all white or honorable
> whites. They like to brag that they are not all white,
What the heck is an "honorable white"? Do you perhaps mean "honorary"?
—
Tom Fitzgerald Wang Labs f…@wang.com
1-508-967-5278 Lowell MA, USA …!uunet!wang!fitz
In article <1991Apr16.230934*Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no>,
|> [.......]
|> i have experience now with both the u.s. and the norwegian system of care.
|> permit me to digress into a personal story which does not directly apply to
|> infant mortality but may help you understand my enthusiasm for norways
|> socialized system. for about a year before i left the states i had clusters
|> of terrible sinus headaches, i mean so bad i couldnt see straight, and
|> sometimes could not walk. i went to the infirmary at my college (which was
|> free, because i had paid my health services fee), but they could not determine
|> what was causing them.
What you had was an experience with your school’s system of care, which
is not, to be fair, descriptive of most people’s experiences.
[.....] …please dont
|> try to belittle these headaches if you havent experienced them yourself. they
|> take over your whole life when they happen.
|>
|> [......]
|> a question to ask yourself – do you doubt me because you really dont think
|> this system could work, or because youre afraid of the socialist bogeyman?
|>
Cindy – if your "you" refers to what someone specific wrote, you should
include the text of what you are replying to.
If not – what makes you think anyone is doubting you? Sounds to me like
you’re either trying to start a fight or are fighting one that no one
else knows about.
–
Greg Parkinson (GregBear) Phone: 212-657-7814
Citibank Fax: 212-825-8607
111 Wall Street E-Mail: uunet!ibism!glp
New York, NY 10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big ‘ol bank.
In article <1991Apr11.164639*Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no> Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
>socialized medicine has its drawbacks, but it at least helps even out infant
>mortality rates between middle- and upper-class women, and poor women.
I recently have had the opportunity to compare the efficiency of socialized
vs. market medical systems.
A lady who was camping at the same place in Texas I was at needed a
prescription refilled (her car had died). She belongs to the Veterans
Administration system of medical care, so we set out for the VA clinic
in Austin, TX. She lives in New England. The VA said they couldn’t
fill a prescription from another region, since they couldn’t confirm
her records. So we wait an hour for her to see a doctor, another hour
to have a test done, so the Autin VA office could have the proper
records. Then we wait another hour to get the prescription filled
at the VA pharmacy.
Finally, a staffer comes out to tell us that the prescription can’t
be filled bacuse that particular medication is not approved in that
VA office, even though it is where she lives. So we have wasted three
hours. Then we go to a local supermarket with a drugstore in the
back, and they refilled the prescription in a few minutes. The lady
wanted to get it filled at the VA hospital because it was "free", i.e.
she didn’t have to pay cash, but the time used up (3 hours), if it were
medical leave time from a job, would have cost more in lost hours
than the price from the supermarket pharmacy. As it was, we both lost
half a day from our vacations.
So, in this admittedly anecdotal case, the market system is preferable
to the socialized system.
> From: p…@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
>
> cra…@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >It does? Based on what? Is it possible that countries with socialized
> >medicine are also dramatically more homogenous than the U.S.? Does
> >anyone have infant mortality rates for Canadians by race?
>
> As far as I can tell, Canadians are almost all white or honorable
> whites. They like to brag that they are not all white, they don’t
> tell you the non-whites are the yellows. This is based on half an
> hour in two libraries trying to look up racial stats for Canada.
>
> You can also walk down the streets of cities like Vancouver and
> come to the same conclusion.
I sure don’t know what the heck you are talking about here with your
multi-colored comments. Projections indicate that "white" people will
be in the minority in Canada before the turn of the century. Birth
rates for "Caucasian" Canadians are relatively low while current
minority birth rates are relatively high.
–
Uucp: …{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!348!701!Robert.Bacal
Internet: Robert.Ba…@f701.n348.z1.fidonet.org
I think a lot of people have a pretty naive view of why there
is a larger infant mortality here. It isn’t prenatal care funding.
I went to a medical school in which the obstetric population was almost
exclusively poor ghetto blacks from the south side of Chicago. In my
experience, the problems with the infants in that population were not due
to the fact the mother couldn’t afford to get prenatal care. In fact,
no one was turned away and almost all of them had DPA green cards. Probably
the number one problem was drug and alcohol abuse in the mother. Others
that were significant were births to children (11 year olds are not
uncommon), patients who received no prenatal care due to the fact
they never presented themselves for it even though they could have
had it free, those who were beaten up or shot during their pregnancies,
those who received suboptimal prenatal care due to failure to show for
clinic visits, those who were schizophrenic and could not take care
of themselves properly, those who were obese and didn’t realize
they were pregnant (really!), and many other causes. Unfortunately, the
class of people who have little money also contains the people who suffer from
many other cultural, mental, and physical problems which militate
against good infant mortality statistics, including not caring for
the infant properly once it is born. Just making more money available
for prenatal care won’t begin to put a dent in the statistics without
solving the much more pervasive social problems of the underclass.
In article <1991Apr16.223614*Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no> Steinar.H…@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes:
>if you can find me statistics to prove that the larger number of early infant
>deaths among u.s. non-whites is because of the mothers behavior during
>pregnancy, ill gladly eat my words. until then, i will continue to believe
>you just want to wash white societys hands of any guilt.
It is incontrovertible that babies of drug addicts do poorly.
It is also well established that a much higher proportion of
black people in the US are drug addicts than among other groups.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a study to be done explicitly to prove
what you are asking. No one would undertake such a study, nor would it
likely be fundable. This isn’t to say that the problem doesn’t lie
with society. The drug problem is obviously a social and cultural
phenomenon more prevelant in American blacks, and is not seen to that degree
in Africa. The social system that resulted in the destruction of the
black family can in large part be laid at the door of misguided
government welfare policies, for one thing, which acted to break up
the families, as well as the damage done by slavery.
In article <1991Apr17.205117.4…@dsl.pitt.edu> g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>It is incontrovertible that babies of drug addicts do poorly.
>It is also well established that a much higher proportion of
>black people in the US are drug addicts than among other groups.
Gordon, I don’t know if you are racist or simply the victim of
media stereotypes. Several studies have shown (the most recent done
by the University of Michigan involving over 10,000 people)
show that white folks use more drugs per person than blacks.
Even the US government drug warrior’s statistics show that the typical
cocaine "addict" is a white suburbanite with a job.
I’ll be glad to dig up the sources if you first provide your sources.
Should be easy, since you claim it is "well established".
—
You feelin’ alright? I’m not feeling too good myself.
Tony Wesley RPT Software
awes…@unix.secs.oakland.edu voice: (313) 274-2080
Compu$pend: 72770,2053 data: (313) 278-9146
In article <9…@egrunix.UUCP> awes…@egrunix.UUCP (Tony Wesley) writes:
>In article <1991Apr17.205117.4…@dsl.pitt.edu> g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>>It is also well established that a much higher proportion of
>>black people in the US are drug addicts than among other groups.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>show that white folks use more drugs per person than blacks.
^^^
Tony, if you don’t realize that you’re comparing apples and oranges
yet, now’s a good time to. It is also a good time to reflect on
what "per person" means (per capita? per user?).
Two populations might have the same alcohol consumption per capita,
but if the drinkers in population A compose 30% and are casual
drinkers, and the drinkers in population B make up 10% and are
mostly alcoholics, you can be certain the health consequences
would be very different.
g…@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) wrote:
> It is incontrovertible that babies of drug addicts do poorly.
> It is also well established that a much higher proportion of
> black people in the US are drug addicts than among other groups.
awes…@egrunix.UUCP (Tony Wesley) replied:
> Gordon, I don’t know if you are racist or simply the victim of
> media stereotypes. Several studies have shown (the most recent done
> by the University of Michigan involving over 10,000 people)
> show that white folks use more drugs per person than blacks.
Gordon said that a higher proportion of blacks were addicts.
Tony said white folks use more drugs per person.
It is possible that you are both right; compare someone who does 40 grams of
asprin a year to someone who does 30 grams of crack…
In any case, calling someone a racist because they say that “a much higher
proportion of black people in the US are drug addicts than amoung other
groups” is a mistake. The person might be wrong, but that does not
automatically make them racist.
> Even the US government drug warrior’s statistics show that the typical
> cocaine "addict" is a white suburbanite with a job.
How did they choose typical? If 40% of the addicts are black and 60% are
Skin color can not be averaged.
white, is the typical addict brown?
Joshua Levy (jos…@veritas.com after May 1st)