reputable homebirth info/stats needed

"Sue" wrote in message
...
Just like you believe what your media tell you about the situation in
the middle east or what's happening in the rest of the world? I hardly
think someone from the US should be throwing stones about biased one
sided opinions formed from the media.

Andrea

I never said that I believed everything I read or saw. Quite contrary. I
take everything with a grain of salt and always have. You know absolutely
nothing about what I believe.
Actually, I believe almost NOTHING coming over the US media on the middle
east-and I would say that a good % of the population is similarly minded. We
know it's biased.


--
Sue (mom to three girls)

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:27:13 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:


/writes to parliament to quickly tighten emigration laws

**** off there are enough people here, you all stay away or I'll be at
the airport beating you back with sharp sticks.
Elections soon and all may change, there's a big push for tighter
emigration laws so be warned ;-)

Oi, not yet. I want to get DH in first!

Anyway they won't be tightened against well educated white folks I
suspect :-/

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:17:33 -0500, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

Of course. All systems ration care. The question is on
what basis they ration care. In the US, care is rationed based on
ability to pay. With universal coverage (whether gov't provided
or single payer) care is rationed typically based on medical need.
In general, how one weighs out the two systems often depends
on which rationing system would affect one personally ;-)

Thank you for putting it so clearly Ericka. I've written essays on
this stuff (did a paper on welfare, a good deal of which was methods
of rationing and the increasing use of "ability to pay" as a rationing
mechanism in the NHS) and never managed to put it so succinctly!

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:19:23 GMT,
(Elfanie) wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:41:56 -0500, Marie
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:01:02 -0500, "Sue"
wrote:
Jenrose
is having a homebirth and she is here in the US and she is getting that.
Larry's kids are born at home too and gee he lives here in the US too.

Actually, I beleive Larry lives in the UK...doesn't he?

Are you thinking of Dave, the British Larry?

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

Part of what is taken out of my paycheck, is my portion of my health
insurance. The only out-of-pocket is for "co-pay" amounts (usually $10
per visit). If you go to an out-of-network provider, then you pay more
for your services (I was supposed to pay a deductible and then 20% of
my midwife fees, and insurance the remainder. However, insurance ended
up paying 100%).

shrug your system sounds nice - possibly better than ours, but who
knows. I'm sure there must be SOME downside (because there usually
is).

Cathy

Buzzy Bee wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:18:13 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:


Daye wrote:


On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:41:09 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:



The first country to give women the right to vote


Aussies claim that too. I wonder if this part of the NZ = part of
Australia thing?


Woman received the right to vote September 19, 1893. Australia gave
woman the right to be elected to Parliament first..


Of course Australia did not exist until federation in 1901, but IIRC
Victoria gave women the vote before NZ (as did one or two US states).
So there are arguments in favour of both, but NZ was teh first whole
country to do it!

Not according to this site
http://www.australianpolitics.com/vo...se/women.shtml

Victoria didn't give women the right to vote until 1908, South Australia
gave them the right in 1894 but that was a year after us.

Andrea

On 3 Nov 2004 14:18:28 -0800, "
wrote:

Part of what is taken out of my paycheck, is my portion of my health
insurance. The only out-of-pocket is for "co-pay" amounts (usually $10
per visit). If you go to an out-of-network provider, then you pay more
for your services

See, we have this option too. We can choose private care and pay for
it ourselves, just like you can choose to go "out of network". We
actually tend to pay far less for private care than in the US as well,
for reasons I don't fully understand, so we probably pay similar
amounts out of pocket. We can even buy private insurance to cover
everything or top-up schemes that just cover some costs outside the
NHS. All those options are open to us for non-urgent care *as well
as* waiting for "free at point of need" NHS treatment.

I pay about US$40 a month for a plan which covers DH, me and any kids
for 70% of private costs for a lot of things (dentistry, osteopathy,
physiotherapy, chiropody, optometry) that have long waiting lists or
are unavailable on the NHS, as well as NHS charges for things like
prescriptions. Its not inexhaustable, but it'll cover a fair bit of
dentistry, more prescription charges than would justify pre-payment, a
new pair of bifocals in designer frames and a good dozen trips to the
osteopath a year. It'll give me a £500 maternity grant when I have
the baby as well, which will pay a good chunk of my midwife's fees
(which, unfortunately, they don't cover).

Which reminds me, I need to phone for a claim form tomorrow, since I
went to the osteopath last week and am back in two weeks time, so
there's another two month's premiums back in my pocket ;-).

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:41:56 -0500, Marie
wrote:

Sue, have you any idea what happens to most people when they refuse
procedures on their newborns? Refuse Eye drops, vitamin K, vaccines?
Have unassisted homebirths, or have half-midwife/half-self prenatal
care? They are called ignorant by the child's pediatrician, threatened
with CPS, lied to and told their baby is dying as a way to get these
things done that the ped. believes should be done.

It isn't just in the US either. I have my own schedule for
vaccinations (that I worked out with my family doctor). My Maternal &
Child Health Nurse tried to make me feel like a child abuser (and
hinted to that fact often) and that I didn't love my child because I
wasn't following the Australian Government Schedule to the letter.
She was very close-minded about this issue, and she wouldn't listen to
my reasons. I thought if I told her that my family doctor was okay
with it, that it would shut her up. It didn't. I just got to the
point that I didn't argue with her about it. If she wanted to make
disapproving noises, I didn't care.

No, I wasn't following the schedule, but both of my children will be
completely vaccinated by the time they are 24 months old... just like
other kids in Australia.

She never threaten me with CPS. However, my children were well cared
for, and my doctor would have come to my aid because he had helped me
with my schedule. Maybe because I had a doctor on my side, she didn't
even try it.

I don't get people like this. If you disagree about something, you
listen to why they are doing it that way. You tell them what you
think is the best way of handling it. If they don't listen, then it
isn't your problem because it is *their* child.

--
Daye

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:29:32 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:


Victoria didn't give women the right to vote until 1908, South Australia
gave them the right in 1894 but that was a year after us.

Ah, I stand corrected. Was just going from memory.

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:02:39 GMT, Buzzy Bee
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:29:32 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:


Victoria didn't give women the right to vote until 1908, South Australia
gave them the right in 1894 but that was a year after us.

Ah, I stand corrected. Was just going from memory.

Okay, so I think it is part of the "NZ = part of Australia" thing
then.


--
Daye