The first person that I spoke to about her experience with pregnancy was my mother. When my mother first found out she was pregnant, she was working as an actress on a show. She noticed that she hadn't had her period in an unusually long time and was feeling a bit odd, so she took a home pregnancy test, which read positive. Then she proceeded to go to the local clinic in Houston, Texas, where she was working, who confirmed her pregnancy. She continued to work on the show she was doing for three months, but did not stop working because of her pregnancy. It just so happened that her show was closing, and so she figured that it would be best not to look for work for the time being. Her belly started growing noticeably at about five months after she found out she was pregnant. After this point, my parents began taking pre-natal classes on the Bradley method... in other words on how to naturally deliver me with the use of as few drugs as possible. Ironically, a large assortment of drugs ended up being used for the delivery for things such as inducing labor and the doctors fear of my heart rate being slightly odd. She told me about how throughout the 9 month period people everywhere were giving her extra amounts of attention, which was not surprising to me at all.
The description of the process of pregnancy that my mother gave me fit completely into my initial viewpoint of the subject, probably because it is the story of my own birth. Honestly, the way my mother was talking about the whole situation, it seemed like none of it was that big of a deal to her. This might be because she had a good man and friends who were by her side the whole time, a gift which should not be taken for granted considering the amount of people who are not so fortunate. I also think that the situation of my mother's pregnancy fits in perfectly with my idea that the best time to have children is 25 to 35, because after 25 many people are responsible enough to handle it, but if you wait too long your child won't have grandparents for long. My mother was definitely responsible enough, and it showed because her and my father did practically everything right.
Naturally, the second person I felt inclined to talk to about pregnancy was my father. After speaking to him, I realized that the mental experiences of both my mother and father were pretty similar. (obviously not the physical experiences however) My father was very nervous about the whole situation, although he was not unprepared. Througout a large part of the nine month period, my father took notes during my mother's pregnancy as well as in the classes they took on the Bradley method. He also said that the process of my mother giving birth was painful for him as well, but emotionally, because it was hard for him to look at my mother while she was in so much pain. Another thing my father told me was that he felt like neither of them were giving eachother as much attention as they were before the pregnancy, because discussion of the baby was always popping up. This reminded me of a situation that I knew with my friend's sister where the father of the child left the mother alone because he didn't want her attention on the baby instead of him. However he was obviously not ready to be a father, when my father certainly was.
According to my initial opinions about birth, my father was not the stereotypical male figure during my mother's pregnancy. I determined from speaking to both of my parents that my dad did a great job of supporting my mother the whole time, and also tried to help out by learning as much as he could about taking care of newborns as well as the process of the birth itself for when the event arrived. The most interesting thing in my opinion about speaking with my father was discovering the amount of notes he took. There were seven pages of detailed notes with marked times starting at 2 in the morning when my mother was in the hospital. He describes how he can now understand "why husbands/fathers might back away from the event," and he also explains how he would have been hopeless if not for the classes that the two of them had taken together.
After talking to my family and discovering the details of a rather mature handling of the 9 month period of pregnancy and birth, I decided to talk to a friend of mine who was only 17 years old when she gave birth a couple months ago. As expected, she told me it was physically the most painful experience of her life. Other than that, the only other thing I could have predicted about her experience was that she was extremely surprised when she found out that she was pregnant. She told me she was not sure when the child was conceived, so she naturally was also not sure how along she was when she found out but she guessed it was about 2 or 3 months. Her boyfriend, who is also 17 years old, remained by her side the whole time. In fact, he did not even mention the possibility of abortion to her, and when she finally brought it up as something she would prefer not to do, he agreed 100 percent. This was practically shocking to me; its as if this 17 year old boy who has not even finished high school yet feels that he is ready and wants a child. Anyway, she described the moment that she first held her son in her arms as "the best fucking moment of my life!" (please excuse the language) Before this moment, however, she told me that she was feeling stressed out all the time and also depressed on occasion.
I think that this is possibly the least stereotypical story of birth that involves teen parents I have ever heard. The fact that the father of the child did not even bring up the option of abortion, and that when it was brought up he opposed it completely, is astonishing to me. I know that if I were in that boy's situation, I definitely would have at least brought up the idea of abortion and I'm certainly not ready to be a father! It seems that people can say a lot of things before they are actually thrown into the life of being a potential mother and father, but when it happens, one might feel very different. It also seems like it depends on when you believe the child is alive. The girl I asked said that she thinks her boyfriend had told her that he believes the baby is alive practically right after it is conceived. This would explain why he did not consider the option of abortion...to him it would feel like he was killing his own child.
The topic I would like to explore further is how the increased amount of teen girls becoming mothers currently is effecting both the lives of the parents as well as their children. However I am also interested in looking at the reasons that pro-life supporters believe abortion should not be a legal option for anyone.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
HW 35- Other People's Perspectives 1
Although I was not able to see the old friend of mine who had just recently given birth in person, I did manage to get in touch with them over the computer. However, this case of a teenage girl giving birth did not turn out to be the stereotypical teenage mom story I had expected. Typically, you would expect the father of the child to realize the mistake he has made once he realizes the 17 year old girl he impregnated is going to have a baby and leave both the child and the mother to fend for themselves. However, this boy chose to stay with his girlfriend through the whole process, and from the looks of it he will be there for the child as well. "I wasn't ready to have Matthew, and if it weren't for Victor I don't know if I would have been able to make it. My family was supportive of course, but most guys wouldn't stick with a girl in my situation, but he was always there for me."
Another person I know who has recently had a baby spoke more about the physical pain of the process. She is a sister of a friend of mine, and she was 21 years old when she had the baby. She told me that she was dealing with contractions for an extremely long time and didn't get any sleep for days because the pain was so bad. Unfortunately, her boyfriend left her when he found out about the baby. Finally, I talked to one of my friends who is a guy about the issue. He told me about how he had impregnated a girl by accident and had tried to convince her to get an abortion because he knew that he was not ready to be a father, but she ended up having a miscarriage anyway. However, he did tell me that even if the girl did decide to have the baby, he would not have left them alone.
Although I haven't spoken to that many people, it seems like one of the patterns in this generation as far as birth is concerned is that more fathers have a desire to stay with the mothers and the children. I would assume that the reason for this is because so many of the children of this generation are raised by single mothers. and therefore many people do not want their kids to have to deal with the same situation that they did when they were younger. All of the people I have spoken to are pro-choice, and support the option of abortion mainly because of the possiblity of birth as a result of rape or young teens being careless. Also, the people I have spoken to almost all agree that birth is a beautiful thing, but not necessarily physically. The concept of new life being created and released into the world is what makes these people say that.
Another person I know who has recently had a baby spoke more about the physical pain of the process. She is a sister of a friend of mine, and she was 21 years old when she had the baby. She told me that she was dealing with contractions for an extremely long time and didn't get any sleep for days because the pain was so bad. Unfortunately, her boyfriend left her when he found out about the baby. Finally, I talked to one of my friends who is a guy about the issue. He told me about how he had impregnated a girl by accident and had tried to convince her to get an abortion because he knew that he was not ready to be a father, but she ended up having a miscarriage anyway. However, he did tell me that even if the girl did decide to have the baby, he would not have left them alone.
Although I haven't spoken to that many people, it seems like one of the patterns in this generation as far as birth is concerned is that more fathers have a desire to stay with the mothers and the children. I would assume that the reason for this is because so many of the children of this generation are raised by single mothers. and therefore many people do not want their kids to have to deal with the same situation that they did when they were younger. All of the people I have spoken to are pro-choice, and support the option of abortion mainly because of the possiblity of birth as a result of rape or young teens being careless. Also, the people I have spoken to almost all agree that birth is a beautiful thing, but not necessarily physically. The concept of new life being created and released into the world is what makes these people say that.
Monday, February 14, 2011
HW 34- Some Initial Thoughts On Birth
When I think of birth, the first bubbles that come to mind are issues such as abortion, the rate of teen pregnancy that is currently so high, and the people I know who have recently experienced the process of giving birth. Then I started to think about how all of these things are tied together. Although one of the people I know who just gave birth was 21, which can be (in my opinion) a perfectly reasonable age to raise a child, the other was only 17. This idea led me to the question of why people do not choose to get an abortion when their living situation clearly is not ideal for supporting a child, or the parents are not mature enough. My brainstorming on answering this question included the idea that maybe the mother of the child felt some sort of attachment to it... after it is their baby, but this is not something that I will ever be able to understand fully. Another reason could be that they feel bad about robbing the fetus of the potential it has when it grows up to become a "self-functioning" human like us, or that they feel like they are killing the baby.
The thought about whether or not it is right to "kill the baby" before it is born brings up a lot of other questions. For instance, after how many months is a baby considered alive, or is it not until it leaves the mother's body? This is a key point in the common argument of whether abortion should be a legal option or not (which is a completely different argument from whether abortion is morally right or not) I am also wondering what kind of dominant social practices there are that are associated with birth that are not quite as "normal" as we take for granted, because there have been multiple "weirdnesses" in the last two units. Why are almost all the children born today born in hospitals? And if the answer is simply for hygenic or medical reasons, then why would any child be born at home? I'm sure those two question could potentially relate to our previous unit on illness and dying, especially financially. Considering the amount of money that is invested into the care of the dying, how much money is invested into the care of those who are just being born, and how are they treated? It is clear that I have many questions involving birth, and am curious to see what I will find out.
The thought about whether or not it is right to "kill the baby" before it is born brings up a lot of other questions. For instance, after how many months is a baby considered alive, or is it not until it leaves the mother's body? This is a key point in the common argument of whether abortion should be a legal option or not (which is a completely different argument from whether abortion is morally right or not) I am also wondering what kind of dominant social practices there are that are associated with birth that are not quite as "normal" as we take for granted, because there have been multiple "weirdnesses" in the last two units. Why are almost all the children born today born in hospitals? And if the answer is simply for hygenic or medical reasons, then why would any child be born at home? I'm sure those two question could potentially relate to our previous unit on illness and dying, especially financially. Considering the amount of money that is invested into the care of the dying, how much money is invested into the care of those who are just being born, and how are they treated? It is clear that I have many questions involving birth, and am curious to see what I will find out.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
HW 33- Comments
- "The way that dominant social practices around illness and dying connect with dominant social practices around dying has to do with making money." This quote from your post does a great job of summing up the American health care system. Although in places like England, the incentives are actually a bit more noble as far as care distribution goes, it is the perfect way to describe health care in America. Nixon said himself that making sure patients get less care is a good thing if it means more profit is getting reeled in. I also liked the way you connected the illness and dying unit to the food unit that we are doing now Good job!
- I liked the way you were able to connect this unit to your thoughts about certain health-related aspects of life in the future. I also really liked the way you used evidence from other peoples blogs in order to support the conclusions of your own opinions. "Our country needs to sort out its priorities." This was a very interesting line to me, because in my opinion, it seems like the country already has sorted out its priorities for health care. They just are not beneficial for most people in America.
- Even though I do not go to the school you go to or take this class, I feel like you did a good job summarizing everything that you learned. It seemed like the main part of what you learned during the unit was directly related to what you did for your final project, and all the problems with the incentives of our health care system as well. Good job!
- "It is also unfortunate that our system invests practically all the money that it spends on health care on terminal patients, rather than preventive medicine that would help to keep patients from getting sick in the first place." This is an interesting point that I had never really thought about before. It would be interesting to do some more further research on something like this, but I think a strong case can be made supporting an increase in preventive care as well as health care outside of the United States, which you accomplished in your project.
Friday, January 21, 2011
HW 32- Thoughts following illness and dying unit
There are so many nightmarish dominant social practices associated with illness and dying that I have discovered this unit and so many of them go overlooked. The fact that the incentives of the American health care system are to benefit the large health insurance companies and make sure that the people get less care is sickening, and what is even worse is how little people know about it. It is also unfortunate that our system invests practically all the money that it spends on health care on terminal patients, rather than preventive medicine that would help to keep patients from getting sick in the first place. It seems like the most positive and promising alternative to our flawed system of medical care are the social health care systems in places like Canada, France, and England. Although the systems over there have issues as well, at least the intent of systems such as the National Health Service in England have honorable intentions, where as our system is immensely flawed and extremely corrupt. In connection to our previous food unit, part of a system of health care focused on prevention would be to try and help people change their diets to prevent diabetes. Instead, we focus on expensive equipment to sustain the lives of the sick and elderly in their final hours.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
HW 32- Comments 3
- For Ben, Your most beautiful line was " Overall though, the National Health Service in Britain is a much more effective and honorable system than whatever system we practice in America, and the idea of socialized health care is benefiting a much larger portion of England then the percentage of people in America that benefit from health care, which might have something to do with the fact that about 50 million people in America are not covered by heatlh insurance at all." Your presentation really made me want to examine and check out your blog. I wanted to check out some of your sources that you used for the NHS, and see how America measured up to them. You did a really god job of explaining both the negatives and the positives briefly in your presentation, which really made me want to read in depth more about this in your post later. Overall good job, and very interesting post.
- I too had the same question after watching Sicko. It seemed odd that there could be such a perfect system out there that the United States refused to utilize - there had to be some catch. I can understand that there might be long wait times for care, but that definitely seems better in the long run compared to having to pay thousands of dollars. I think you did a good job of displaying the negatives but also the positives, reminding the reader why such a system would be worth having.
- January 18, 2011 1:46 PM
- TIM said...
- I really liked the way that you were able to show both sides of the argument about the National Health Service. My favorite aspect of this project was probably how you pulled the scenario from the NHS website as well as all the information about the woman in the New York Times to counter Michael Moore's strong argument. Good Job!
- January 18, 2011 3:22 PM
- Jim Harker said...
- "These kind of stories make you wonder if the Pharmacist from Sicko was telling the truth when Michael Moore (questioning the price for amount and type of drugs being purchased) asked, "What if it's like an HIV drug, or a cancer drug?" and the pharmacist responded, "Six pounds 65." I'm sure that Debbie Hirst would not agree with this 'standard price'." This quote is a perfect example of my favorite part of your project. You questioned both the argument that Michael Moore made in Sicko while also explaining that in the long run he was pretty much correct. Good work
- Wow, it's great how you were able to include so much detail in this account; it really makes the whole thing feel more personal. "At some points in the conversation, it almost seemed liked she wanted to die, wanted it to be over, so that she could live in heaven with her faith." I thought this sentence did a great job of summing up what the woman you were speaking with had said, and also made clear the way that many Christians might feel about dying. Great job!
- I really loved how personal your presentation felt, and the written part of your project was the same way. I feel like it played a big part in making your research so strong. "Death is such a foreign and distance concept to us. We do not know when it happens or how it happens, and not knowing is the scariest part." This was probably my favorite line, because it explains why humans have come up with all these different theories to try to explain what happens after death; because we are really just afraid of the unknown.
- I really liked the way that you used certain statistics to get the reader interested and draw them in, such as "According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 37th in the world for it's healthcare system." In my opinion, your most beautiful line was "This means we are paying to help people after they get sick rather then taking effective cautionary steps to try to prevent sickness." This represents a key problem with our health care system that people might overlook the most, and really sums up a huge chunk of your project. Good job!
- "The significance of my findings could be that since people are living longer and longer, they are more interested in not dragging out a painful dying experience or a dying when they have lost control of body functions or their minds." I think this is an extremely valuable insight, because it also brings up the idea that all human's desire eternal existence, and yet your studies indicate that most people would be willing to give that up just because they are in pain. My favorite part of your project is the amount of evidence you used and how thorough your analysis was. Great job!
- Wow, it's great how you were able to include so much detail in this account; it really makes the whole thing feel more personal. "At some points in the conversation, it almost seemed liked she wanted to die, wanted it to be over, so that she could live in heaven with her faith." I thought this sentence did a great job of summing up what the woman you were speaking with had said, and also made clear the way that many Christians might feel about dying. Great job!
Sunday, January 16, 2011
HW 30- Illness & Dying- Culminating Experimental Project
The amount of dominant social practices associated with the human processes of illness and dying that go overlooked by the majority of people in this country is extremely extensive. Practices such as our dualist methods of utilizing anesthesia to "put the mind in another place" while the body is being opened up and operated on by surgeons, or how the real incentives of the American health care system are to benefit the large health insurance companies and to make sure the people get less care. However, one aspect of illness and dying that even less people look into the the ones that are stated above are the incentives of health care systems in countries that utilize a socialist health care system, such as Canada, France, and England. More specifically, what flaws could the health care systems in these countries possibly have? Michael Moore did an excellent job in his film, Sicko, of showing us all the great things about how illness and dying are handled in Canada, France, and England. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect health care system, and by observing the flaws in not only our own imperfect system, but also those of the countries that have better methods then us, one can gain insight into what aspects of health care are beneficial to all different groups of people.
My first bit of research came when watching Sicko by Michael Moore. After he finished speaking on how the American system of health care was designed to get the public less care and giving examples of how horrible it was, he moved on to what the health care systems were like in countries that practice a socialized health care system such as Canada, France, and England. Although he "tried very hard" to find flaws in these systems when he was interviewing citizens in all three of those countries, he was only able to tell us about all the good things such as how even though the doctors were living under state control, they never had to decline any patients their treatment and are inspired to help patients do things like quit smoking because of the way that the system works. The more patients that a doctor in Britain can get to stop smoking, the more money he will be paid, not to mention the fact that any patient can get any number of their prescribed pills for the standard price of just over six and a half pounds (according to the NHS it is actually currently at 7.20.).
All these good things about the socialized health care system caused me to wonder if there even were any flaws. It doesn't seem possible to have a perfect health care system where everyone is covered and happy about their coverage, but I could be wrong. It turns out that the main principle of the British health care system, otherwise known as the National Health Service, (NHS) is that, "there should be a free, comprehensive health service for everyone according to need, regardless of their income." (http://neamh.cns.uni.edu/MedInfo/bhs.html) It is clear that the positive aspect of the NHS in England is that all the citizens qualify for care no matter what their income/living conditions are. However, the result of this extensively broad coverage is that man patients have to wait a long time to be seen for treatment as well as surgery. "In fact the waiting lists have become so long the the NHS has started paying for people to cross into the European Union for treatment." (http://neamh.cns.uni.edu/MedInfo/bhs.html) So it seems that despite the noble intentions of the National Health Service, treating everyone in a country is not quite as easy as it sounds, and it has been proven to cause long waits for patients in hospitals.
A complaint made on the National Health Service website is stated below-
My first bit of research came when watching Sicko by Michael Moore. After he finished speaking on how the American system of health care was designed to get the public less care and giving examples of how horrible it was, he moved on to what the health care systems were like in countries that practice a socialized health care system such as Canada, France, and England. Although he "tried very hard" to find flaws in these systems when he was interviewing citizens in all three of those countries, he was only able to tell us about all the good things such as how even though the doctors were living under state control, they never had to decline any patients their treatment and are inspired to help patients do things like quit smoking because of the way that the system works. The more patients that a doctor in Britain can get to stop smoking, the more money he will be paid, not to mention the fact that any patient can get any number of their prescribed pills for the standard price of just over six and a half pounds (according to the NHS it is actually currently at 7.20.).
All these good things about the socialized health care system caused me to wonder if there even were any flaws. It doesn't seem possible to have a perfect health care system where everyone is covered and happy about their coverage, but I could be wrong. It turns out that the main principle of the British health care system, otherwise known as the National Health Service, (NHS) is that, "there should be a free, comprehensive health service for everyone according to need, regardless of their income." (http://neamh.cns.uni.edu/MedInfo/bhs.html) It is clear that the positive aspect of the NHS in England is that all the citizens qualify for care no matter what their income/living conditions are. However, the result of this extensively broad coverage is that man patients have to wait a long time to be seen for treatment as well as surgery. "In fact the waiting lists have become so long the the NHS has started paying for people to cross into the European Union for treatment." (http://neamh.cns.uni.edu/MedInfo/bhs.html) So it seems that despite the noble intentions of the National Health Service, treating everyone in a country is not quite as easy as it sounds, and it has been proven to cause long waits for patients in hospitals.
A complaint made on the National Health Service website is stated below-
My friend had been robbed and physically assaulted on Saturday. He suffered a serious injury to his eye, as well as scull bone fracture under the eye. NHS emergency doctors have identified the need for my friend to be inspected by a specialist doctor and considered for a possible operation. Now, one detail. My friend's phone was taken away by the criminals when he was robbed. NHS didn't ask if the contact details were still valid, when they were telling him he would be referred to another doctor. He and I were still on shock which was quite reasonable. So we left later. Now a doctor from the King's hospital is supposed to contact my friend but the details they gave are incorrect. We tried to call the original Lewisham hospital, but after being transferred between different lines for five times my friend had been told to call the first line again. This happened two times. At the King's hospital they cannot do anything and are advising to call the Lewisham hospital. Now, how is my friend is going to find out if he needs an operation at all, if he's being told off everywhere? Is it not going to be too late while all these people who are supposed to help are transferring the lines, and responsibility?
(http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/complaints/Pages/NHScomplaints.aspx)
Although this complaint seems to be directed at the specific receptionists who are repeatedly transferring the call to someone else in order to avoid the responsibility of dealing with the problem, it is still a definite case of denying a patient care, though not as blunt as the health insurance companies in America would make it. Who is to say that this kind of situation does not occur on a daily basis at all the hospital's in England? Although I cannot say for sure if it does or not, I can say that the situation above is not the only case of a patient being denied care. There was a story in the New York Times on February 21, 2008, that addressed another example. "One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself," (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/europe/21britain.html) It says in the article that Ms. Hirst had raised 20,000 dollars and was planning on selling her house to raise more just so she could pay for a part of her medication, in the hopes that the health service would cover the rest. But when she was talking to her doctor, the conversation went like this, “I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford." These kind of stories make you wonder if the Pharmacist from Sicko was telling the truth when Michael Moore (questioning the price for amount and type of drugs being purchased) asked, "What if it's like an HIV drug, or a cancer drug?" and the pharmacist responded, "Six pounds 65." I'm sure that Debbie Hirst would not agree with this 'standard price'.
Although these examples do sound very similar to the kind of rejection that so many Americans here all the time, it would be inaccurate to say that the National Health Service in Britain is similar to America in any way as far as what the incentives of the health cares system are. I have a friend who is currently living in England and has lived there for over 10 years, and is in her late 40's. (that has asked to remain anonymous for this project) When I asked her about how she felt about the National Health Service in England, being someone who had previously experienced the American health care system, she said that it was wonderful in comparison. "When I was working as a full-time bartender making a pretty low salary[compared to what I make now], I recieved all the same coverage as the coverage I recieve now, even though I am paid almost twice the amount while acting that I was previously being paid as a bartender." She went on to describe how she had only been sick enough to need antibiotics about five or six times throughout her years in England, but that when her general practitioner had prescribed her medication, she never even had to pay a single pound.
After conducting this research, my conclusion is that I was correct in saying that there is no way to have a perfect health system, and that saying there will be coverage for every citizen in an entire nation is a lot easier than actually making it happen. Overall though, the National Health Service in Britain is a much more effective and honorable system than whatever system we practice in America, and the idea of socialized health care is benefiting a much larger portion of England then the percentage of people in America that benefit from health care, which might have something to do with the fact that about 50 million people in America are not covered by heatlh insurance at all.
Although these examples do sound very similar to the kind of rejection that so many Americans here all the time, it would be inaccurate to say that the National Health Service in Britain is similar to America in any way as far as what the incentives of the health cares system are. I have a friend who is currently living in England and has lived there for over 10 years, and is in her late 40's. (that has asked to remain anonymous for this project) When I asked her about how she felt about the National Health Service in England, being someone who had previously experienced the American health care system, she said that it was wonderful in comparison. "When I was working as a full-time bartender making a pretty low salary[compared to what I make now], I recieved all the same coverage as the coverage I recieve now, even though I am paid almost twice the amount while acting that I was previously being paid as a bartender." She went on to describe how she had only been sick enough to need antibiotics about five or six times throughout her years in England, but that when her general practitioner had prescribed her medication, she never even had to pay a single pound.
After conducting this research, my conclusion is that I was correct in saying that there is no way to have a perfect health system, and that saying there will be coverage for every citizen in an entire nation is a lot easier than actually making it happen. Overall though, the National Health Service in Britain is a much more effective and honorable system than whatever system we practice in America, and the idea of socialized health care is benefiting a much larger portion of England then the percentage of people in America that benefit from health care, which might have something to do with the fact that about 50 million people in America are not covered by heatlh insurance at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)