🚀 go-pugleaf

lk8@hotmail.com wrote:

>http://www.ilovethisplace.com/wwwboard/women <a
>href="http://www.ilovethisplace.com/wwwboard/women" target="_blank">click
>here</a>

Someone posted a news article on on EcoChoices, the home page for this
forum, on medical spending in the US that I found interesting. It
brought home some of the things I have been thinking about in speaking
on the issue of insurance payments for routine ( not for those at
risk) bone density testing.

According to this New York (Reuters) article from Dec 5th 1997, the
U.S. spent 14.6% of its GDP on health care in 1996 compared to the
next highest ranking Germany at 10.5%. This averaged out to $3,700 for
each American during 1996 compared to "Switzerland ($2,412), Germany
($2,222), Luxembourg ($2,206), and Canada ($2,002)". 

And is the result better health care? According to this article, in
1960 the US was 13th out of the top 29 industrialized countries in
terms of age of life expectancy for women. In 1995 the US is tied with
New Zealand for 20th spot. 

The source of the figures  given is: Health Affairs
(1997;16(6):163-171) 

So yes Lester, you can tell your potential advertisers that I visited
your site. But what does Woman's issues or national health spending
have to do with Green or ecological issues? Perhaps you are spreading
your interests too thin to attract real attention to your site?

Kathryn
drozdik@direct.ca