🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 11 Oct 98 21:35:07 GMT, philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
wrote:

>In article <36210bb8.21864159@news.concentric.net>
>           darrow@oneillaw.com "M O'Neill" writes:
>> Hey fella, I agree with your comments as well.  Be careful with your
>> attributions.  Don't you think it's possible for a free society to
>> meet its humanitarian obligations?  What country takes better care of
>> its poor than the US?
>
>Most western European states, for example.
>
>> We hardly know what poverty is in this country.
>
>Then you are ignorant. 
>

??

I am ignorant about many things, but not about all things.

>Consider that in the USA infant mortality is a lot higher than in
>Britain, despite the fact that healthcare spending per person is
>4 times as much. The reason is (at least in part) that in the USA
>most of the healthcare spend goes on the rich, so babies born into
>poor families get to die.

It is true that infant mortality is higher in the US than in Britain,
but it is not for lack of medical care for the poor.  The poor all
have access to medical care.  The infant mortality problem is because
some underprivileged groups don't use the prenatal care that is
available to them.

It is not the poor as such but a large segment of the working class
that does not have paid medical care.  Individuals on welfare have
Medicaid, which permits them to seek medical care from private
doctors.