IMHO, this can be a good place to cite the diffrence between a "welfare state" and another with a "capitalist" focus to health-care issues. Weighing an infant aganist money and market, this WILL be the outcome, no wonder.

That accounting trick theory never held water. If the US infant mortality rate really was tied to superior medical care, then we wouldn't have seen the concentrations of infant mortality where medical care was poorest... blacks, natives, hispanics and the uninsured.

What I don't understand is why Bush and Co. are not locked up behind bars.
First congress addresses the issue of pesticides and childhood developmental problems by commanding farmers to use a tenth of the amount of certain pesticides and banning others. Yet children are getting sick because no one checks for complience, while the EPA actaully allows the banned pescticides to be used to counter economic loss to farmers (what a tremendous sense of priorities here!!!!!).
Then congress commands cigarette manufacturers to report back on the safety of cigarette additives, yet children are being born physically and mentally challenged because the cigarette manufacturers simply refuse to get with the program, and the FDA turns a blind eye.
I guess the way to understand the gov. mindset here is to think about how primary schools are responsible for providing an education to the special needs kids. If the minorities are the ones who bear the largest number of challenged children, then doesn't this equate to their schools bearing a greater financial burden.
According to Sen. Clinton, "A quality school environment is essential to the academic success of children in America's schools ... but we need funding to do the job."
Right!!!! Now if only Hillary and Co. would do their job!!!!!!!!
"Everybody must get stoned" (Dylan). Maybe the answer is a Head Start program for politicians and industry captains. Give George W. a healthy breakfast, maybe he'll see the light!
Yeah, get a life--you boring, corrupt, overly ambitious losers--try to grasp the truth...

After retirement these issues that are really just manipulations to increase consumption and thereby profit are more demonstratably bad.The 'big picture' becomes even bigger and clearer.

Scientists now have a better understanding of how each of us has a unique genetic history; there are some who are succeptible to mercury (part of the autistic population), some of us are succeptible to the development of cancer whereby the initial effort to establish a healing (the implementation of the placenta attachement) doesn't shut off. [Vitamin 17 -laetril- may be discredited by the fact is that a positive pregnancy test means either you are pregnant or have cancer] and more and more of us are going to become aware that each of us carries a unique genetic legacy.
If one was to look at this information in the crassest possible way, it would be obvious that the human race has the potential to develop pesticide resistance in the same way that the targeted insect population does, for much the same reason, developed genetic resistance. If our careless application of damaging toxins creates a loss of genetic material (death of % of the population) then the expectation is that the remaining % will have acquired a genetic resistance. In the broadest and vilest interpretation, it would be the same as creating a super race.

Unfortunately, when nature gives, it also takes away. Perhaps our undeniably violent and aggressive nature is the result of the 70,000 years ago 'genetic bottleneck' that left as few of us as 1,000 alive to repopulate the Earth. What will we be when we have eliminated the succeptible portion of our population? Will we have anything recognizable as human? Or will there be just a single-minded focus on survival to the exclusion of all else? How far are we from that now?