health care and single fathers vs. single mothers

I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070808/...single_dads_dc

On Aug 9, 12:16 am, whatamess wrote:
I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070808/...single_dads_dc

I can probably find the link to this if anyone cares, but the study in
which it was found that children of single fathers are better off
economically, a study that was key to at least Massachusetts and
probably other states setting the levels of child support that are
typical in NY, CA and other states was found years later to be
calculated incorrectly. The author of the work even acknowledged her
error. This was a significant miscalculation. However, our wonderful
representatives, once elected could not bring themselves to revisit
change the legislation once enacted. After all such a giant mother-
load of cash was not flowing, of course it should not ever be touched.

Don (feeling a bit like DB today ;-) )

On Aug 9, 9:52 am, don_1228 wrote:
On Aug 9, 12:16 am, whatamess wrote:

I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070808/...single_dads_dc

I can probably find the link to this if anyone cares, but the study in
which it was found that children of single fathers are better off
economically, a study that was key to at least Massachusetts and
probably other states setting the levels of child support that are
typical in NY, CA and other states was found years later to be
calculated incorrectly. The author of the work even acknowledged her
error. This was a significant miscalculation. However, our wonderful
representatives, once elected could not bring themselves to revisit
change the legislation once enacted. After all such a giant mother-
load of cash was not flowing, of course it should not ever be touched.

Don (feeling a bit like DB today ;-) )

Oh lovely, that too huh? It's amazing how custodial parents, mostly
women,
have led everyone to believe that their kids have less than
others...needless to say,
the reason why someone like me, who didn't have kids, felt bad for the
ex-wife
and child and went into a relationship thinking that the ones who got
the short end of the stick were the custodial parents, not the other
way around...
then of course, when I realized that the non-custodial parent was the
one
who was getting the short end of the stick, I was accused by all those
same
ex-wifes/custodial parents, as well as everyone else and told "YOU
KNEW
WHAT YOU WERE GETTING INTO"...NO! I did not, and neither do
thousands of others like me, who believed the BS the mothers/custodial
parents threw out there, to later find out it was the other way
around.

"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

This is just an anti-father hit piece.

Fathers don't take their children to the doctor for a slew of reasons.

Fathers are rarely the custodial parent with the legal right to seek
non-emergency healthcare for their children. Custodial fathers are such a
small group it's questionable how Yahoo's source came up with a sample to
measure.

Fathers know "well-baby" and "well-child" checks are not covered by the
insurance companies so they are a waste of money. Why take a child to see a
doctor if there is nothing wrong?

Fathers don't view every little ailment as a reason to rush to their
children to see a doctor. They don't need the reassurance from a doctor
that everything will be all right.

Fathers typically have to pay 65-70% of the uninsured healthcare cost. They
weigh out the cost versus the necessity for doctor visits.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

This is just an anti-father hit piece.

Fathers don't take their children to the doctor for a slew of reasons.

Fathers are rarely the custodial parent with the legal right to seek
non-emergency healthcare for their children. Custodial fathers are such a
small group it's questionable how Yahoo's source came up with a sample to
measure.

My brother is a single parent. He has raised his daughter since her birth.
The mother has not been in the picture since the child was 3 months old. He
was harassed by a number of different social service groups when she was
young. He would tell me that they had come to his house to make sure it was
clean and safe, and would actually get down and poke around under the bed
and under the refrigerator. He thought they moght be looking for an excuse
to take the baby away from him. She was scheduled for a set of
immunizations, but she had a cold, so he cancelled--they would not have
given her the shots anyway, because of her cold. Within a couple of hours
the social service people were there questioning him as to why he was
neglecting her shots. It went on and on until she went to school and
excelled. Then they finally backed off. Can you imagine them harassing a
single mother that way?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

This is just an anti-father hit piece.

Fathers don't take their children to the doctor for a slew of reasons.

Fathers are rarely the custodial parent with the legal right to seek
non-emergency healthcare for their children. Custodial fathers are such
a
small group it's questionable how Yahoo's source came up with a sample
to
measure.

My brother is a single parent. He has raised his daughter since her
birth.
The mother has not been in the picture since the child was 3 months old.
He
was harassed by a number of different social service groups when she was
young. He would tell me that they had come to his house to make sure it
was
clean and safe, and would actually get down and poke around under the bed
and under the refrigerator. He thought they moght be looking for an
excuse
to take the baby away from him. She was scheduled for a set of
immunizations, but she had a cold, so he cancelled--they would not have
given her the shots anyway, because of her cold. Within a couple of hours
the social service people were there questioning him as to why he was
neglecting her shots. It went on and on until she went to school and
excelled. Then they finally backed off. Can you imagine them harassing a
single mother that way?

Never in a MILLION years!

Just who do they think they are attempting to FORCE him to inject the child
with whatever chemicals they use? These maggots are doing EXACTLY what
Hitler did.

"whatamess" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 9, 9:52 am, don_1228 wrote:
On Aug 9, 12:16 am, whatamess wrote:

I found this article very interesting. Of course, they don't seem to
understand the "reason" why children of single fathers truly receive
worse healthcare...Could it be because children of single mothers get
healthcare paid by the non-custodial father, where the opposite is NOT
true most of the time? Could it be that even in their comparison,
children of single mothers get the same or BETTER health care than
children of intact families because the CSE offices make the NCPs pay
for healthcare that normally they could not afford anyway? So, it
just goes to show you, that for all the complaints from single
mothers, children of single fathers, as well as children of intact
families ARE worse off than what the single mothers claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070808/...single_dads_dc

I can probably find the link to this if anyone cares, but the study in
which it was found that children of single fathers are better off
economically, a study that was key to at least Massachusetts and
probably other states setting the levels of child support that are
typical in NY, CA and other states was found years later to be
calculated incorrectly. The author of the work even acknowledged her
error. This was a significant miscalculation. However, our wonderful
representatives, once elected could not bring themselves to revisit
change the legislation once enacted. After all such a giant mother-
load of cash was not flowing, of course it should not ever be touched.

Don (feeling a bit like DB today ;-) )

Oh lovely, that too huh? It's amazing how custodial parents, mostly
women,
have led everyone to believe that their kids have less than
others...needless to say,
the reason why someone like me, who didn't have kids, felt bad for the
ex-wife
and child and went into a relationship thinking that the ones who got
the short end of the stick were the custodial parents, not the other
way around...
then of course, when I realized that the non-custodial parent was the
one
who was getting the short end of the stick, I was accused by all those
same
ex-wifes/custodial parents, as well as everyone else and told "YOU
KNEW
WHAT YOU WERE GETTING INTO"...NO! I did not, and neither do
thousands of others like me, who believed the BS the mothers/custodial
parents threw out there, to later find out it was the other way
around.

The fact that mothers are unwilling to reverse the CP/NCP roles ought to be
the first clue...............