Your wishes are my command.... :-)

> =============================================================
Canada - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   74 years             Females:   81 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:           7 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:           7 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:       4.8 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.7 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                  1,226      21,888 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:            171,928         156 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:                55,275         485 persons per physician
Dentists:                  13,503       1,987 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:               16,348       1,641 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:        241,955         111 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:          N/A              persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:        5.5% of national budget
Access to local health care:     99.0% with access
Contraception use:                 N/A of married women
Measles immunization:            70.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                85.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:             25.39 per 100,000 persons
> =================================================================


Germany - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   73 years             Females:   79 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:          11 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:           7 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:      10.3 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.5 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                  3,614      22,011 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:            838,784          95 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:               213,126         373 persons per physician
Dentists:                  51,758       1,537 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:               38,213       2,082 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:        439,812         181 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:        9,719       8,185 persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:       18.3% of national budget
Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
Contraception use:                 N/A of married women
Measles immunization:              N/A infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                95.4% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:             11.13 per 100,000 persons
> =============================================================


United States of America - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   72 years             Females:   79 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:           9 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:          10 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:       6.6 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.9 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                  6,821      37,018 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:          1,282,800         197 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:               612,000         413 persons per physician
Dentists:                 161,000       1,568 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:              168,000       1,503 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:      1,627,000         155 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:        2,700      93,519 persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:       12.9% of national budget
Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
Contraception use:               74.0% of married women
Measles immunization:            97.5% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                97.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:             95.14 per 100,000 persons
> ==============================================================



Hungary - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   68 years             Females:   76 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:          13 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:          14 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:      16.9 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.8 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                    148      71,338 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:            101,652         104 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:                32,200         328 persons per physician
Dentists:                   3,988       2,647 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:                4,501       2,346 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:         50,172         210 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:        2,613       4,041 persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:        2.1% of national budget
Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
Contraception use:               73.0% of married women
Measles immunization:            95.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                99.5% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:              1.00 per 100,000 persons
> ============================================================

At 10:15 PM 3/12/97 -0400, Andrew J. Rozsa wrote:

>Your wishes are my command.... :-)

Thank you very much.

The figures provided show that Canada spends 5.5 per cent of the national
budget on health care and 99 per cent of the population is covered.  I'm
puzzled about that other 1 per cent, but let's leave that as it is.

Eva Balogh repeats over and over again that the American and the Canadian
systems cost almost the same, yet the figures show that the Americans pay
almost 13 per cent of the national budget on health care.  That's twice as
much as we do!  And we cover everyone equally! (except for that mysterious
one per cent).  It just goes to show you that Americans, in an effort to
avoid anything that resembles socialized medical care, or socialized
anything, are willing to pay twice as much for the privilege.  God love 'em.
At least they're free.  Unfortunately, they want to make Hungarians "free"
in the same sense.  God help us.  And God help us poor, over socialized
Canadians.  We have to live two years longer than the Americans do.  Why do
they get all the breaks?

Joe Szalai

>=============================================================
>Canada - Health
>
>Life expectancy at birth:
>        Males:   74 years             Females:   81 years
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Crude death rate:           7 per 1000 persons die per year
>Infant mortality:           7 per 1000 live births
>Maternal mortality:       4.8 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
>Fertility rate:           1.7 children per woman
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hospitals:                  1,226      21,888 persons per hospital
>Hospital beds:            171,928         156 persons per hospital bed
>Physicians:                55,275         485 persons per physician
>Dentists:                  13,503       1,987 persons per dentist
>Pharmacists:               16,348       1,641 persons per pharmacist
>Nursing personnel:        241,955         111 persons per nurse
>Midwifery personnel:          N/A              persons per midwife
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Medical care expenditures:        5.5% of national budget
>Access to local health care:     99.0% with access
>Contraception use:                 N/A of married women
>Measles immunization:            70.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>DPT immunization:                85.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>AIDS cases reported:             25.39 per 100,000 persons
>=================================================================
>
>
>Germany - Health
>
>Life expectancy at birth:
>        Males:   73 years             Females:   79 years
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Crude death rate:          11 per 1000 persons die per year
>Infant mortality:           7 per 1000 live births
>Maternal mortality:      10.3 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
>Fertility rate:           1.5 children per woman
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hospitals:                  3,614      22,011 persons per hospital
>Hospital beds:            838,784          95 persons per hospital bed
>Physicians:               213,126         373 persons per physician
>Dentists:                  51,758       1,537 persons per dentist
>Pharmacists:               38,213       2,082 persons per pharmacist
>Nursing personnel:        439,812         181 persons per nurse
>Midwifery personnel:        9,719       8,185 persons per midwife
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Medical care expenditures:       18.3% of national budget
>Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
>Contraception use:                 N/A of married women
>Measles immunization:              N/A infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>DPT immunization:                95.4% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>AIDS cases reported:             11.13 per 100,000 persons
>=============================================================
>
>
>United States of America - Health
>
>Life expectancy at birth:
>        Males:   72 years             Females:   79 years
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Crude death rate:           9 per 1000 persons die per year
>Infant mortality:          10 per 1000 live births
>Maternal mortality:       6.6 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
>Fertility rate:           1.9 children per woman
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hospitals:                  6,821      37,018 persons per hospital
>Hospital beds:          1,282,800         197 persons per hospital bed
>Physicians:               612,000         413 persons per physician
>Dentists:                 161,000       1,568 persons per dentist
>Pharmacists:              168,000       1,503 persons per pharmacist
>Nursing personnel:      1,627,000         155 persons per nurse
>Midwifery personnel:        2,700      93,519 persons per midwife
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Medical care expenditures:       12.9% of national budget
>Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
>Contraception use:               74.0% of married women
>Measles immunization:            97.5% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>DPT immunization:                97.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>AIDS cases reported:             95.14 per 100,000 persons
>==============================================================
>
>
>
>Hungary - Health
>
>Life expectancy at birth:
>        Males:   68 years             Females:   76 years
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Crude death rate:          13 per 1000 persons die per year
>Infant mortality:          14 per 1000 live births
>Maternal mortality:      16.9 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
>Fertility rate:           1.8 children per woman
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hospitals:                    148      71,338 persons per hospital
>Hospital beds:            101,652         104 persons per hospital bed
>Physicians:                32,200         328 persons per physician
>Dentists:                   3,988       2,647 persons per dentist
>Pharmacists:                4,501       2,346 persons per pharmacist
>Nursing personnel:         50,172         210 persons per nurse
>Midwifery personnel:        2,613       4,041 persons per midwife
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Medical care expenditures:        2.1% of national budget
>Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
>Contraception use:               73.0% of married women
>Measles immunization:            95.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>DPT immunization:                99.5% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
>AIDS cases reported:              1.00 per 100,000 persons
>============================================================
>
>

In article >, Janos
Zsargo > writes:

>>interest to enter. As for World War I it wasn't so much of British trickery
>>which made the United States join but rather German stupidity and insults.
>
>I disagree with both the 'British trickery' and 'German insult/stupidity'
>theory. I think it was cold blooded calculation from the American side. They
>probable considered the most benificial with the least cost to side with
>the Entente. This 'German insult' stuff is just propaganda and/or excuse.
>
>

Can you say "Zimmerman Telegram?" Can you say "Lusitania?" Between the stupid
antics of the German Admiralty and those of the German Foreign Ministry, it's a
testament to American unwillingness to enter into the fray in Europe that it
took us until 1917 to do so.

I loved your scenario of the Americans timidly pecking at the edges of the
western conflict in World War II where all the sissy German soldiers were
stationed. Which begs the question of why the Americans would pursue
"cold-blooded" realpolitik by allowing a known future adversary to swallow up a
large portion of Europe. Either you've been watching too many "Hogan's Heroes"
re-runs or they don't teach logic at U Toileto.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Also even-handed of you to note that the U.S. in World War II was busy
fighting a second major war in the Pacific at the same time it was invading
Normandy and Italy.


"Come on and do what you did;
Roll me under New Madrid..."
-- Uncle Tupelo

Puskás, ha jól tudom, keresztneve Tivadar, 1956-ban a Melbourne-I olympiász-ra 
jött ki a magyar csapattal. Igen jó eredmények után itt maradtak. 
Addig Sydney-ben a Rugby, Melbourne-ben az Australian Rules volt A Sprt, a foci
 amit itt soccer-nak neveznek erösen lenézett sport volt. Puskás és társai az i
tteni klubbokat meg szervezték oly annnyira hogy ma az Ausztrál csapat világ ní
vóju.

Üdv
Dénes 



----------
From:  aheringer[SMTP:]
Sent:  Thursday, 13 March 1997 7:48
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: Simandy

In article >,  says...
>
>George Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> In article >  (aheringer)
writes:
>>
>> >Ma reggel hallottam a magyar radioban hogy meghalt Simandy Jozsef.
80
>> >eves volt.  A 80 eves szuletesnapjara a magyar operahaz nagy unnepseg
>> >kereteben nekiajandekozta a Bank Ban kosztumot, amiben annyiszor
enekelte
>> >el a Hazam, hazam, te mindenem cimu ariat.
>>
>> >Tavaly itt volt Torontoban.  Itt is elenekelte, de sajnos, jobb lett
>> >volna, ha megtartom emlekeimben ugy, ahogy hoskoraban enekelte.
>> >Beke poraira!
>>
>> >Agnes
>>
>> Azt hiszem, korunk legnagyobb magyar tenorja't sirathatjuk. Ho"stenor
>> szerepekben utole'rhetetlen, lirai dallamokban az egyik legkiva'lo'bb.
>> Nyugodje'k be'ke'ben.
>> GK
>Nem csak, hogy egy sriasi inekes volt, de a vilag legjobb ivspartnere
>is. 1952-ben vagy 53-ban (?) volt szerencsim egy balatongyvrvki villaban
>(mar nem emlikszem ki volt a tulaj, csak arra, hogy valami Kossuth dmjas
>fazon volt), in mint cssrs focista Puskas Vcsin kereszt|l pottyantam
>ebbe a tarsasagba, egy nagy party-n mindenkit az asztal ala ivott.
>Rendkmv|l szimpatikus, kvzvetelen, sztar all|r mentes, baratsagos,
>szellemes, kulturalt egyin volt. Jsska, we will miss you!
>Mellesleg jegyzem meg, hogy Vcsi aprilis 2-an lesz 70 ives. A vilag
>minden szamottevv focistaja ott lesz a Nipstadionban a magyar-ausztral
>(ott volt ivekig sikeres edzv) meccs alatt is utan |nnepelni. Happy
>birthday, Vcsi!

Puskas Ocsirol jut eszembe, hogy elozo heten a Szepesivel volt egy
interview lekozvetitve a magyar radioban, szinten nagyon erdekes volt.

Agnes

Ezt én tévesztettem el. Árpádházi Kinga (Kunigunde) volt Margit huga és negyedi
k Béla leánya. Feleségül ment egy Jagello-I herceghez. Ezen az alapon hívták me
g késöbb elso Ulászlót a magyar trónra.

Üdv
Dénes 



----------
From:  Magdolna Zimanyi[SMTP:]
Sent:  Thursday, 13 March 1997 2:22
Cc:  
Subject:  magyar-lengyel tortenelmi kapcsolatok

Denes BOGSANYI > wrote:
> 
>  Rokonsag bar nics de szoros tortenelmi kapcsolat az van. A lengyel
> Jadwega (nemetul Hedwig) ha jol tudom Arpadhazi Szent Margit huga
> volt. O alapitotta ujra a Crakow-i egyetemet es o rajta keresztul lett
> a magyar Nagy Lajos lengyel kiraly.
> Udv
> Denes

Elnezest, nem egeszen igy volt. Jadwiga Nagy Lajos leanya volt, es mivel
Nagy Lajos magyar es lengyel kiraly volt, a lengyel tront Jadwiga 
nevu leanya orokolte, a magyart pedig a masik leanya, aki Maria 
kiralyne lett. Nagy Lajosnak kulonben az anyja is lengyel volt,
Lokietek Erzsebet (akit, ha mashonnan nem, a Zach Klara es Zach
Felician tortenetebol ismerunk, az o negy ujjat vagta le Zach Felician).

A magyar-lengyel kapcsolatok masik legnevezetesebb alakja Bathory Istvan
volt, akit erdelyi fejedelmi szekbol valasztottak lengyel kirallya.
Lengyelek voltak a Jagello uralkodok is, I. es II. Ulaszlo,
akik azonban a magyar tortenelemben  nem hagytak tul jo emlekezetet... 

Udvozlettel
Zimanyi Magda

Thank you for the data. I think it is very interesting. According to it the hig
hly socialised Canadian system is shown to cost 5.5%. A similarly highly social
ised German System costs 18.3% or 3.5 times as much. The non-socialised America
n system costs 12.9%. True, this is as a proportion of budget and NOT of GDP. 
I wonder though whether we are comparing like with like or whether some costs a
re not attributed to health care. The Hungarian figure of 2.1% is surprisingly 
low. The question then arises of whether they are getting good quality service 
for the cost which they seem to be on the basis of the other data.

Regards
Dénes 



----------
From:  Andrew J. Rozsa[SMTP:]
Sent:  Thursday, 13 March 1997 12:16
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Va: Health care systems

Your wishes are my command.... :-)

> =============================================================
Canada - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   74 years             Females:   81 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:           7 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:           7 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:       4.8 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.7 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                  1,226      21,888 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:            171,928         156 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:                55,275         485 persons per physician
Dentists:                  13,503       1,987 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:               16,348       1,641 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:        241,955         111 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:          N/A              persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:        5.5% of national budget
Access to local health care:     99.0% with access
Contraception use:                 N/A of married women
Measles immunization:            70.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                85.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:             25.39 per 100,000 persons
> =================================================================


Germany - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   73 years             Females:   79 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:          11 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:           7 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:      10.3 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.5 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                  3,614      22,011 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:            838,784          95 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:               213,126         373 persons per physician
Dentists:                  51,758       1,537 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:               38,213       2,082 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:        439,812         181 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:        9,719       8,185 persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:       18.3% of national budget
Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
Contraception use:                 N/A of married women
Measles immunization:              N/A infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                95.4% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:             11.13 per 100,000 persons
> =============================================================


United States of America - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   72 years             Females:   79 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:           9 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:          10 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:       6.6 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.9 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                  6,821      37,018 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:          1,282,800         197 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:               612,000         413 persons per physician
Dentists:                 161,000       1,568 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:              168,000       1,503 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:      1,627,000         155 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:        2,700      93,519 persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:       12.9% of national budget
Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
Contraception use:               74.0% of married women
Measles immunization:            97.5% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                97.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:             95.14 per 100,000 persons
> ==============================================================



Hungary - Health

Life expectancy at birth:
        Males:   68 years             Females:   76 years
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude death rate:          13 per 1000 persons die per year
Infant mortality:          14 per 1000 live births
Maternal mortality:      16.9 per 100,000 mothers die during birth
Fertility rate:           1.8 children per woman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals:                    148      71,338 persons per hospital
Hospital beds:            101,652         104 persons per hospital bed
Physicians:                32,200         328 persons per physician
Dentists:                   3,988       2,647 persons per dentist
Pharmacists:                4,501       2,346 persons per pharmacist
Nursing personnel:         50,172         210 persons per nurse
Midwifery personnel:        2,613       4,041 persons per midwife
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical care expenditures:        2.1% of national budget
Access to local health care:    100.0% with access
Contraception use:               73.0% of married women
Measles immunization:            95.0% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
DPT immunization:                99.5% infants ( < 12 months) immunized
AIDS cases reported:              1.00 per 100,000 persons
> ============================================================

 wrote:


>> >Why are so low number of messages in hungarian newsgroops?
>> >Udv: dr Somlo Janos
>> 
>> >http://next-1b.manuf.bme.hu/~somlo
>>
>> Maybe because those few are very long ;-)
>> dominus v.
>
>Dominus,Dominus! What have you done ?!  :-)))
>
>               Marcus Scribblius   ( Mark O.F.)


Dominus Markusnak (ad Marcum):
Why? Does it show?

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   normal

Background:
  The simultaneous integration of Romania and Hungary into NATO is in
the best interest of our Transylvanian Hungarian brethren, of the
region, and of our peoples and countries. This is also recognized by
the RMDSZ, by simple citizens, and by Hungarian politicians of the
government as well as of the opposition.
  Unfortunately, Romania is not mentioned when Western
politicians talk about NATO expansion. During the next week our
friends from the Romanian Lobby will intensify their efforts
for the cause of Romania's integration into NATO in the first
wave, along with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland.

What to do:
  Please support the work of our Romanian friends by sending Secretary
of State Albright a letter in which you express the importance of
Romania's integration into NATO in the first wave of the expansion.
Feel free to use the attached form letter. Note that Albright will
only take notice if she receives thousands of letters.
  Therefore please send at least one letter every day and ask your
friends who do not have contact with HL to do the same.

e-mail address of Albright:


*************************************************************

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC  20520
E-Mail: )

Dear Madame Secretary:

As a member of the Hungarian Lobby I am deeply interested in the
future of East-Central Europe, and recognize the need for simultaneous
integration of the countries of the region into NATO. This would
stabilize the whole region and assure the orderly transition toward
democracy and market economy, without the turmoil seen in the former
Yugoslavia.

Romania, a country of 23 milion people, with affinity toward western
culture, at the same time represents the best potential base of
stability in the Balkans.

Romania's ongoing political democratization and reorganization of all
central and local governmental institutions, the inclusion of the
large Hungarian minority in the government, and the expected
subsequent satisfaction of legitimate minority claims are -- and may
become -- positive examples for the countries of the region.

A look at the map of Europe shows Romania to be the gateway to the
East. Only through this gateway will it be possible to access the
heart of Europe, and the key that will allow this gateway to stay open
-- and to defend it effectively at the same time -- is NATO membership
for Romania.

With an important economic potential due to a large and fertile
agricultural area, her metallurgical and defense industries ready to
produce for her allies, possessing the biggest maritime port in
Eastern Europe, with a multiethnic population and large urban
comunities, Romania is just as much an important future partner and
ally of the European Community and of NATO as are Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Hungary.

For all the above considerations, I ask You, Madame Secretary, to
support the inclusion of Romania, along with Hungary, the Czech
Republic and Poland, among the first group of countries to be
integrated into NATO.

Respectfully,

<name, title, address>

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:
   normal

Background:
  The simultaneous integration of Romania and Hungary into NATO is in
the best interest of our Transylvanian Hungarian brethren, of the
region, and of our peoples and countries. This is also recognized by
the RMDSZ, by simple citizens, and by Hungarian politicians of the
government as well as of the opposition.
  Unfortunately, Romania is not mentioned when Western
politicians talk about NATO expansion. During the next week our
friends from the Romanian Lobby will intensify their efforts
for the cause of Romania's integration into NATO in the first
wave, along with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland.

What to do:
  Please support the work of our Romanian friends by sending Secretary
of State Albright a letter in which you express the importance of
Romania's integration into NATO in the first wave of the expansion.
Feel free to use the attached form letter. Note that Albright will
only take notice if she receives thousands of letters.
  Therefore please send at least one letter every day and ask your
friends who do not have contact with HL to do the same.

e-mail address of Albright:


*************************************************************

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC  20520
E-Mail: )

Dear Madame Secretary:

As a member of the Hungarian Lobby I am deeply interested in the
future of East-Central Europe, and recognize the need for simultaneous
integration of the countries of the region into NATO. This would
stabilize the whole region and assure the orderly transition toward
democracy and market economy, without the turmoil seen in the former
Yugoslavia.

Romania, a country of 23 milion people, with affinity toward western
culture, at the same time represents the best potential base of
stability in the Balkans.

Romania's ongoing political democratization and reorganization of all
central and local governmental institutions, the inclusion of the
large Hungarian minority in the government, and the expected
subsequent satisfaction of legitimate minority claims are -- and may
become -- positive examples for the countries of the region.

A look at the map of Europe shows Romania to be the gateway to the
East. Only through this gateway will it be possible to access the
heart of Europe, and the key that will allow this gateway to stay open
-- and to defend it effectively at the same time -- is NATO membership
for Romania.

With an important economic potential due to a large and fertile
agricultural area, her metallurgical and defense industries ready to
produce for her allies, possessing the biggest maritime port in
Eastern Europe, with a multiethnic population and large urban
comunities, Romania is just as much an important future partner and
ally of the European Community and of NATO as are Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Hungary.

For all the above considerations, I ask You, Madame Secretary, to
support the inclusion of Romania, along with Hungary, the Czech
Republic and Poland, among the first group of countries to be
integrated into NATO.

Respectfully,

<name, title, address>

Dear Readers:

   Quoting an article by Jeff Sallot, from the Parliamentary Bureau in Ottawa,
in The Globe & Mail, Wednesday, March 12th, 1997:

            NATO EXPANSION VITAL FOR EUROPE, WALESA SAYS
   Former Polish leader warns of rival movement taking root
   in the former Soviet bloc if Western alliance fails to act

   "For anyone who has second thoughts about the expansion of NATO, Lech
Walesa, the first hero of the anti-Communist movement in Eastern Europe
[sic], has a blunt message: Failure to expand would be irresponsible.
   If the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bows to Russian Pressure and
does not admit Poland and other former Communist states [sic], the alliance
will leave a vacuum that will be filled by some other force rising in
opposition to NATO, Mr. Walesa said yesterday.
   'We are left with a no man's land in the place of the old Warsaw Pact,
and hence the danger. Whoever opposes NATO expansion is planning for a
confrontation tomorrow', Mr. Walesa said.
   The former shipyard electrician who organized the Solidarity opposition
movement and became Poland's first post-Communist president was in Ottawa
yesterday to make sure Canada's support for NATO expansion remains solid.
   He received reassurance in a private meeting with Prime Minister Jean
Chretien that Ottawa will champion Poland's bid to be among the first of the
new members that are expected to join the club at a summit meeting this summer.
   Hungary and the Czech Republic, with Canadian backing, are also expected
to win invitations. Less likely are the odds of Slovenia, Slovakia and
Romania being admitted in the first round even though they, too, have
Canadian support.
   NATO countries pledge to defend one another in the event of agression.
Under the treaty, Canada, for example, would be obliged to help defend any
European member of the alliance if it came under attack.
   Canadians do not often realize how much influence they have in world
affairs, Mr. Walesa said in an interview. 'You are perceived a little bit
differently than anyone else. Canada is big and powerful, but it is
impartial in a way and therefore you may play a crucial role in
decision-making' by bodies such as NATO.
   Mr. Walesa, who was defeated in his presidential re-election bid two
years ago by a reformed Communist, holds no official post. But the Nobel
Peace Price winner is so much of a symbol of the hopes for a post-Communist
world that the Polish government does not hesitate to send him abroad to
make the case for NATO enlargement.
   Mr. Walesa would not characteize Russia as a potential threat to Poland.
'There is no direct threat to Poland's security today', he said. 'But there
may be a threat tomorrow because life abhors a vacuum. Poland and other
countries must join NATO so there is no possibility of establishing
something else, some-
thing opposite to NATO.'
   Countries outside NATO 'are the fabric of tomorrow's confrontation,'he added
.
   Even if the risk of war in Europe is eliminated forever, there will still
be the need for an organization, such as NATO, which can bring military
expertise to such problems as cleaning up ecological disasters, he said.
   Soldiers who like to shoot guns can even be kept busy firing cannons at
the clouds to seed them to create rainfall, he added with a grin."

                                         Istvan L. Szabolcsy

At 10:58 PM 3/12/97 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:

>Eva Balogh repeats over and over again that the American and the Canadian
>systems cost almost the same, yet the figures show that the Americans pay
>almost 13 per cent of the national budget on health care.  That's twice as
>much as we do!

        Don't be too happy too early because the data Bandi kindly provided
don't negate mine. Think it through. I was giving data based on GDP/person
while Bandi's data talks about national budgets. The two are not the same.
Simply put, the size of the national budget is quite independent of the
country's DGP (gross national product). It is most likely that Canada's
national budget *proportionately* larger than the American. (Again, think of
higher taxation levels.) Thus, medical expenses are only 5.5 percent of the
national budget but, calculations based on the GDP may very well mean that
the actual figures per person are very similar in the two countries.
        Eva Balogh

At 12:47 PM 3/12/97 -0500, Andy wrote:

>>Eva:I wasn't talking about cost.I tried to make a point,how the HMO-s
>dictate what can be done on a sick person.

        But this may also very well be true about a national health service.
Even a life saving operation can not be done,since that HMO does not cover it.

        I am a bit confused. HMOs are not the insurers. I belong to an HMO
but most of the insurance comes from Blue Cross-Blue Shield.

>When it is done and HMO get
>wind of it,they canvelled the persons insurance.Does this has anything to do
>with cost?

        That was certainly the case until recently but as far as I know this
is no longer possible thanks to new legislations.

        Eva Balogh

At 12:02 PM 3/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 12:47 PM 3/12/97 -0500, Andy wrote:
>
>>>Eva:I wasn't talking about cost.I tried to make a point,how the HMO-s
>>dictate what can be done on a sick person.
>
>        But this may also very well be true about a national health service.
>Even a life saving operation can not be done,since that HMO does not cover it.
>
>        I am a bit confused. HMOs are not the insurers. I belong to an HMO
>but most of the insurance comes from Blue Cross-Blue Shield.
>
>>When it is done and HMO get
>>wind of it,they canvelled the persons insurance.Does this has anything to do
>>with cost?
>
>        That was certainly the case until recently but as far as I know this
>is no longer possible thanks to new legislations.
>
>        Eva Balogh
>
>
>Eva:you are allways rigth.In the mean time in todays paper (Toronto
Star),there is an article:For profit hospitals in U.S.cost more,study finds.
"For profit hospitals inU.S.spend at leas 23%more on administration costs
and rack up higher overal bills than public or non-for -profit hospitals,a
new study finds.
The findings ByDrs.Steffe Woolhandler and David Himmelstein of Hrvard
Medical School in todays New England Journal of medicine comes at a time of
continued concern about the high cost of health care and the amount spent to
administer hospitals in particular.
Nealy 25 cents of evry dollar spent by hospitals in the U.S.goes to
administration,nearly twice the rate in Canada."
It is a longer article,but the importance is there.
Greetings:Andy.

With regard to WWI we have to consider that the political leaders were pro Brit
ish while a large proportion of the population being Irish were livid at doing 
anything to help them. It needed sustained propaganda for which the Germans sup
plied incidents such as the Lusitania for these to come around.
In the case of WW II the situation is much more murky. Germany was an ally of R
ussia while it suited her to attack and conquer France in particular. The USA s
tood by and made sure every last bolt was paid for by the British in gold. Only
 when she had been stripped of her assets did the USA send considerable manpowe
r to Europe.

Regards
Dénes 



----------
From:  Sam Stowe[SMTP:]
Sent:  Thursday, 13 March 1997 13:08
To:  Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject:  Re: Anglo-Saxons

In article >, Janos
Zsargo > writes:

>>interest to enter. As for World War I it wasn't so much of British trickery
>>which made the United States join but rather German stupidity and insults.
>
>I disagree with both the 'British trickery' and 'German insult/stupidity'
>theory. I think it was cold blooded calculation from the American side. They
>probable considered the most benificial with the least cost to side with
>the Entente. This 'German insult' stuff is just propaganda and/or excuse.
>
>

Can you say "Zimmerman Telegram?" Can you say "Lusitania?" Between the stupid
antics of the German Admiralty and those of the German Foreign Ministry, it's a
testament to American unwillingness to enter into the fray in Europe that it
took us until 1917 to do so.

I loved your scenario of the Americans timidly pecking at the edges of the
western conflict in World War II where all the sissy German soldiers were
stationed. Which begs the question of why the Americans would pursue
"cold-blooded" realpolitik by allowing a known future adversary to swallow up a
large portion of Europe. Either you've been watching too many "Hogan's Heroes"
re-runs or they don't teach logic at U Toileto.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- Also even-handed of you to note that the U.S. in World War II was busy
fighting a second major war in the Pacific at the same time it was invading
Normandy and Italy.


"Come on and do what you did;
Roll me under New Madrid..."
-- Uncle Tupelo

At 12:02 PM 3/13/97 -0500, Eva Balogh, in "Re: Va: Health care systems", wrote:

<snip>
>        Don't be too happy too early because the data Bandi kindly provided
>don't negate mine.

Too happy too early?  Me?  Hell, I've been silently gloating for the last 24
hours because no matter how you add up the numbers, you're wrong.

>Think it through. I was giving data based on GDP/person
>while Bandi's data talks about national budgets. The two are not the same.
>Simply put, the size of the national budget is quite independent of the
>country's DGP (gross national product).

True enough.

>It is most likely that Canada's national budget *proportionately* larger
>than the American. (Again, think of higher taxation levels.)

Yes, we have higher taxation levels but that is not indicative of the cost
of services.  Pooling our resources through taxes means that we can get the
same services that you do, but for considerably less money.

>Thus, medical expenses are only 5.5 percent of the
>national budget but, calculations based on the GDP may very well mean that
>the actual figures per person are very similar in the two countries.

Well, no they're not.

Statistics Canada in "Health Reports", 1992 Volume 4 No. 2 states the following
:

"The Canadian health care system is based on five principles legislated in
the federal Canada Health Act: public administration, comprehensiveness,
universality, portability and accessibility.  Canadian residents are covered
by provincial health care insurance plans that allow free access to health
care, laboratory services, and adult residential care services based on
medical and health needs regardless of income.

"While, the United States health care system is structured differently than
Canada's, the two systems have similarities.  Canada uses a single payer
public insurance model but has fee-for-service funding for physicians.  The
United States uses an entrepreneurial or market model, but has publicly
funded medicare and medicaid programs.

"Health care expenditures as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
are lower in Canada than in the United States.  These figures have diverged
substantially since Canada introduced universal health insurance.

"Health care spending is increasing in both countries.  Canada's total
health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP rose from 5.5 per cent of
GDP in 1960 to 9.2 per cent in 1990 - an increase of 67 per cent.  In the
United States, expenditures rose from 5.2 per cent of GDP in 1960 to 12.2
per cent in 1990 - an increase of 135 per cent (more than double Canada's
rate of increase).  In 1990, Americans spent about a third more per capita
on health care than Canada, and almost twice that of Japan and the United
Kingdom.

"In both countries, the most significant health care expenditure is hospital
care.  In 1990 Canadians spent US$1837 per capita on health care services,
compared to $2566 that Americans spent.  Per capita hospital expenditures
were US$745 in Canada, compared to US$998 in the United States.  From 1985
to 1990, hospital expenditures in Canada rose 12 per cent compared to 37 per
cent in the United States."

But why believe me, or Canadian statistics, when American stats are
available.  The "Statistical Abstract of the United States 1996", published
by the U.S. Department of Commerce, states on page 111 that in 1994 the
national health expenditure in the U.S. was 13.7 per cent of GDP.  The per
capita cost was US$3500.  It also mentions that 40 million Americans are
without health insurance.

Do you still need more evidence, Eva?  And please don't tell me that the
difference between 9.2 and 12.2 per cent of the GDP is insignificant,
because when we're talking about health care, that 3 per cent difference
translates into tens of billions of dollars, every year.

And one more thing, Eva.  You always go on and on about the expense of the
German health care system and how they won't be able to afford it for much
longer.  Well, this is the order of the total health care spending as a
percentage of GDP; U.S.A., Canada, Germany, France, Britain, and Japan.

So, before you tell Hungarians what kind of health care system they should
have, please do some research.  Or, just believe me. ;-)

Joe Szalai