The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
RogerB
Crusader
Actually,Lakey, in my books I write about the American healthcare scene . . . not only is it by far the most expensive in the world, but according to OECD stats, it is the worst among "developed countries" . . . you can do your own research into the issue of misuse of the vaunted technology and screw-ups on use of drugs and incompetent mistakes made by its doctors.
At choice, I'd choose the Ozzie system for treatment first, then Swiss, Germany, Scandinavia.
There is much to be learned by seeing the rest of the world.
R
At choice, I'd choose the Ozzie system for treatment first, then Swiss, Germany, Scandinavia.
There is much to be learned by seeing the rest of the world.
R
lkwdblds
Crusader
Comments
I am not so sure food is freely produced in the USA and made available to anyone for price. The government through their FDA (Food and Drug Authority) has a lot of control of what food additives are allowed, what pesticides are allowed and certified as safe, what kind of labelling must take place, etc. Toxic poisons, such as pesticides and additives which preserve shelf life are freely certified as safe but when the FDA goes after anyone in the food industry, they usually pick the health food stores. L trytophan was forced off of the market as a sleep aid during the 1980's as an example.
Pesitcides are okayed to be sprayed on our produce. For economic reasons, the agriculture industry wants to spray each crop only one time. Therefore they do not use pesticides which are water soluble and wash off so that if it rains, the pesticides will remain on the food. They use parafins and waxes which can not be washed off without instensive scrubbing and washing with some type of strong soap or other chemical.
The average consumer brings home a bunch of grapes or a bag of apples and these fruits are coated with toxic elements held on the fruit with parafins. The consumer spends a few seconds rinsing his grapes or apples in tap water and then eats his poison. Once or twice and you would not be harmed but starting with kids who eat these poisons starting in chilhood, after a few decades they have serious health issues arise from a lifetime of consistently ingesting toxins.
The governments also routinely pay farmers not to to grow certain crops or produce milk and so forth. The government gives out food stamps to the poor and from what I understand, this food stamp system can be worked over and abused so that a clever person who is not really needy enough to qualify for the stamps can get them anyway if they know what strings to pull.
As for the health care system, I will concede that the system in England has some good features in it which we should implement. However, the Obama care package which passed congress about 60 to 40, so non partisan that not even one Republican voted for it, is not modeled after the British System. No one really knows what provisions are in it. The legislation is hundreds of pages long and almost no one has read it all the way through!! Almost none of the legislatures who voted for it have read the legislation. It was rushed through congress to meet a time deadline before congress could recess and reading what was in the measure was not required to be done before voting on it. nor was sufficient time allowed for it to be read.
Obama care is based on a theory that 40 million more people will now be covered, prices will be lower than they are now under the current system and the quality of the services will be maintained. We are not told how these objectives will be met. Clearly, it is not possible for the objectives to be met. If 40 million more people are to be handled and the number of doctors stays the same, each doctor would be drastically overworked. The legislatiion has provisions that people must buy the health insurance of they will be subject to prosecution for breaking the law. There are several law suits already in progress testing the constitutionality of that principle.
If health care is available for $150 a year in Germany, what type of machinations have to take place for this to occur. There are no free rides, somebody has to pay for providing these elaborate services. What happens is that the German population is static or is slightly decreasing so workers have to be brought in, primarily from Turkey. In France, the workers are from Muslim countries in North Africa. Each European Union country has a large Muslim population which is rapidly increasing due to a high brith rate while the native population is slowly decreasing due to a low brith rate. These Muslim populations usually do not want to assimilate into the host countries culture but prefer to maintain their own culture, usually including Sharia law. Just fast forward ahead a few decades and see what lies ahead. The countries are not going to exist in the form in which we know them, the French culture, the German culture, the Dutch, Swedish, Danish and Norweigian cultures will no longer exist within the boundaries of those countries. This is what has to happen if workers must be imported in sufficient numbers to sustain the national health care system because the local workers are nowhere near sufficient in numbers to pay for their health care through their payroll taxes.
Lakey
I am not so sure food is freely produced in the USA and made available to anyone for price. The government through their FDA (Food and Drug Authority) has a lot of control of what food additives are allowed, what pesticides are allowed and certified as safe, what kind of labelling must take place, etc. Toxic poisons, such as pesticides and additives which preserve shelf life are freely certified as safe but when the FDA goes after anyone in the food industry, they usually pick the health food stores. L trytophan was forced off of the market as a sleep aid during the 1980's as an example.
Pesitcides are okayed to be sprayed on our produce. For economic reasons, the agriculture industry wants to spray each crop only one time. Therefore they do not use pesticides which are water soluble and wash off so that if it rains, the pesticides will remain on the food. They use parafins and waxes which can not be washed off without instensive scrubbing and washing with some type of strong soap or other chemical.
The average consumer brings home a bunch of grapes or a bag of apples and these fruits are coated with toxic elements held on the fruit with parafins. The consumer spends a few seconds rinsing his grapes or apples in tap water and then eats his poison. Once or twice and you would not be harmed but starting with kids who eat these poisons starting in chilhood, after a few decades they have serious health issues arise from a lifetime of consistently ingesting toxins.
The governments also routinely pay farmers not to to grow certain crops or produce milk and so forth. The government gives out food stamps to the poor and from what I understand, this food stamp system can be worked over and abused so that a clever person who is not really needy enough to qualify for the stamps can get them anyway if they know what strings to pull.
As for the health care system, I will concede that the system in England has some good features in it which we should implement. However, the Obama care package which passed congress about 60 to 40, so non partisan that not even one Republican voted for it, is not modeled after the British System. No one really knows what provisions are in it. The legislation is hundreds of pages long and almost no one has read it all the way through!! Almost none of the legislatures who voted for it have read the legislation. It was rushed through congress to meet a time deadline before congress could recess and reading what was in the measure was not required to be done before voting on it. nor was sufficient time allowed for it to be read.
Obama care is based on a theory that 40 million more people will now be covered, prices will be lower than they are now under the current system and the quality of the services will be maintained. We are not told how these objectives will be met. Clearly, it is not possible for the objectives to be met. If 40 million more people are to be handled and the number of doctors stays the same, each doctor would be drastically overworked. The legislatiion has provisions that people must buy the health insurance of they will be subject to prosecution for breaking the law. There are several law suits already in progress testing the constitutionality of that principle.
If health care is available for $150 a year in Germany, what type of machinations have to take place for this to occur. There are no free rides, somebody has to pay for providing these elaborate services. What happens is that the German population is static or is slightly decreasing so workers have to be brought in, primarily from Turkey. In France, the workers are from Muslim countries in North Africa. Each European Union country has a large Muslim population which is rapidly increasing due to a high brith rate while the native population is slowly decreasing due to a low brith rate. These Muslim populations usually do not want to assimilate into the host countries culture but prefer to maintain their own culture, usually including Sharia law. Just fast forward ahead a few decades and see what lies ahead. The countries are not going to exist in the form in which we know them, the French culture, the German culture, the Dutch, Swedish, Danish and Norweigian cultures will no longer exist within the boundaries of those countries. This is what has to happen if workers must be imported in sufficient numbers to sustain the national health care system because the local workers are nowhere near sufficient in numbers to pay for their health care through their payroll taxes.
Lakey
Last edited:
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
In the original scheme, the US federal government was supposed to be very small, with its duties mainly consisting of: maintaining good relations with other countries, resolving disputes between states, and defending against external threats. Most of what the federal government does today was supposed to be handled by the states, or by the private sector.
This decentralization has the effect that, if a state imposes excessive taxes while not providing a good environment for the productive, then the productive will move away to other states (taking their taxable income with them). Meanwhile, if a state is too generous with welfare, then the unproductive will flock to the state and collapse its welfare system. This keeps a lid on excessive government.
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
One necessary wrinkle, rather than just "loser pays". There should be three possible verdicts in a civil case: "guilty" (defendant pays), "not guilty" (defendant does not pay, plaintiff not liable for defendant's fees), "frivolous" (defendant does not pay, plaintiff AND PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY liable for defendant's fees).
The reasons for these wrinkles:
1) we don't want a poor plaintiff bankrupted when he had a plausible case but just not convincing enough to win the verdict,
2) In a frivolous suit, often the plaintiff does not have the assets to pay legal fees (is "judgment proof"). But in a merit-less, frivolous suit the lawyer for the plaintiff is the main guilty party, and so should pay.
In the case of an outrageously-frivolous lawsuit, I could go for having the plaintiff (and his lawyer) being subject to a fine which was a percentage of the amount he was suing for.
lkwdblds
Crusader
What about addressing the issue of tort reform?
Before I accept your statements, I would need to do a lot of research. I have heard radio interviews of working class people in England and Canada being scheduled 4 to 6 months down the road for critical operation procedures which were life threatening. In many cases, the people came to the United to get quicker treatment and in several cases better treatment.
Your statement that much is to be gained by seeing the rest of the world should be reworded to state. "much is to be gained by living in the rest of the world." I was in Europe last year in 3 countries, Germany, Austrian and the Czech Republic however I learned nothing of their medical plans by seeing these countries. To really learn, I would have had to live there and undergo medical procedures myself or else hear about various medical procedures that my hosts their had had. But after all, how many countries can you go to specifically to see their medical system in action? Usually, when you are on vacation or on business, your health is usually fine or you would not be going in the first place. I mean, unless you have International business dealings on a regular basis, how many instances would occur where you went to a foreign country, took ill and needed treatment? It is probably much more direct and easier to read about other countries medical systems to get a feel for what they are like.
My ex wife's second cousin Lucy, then 23 visited here 3 years ago. She is a nurse and we took her over to St Jude's hospital in Fullerton to look into employment opportunities for her. She was just raving about the hospital facility and how modern and clean it was, the abundance of equipment which it had and the state of the art medical equipment which it had. The pay rate for nurses was much higher here as well. She was making about $2,000 Euros a month in Paris and here she would have earned a gross pay of over double that. However, in France you get to keep the entire $2,000 while here there are large payroll deductions This is only one anecdote but still, that native of Paris was extremely impressed with this one U.S. Hospital.
As to the U.S. being a more expensive system, how about commenting on the possibility of medical mal practice insurance running amok being a major factor contributing to high prices in the US? If this point has merit, then tort reform might be sufficient to get costs down in the USA rather than revamping the entire system. Greedy lawyers are gaming tens of millions off of the medical health care industry in every US State and could be totally stopped by passage of a plaintiff pays attoney fees law being adopted.
Adoption of this law is being stopped totally and completely by policians on the far left who are in bed with the American Trial Lawyers Union. These same extremely left leaning politicians are the ones who are shoving National Health care down the throats of US citizens despite most U.S. Citizens not really wanting the current plan as it is proposed.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MEDICAL MAL PRACTICE LAWSUITS WHEN A GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER RUNNING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
I am very curious what happens in the European Union. Can private lawyers sue the Government for Medical Malpractice and reap enormous punitive damage awards as they do in the US? It does not seem like this would be the case. So what does the American Trial Lawyers Union feel about Obama care? They are not going to give up the gold mine which they have without a fight, I would be interested to know their position.
YOUR LIST OF PREFERRED MEDICAL SYSTEM COUNTRIES ARE MAINLY VERY SMALL COUNTRIES IN POPULATION
Switzerland and Sweden have about 8 million residence each and OZ has less than 20 million. The USA has a very diverse population of well over 300 million. A country which is already being run under a socialist type of government such as Sweden or Switzerland and which has only 8 million may thrive under a national health care system. For a country not yet socialist and with a very large and diverse population, such a system may well have major problems to work out before a successful system can be implemented or perhaps a successful sytem can not be designed which would work.
Lakey
Actually,Lakey, in my books I write about the American healthcare scene . . . not only is it by far the most expensive in the world, but according to OECD stats, it is the worst among "developed countries" . . . you can do your own research into the issue of misuse of the vaunted technology and screw-ups on use of drugs and incompetent mistakes made by its doctors.
At choice, I'd choose the Ozzie system for treatment first, then Swiss, Germany, Scandinavia.
There is much to be learned by seeing the rest of the world.
R
Before I accept your statements, I would need to do a lot of research. I have heard radio interviews of working class people in England and Canada being scheduled 4 to 6 months down the road for critical operation procedures which were life threatening. In many cases, the people came to the United to get quicker treatment and in several cases better treatment.
Your statement that much is to be gained by seeing the rest of the world should be reworded to state. "much is to be gained by living in the rest of the world." I was in Europe last year in 3 countries, Germany, Austrian and the Czech Republic however I learned nothing of their medical plans by seeing these countries. To really learn, I would have had to live there and undergo medical procedures myself or else hear about various medical procedures that my hosts their had had. But after all, how many countries can you go to specifically to see their medical system in action? Usually, when you are on vacation or on business, your health is usually fine or you would not be going in the first place. I mean, unless you have International business dealings on a regular basis, how many instances would occur where you went to a foreign country, took ill and needed treatment? It is probably much more direct and easier to read about other countries medical systems to get a feel for what they are like.
My ex wife's second cousin Lucy, then 23 visited here 3 years ago. She is a nurse and we took her over to St Jude's hospital in Fullerton to look into employment opportunities for her. She was just raving about the hospital facility and how modern and clean it was, the abundance of equipment which it had and the state of the art medical equipment which it had. The pay rate for nurses was much higher here as well. She was making about $2,000 Euros a month in Paris and here she would have earned a gross pay of over double that. However, in France you get to keep the entire $2,000 while here there are large payroll deductions This is only one anecdote but still, that native of Paris was extremely impressed with this one U.S. Hospital.
As to the U.S. being a more expensive system, how about commenting on the possibility of medical mal practice insurance running amok being a major factor contributing to high prices in the US? If this point has merit, then tort reform might be sufficient to get costs down in the USA rather than revamping the entire system. Greedy lawyers are gaming tens of millions off of the medical health care industry in every US State and could be totally stopped by passage of a plaintiff pays attoney fees law being adopted.
Adoption of this law is being stopped totally and completely by policians on the far left who are in bed with the American Trial Lawyers Union. These same extremely left leaning politicians are the ones who are shoving National Health care down the throats of US citizens despite most U.S. Citizens not really wanting the current plan as it is proposed.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MEDICAL MAL PRACTICE LAWSUITS WHEN A GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER RUNNING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
I am very curious what happens in the European Union. Can private lawyers sue the Government for Medical Malpractice and reap enormous punitive damage awards as they do in the US? It does not seem like this would be the case. So what does the American Trial Lawyers Union feel about Obama care? They are not going to give up the gold mine which they have without a fight, I would be interested to know their position.
YOUR LIST OF PREFERRED MEDICAL SYSTEM COUNTRIES ARE MAINLY VERY SMALL COUNTRIES IN POPULATION
Switzerland and Sweden have about 8 million residence each and OZ has less than 20 million. The USA has a very diverse population of well over 300 million. A country which is already being run under a socialist type of government such as Sweden or Switzerland and which has only 8 million may thrive under a national health care system. For a country not yet socialist and with a very large and diverse population, such a system may well have major problems to work out before a successful system can be implemented or perhaps a successful sytem can not be designed which would work.
Lakey
Last edited:
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I live in a town, that Fortune Magazine, dubbed, few years back, the most expensive in the nation. We're in the heart of Silicon Valley.
The 14 year old girl across the street has a bad case of Lyme disease. Her parents have taken her to Germany and India for treatments.
I know of other people, who go to Thailand, Mexico, India for medical and dental needs.
The US is not the only destination for good medical and dental care.
The 14 year old girl across the street has a bad case of Lyme disease. Her parents have taken her to Germany and India for treatments.
I know of other people, who go to Thailand, Mexico, India for medical and dental needs.
The US is not the only destination for good medical and dental care.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Yes, excellent upgrades to my post!!
Yes, for brevitiy I was just using the words, "loser pays", but the three categories which you point out are a tremendous upgrade to a merely loser pays system.
Lakey
Yes, for brevitiy I was just using the words, "loser pays", but the three categories which you point out are a tremendous upgrade to a merely loser pays system.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Isn't it true mainly when non orthodox treatments are desired.
True enough Carmelo, isn't there a distinction here, Carmelo? For standard procedures such as major heart surgeries or brain surgeries of things of that nature, the U.S. is often where people come.
For non orthodox treatments are new breakthroughs not yet accepted as valid by the mainstream medical authorities, those other countries often are chosen over the USA. Oftentimes, the procedure offered in the other country is not legal in the USA. Remember how Steve Mc Queen, the great actor, sought treatments in Mexico which were not legal here.
Lakey
True enough Carmelo, isn't there a distinction here, Carmelo? For standard procedures such as major heart surgeries or brain surgeries of things of that nature, the U.S. is often where people come.
For non orthodox treatments are new breakthroughs not yet accepted as valid by the mainstream medical authorities, those other countries often are chosen over the USA. Oftentimes, the procedure offered in the other country is not legal in the USA. Remember how Steve Mc Queen, the great actor, sought treatments in Mexico which were not legal here.
Lakey
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
There are some advantages for medical professionals working outside the US
1) A given income goes a lot further in India (etc) than in the US. What would allow you to live in a tiny house in Silicon Valley would get you a mansion with a staff of servants in India. Thus you can under-bid on rates, while maintaining a good life-style.
2) You are outside the reach of US malpractice lawyers.
Note, that these services are rendered for cash, rather than as part of the host country's socialized medical system, as far as I know.
lkwdblds
Crusader
The Founders knew what they were doing but....
The Founders of the U.S. were very wise, 3 or 4 or 5 cuts above a typical politician of today. Unfortunately, much of the wisdom which they provided us with has been undone and is continuing to be unmocked. Many people are starting to recongnize this and are taking a stand. We shall see what happens in this comming election in about 3 weeks. I am hoping that it will start the pendulum swinging back towards the principles the Founders believed in.
Lakey
The Founders of the U.S. were very wise, 3 or 4 or 5 cuts above a typical politician of today. Unfortunately, much of the wisdom which they provided us with has been undone and is continuing to be unmocked. Many people are starting to recongnize this and are taking a stand. We shall see what happens in this comming election in about 3 weeks. I am hoping that it will start the pendulum swinging back towards the principles the Founders believed in.
Lakey
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
yes and no.
for new stuff like Lyme disease treatment, the research and development is not going on in the US.
stem cell research is not happening here compared to India and other places.
good healthcare in general is greatly cheaper elsewhere. Why spend hundreds of thousands here, when you can spend tens of thousands there?
Why do you think ebay hires so many Indians (dot not feather)?
they cost less
and Meg and Carly promise to bring jobs to California, if elected. The same jobs they routinely exported?
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Ted sent me this
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e2_1286324876
it is a video of a father son's project of sending an iphone into space by weather balloon. weather balloon popping, parachute attached, retrieving iphone by GPS coordinates.
pretty darn cool
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8e2_1286324876
it is a video of a father son's project of sending an iphone into space by weather balloon. weather balloon popping, parachute attached, retrieving iphone by GPS coordinates.
pretty darn cool
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Fish-filled diet may cut prostate cancer mortality
By Anne Harding – Thu Oct 7, 2:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Eating lots of fish may not protect men from developing prostate cancer, but it could reduce their risk of dying from the disease, a new review of the medical literature suggests.
"In the United States, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer over their lifetime," Dr. Konrad M. Szymanski of McGill University Health Center in Montreal, one of the study's authors, told Reuters Health. "One in six of these men will die of prostate cancer. Our study findings suggest that the number of men who die once diagnosed is lowered by more than 50 percent among men eating lots of fish."
While fish is known to have many health benefits, including cutting the risk of heart disease and stroke, the question of whether it could protect against prostate cancer has been "a bit controversial," Szymanski said.
To investigate further, he and his colleagues analyzed 31 studies including hundreds of thousands of patients, reporting their findings in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Seventeen of the studies were case-control, meaning they compared eating patterns among people with prostate cancer ("cases") and matched controls without the disease. The remaining 14 studies were cohort studies, which followed men over time and compared diets of those who developed prostate cancer to the diets of the men who remained free from the disease.
Overall, Szymanski and his team found no link between eating lots of fish and men's risk of developing prostate cancer. But they did find that men who ate more fish were 44 percent less likely to develop metastatic prostate cancer, meaning disease that had spread beyond the prostate gland. Higher fish consumption also was associated with a 63 percent lower risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Given that the studies included in their analysis used a number of different measurements of fish intake, the researcher said, it's impossible to say how much fish one would need to eat in order to get a protective effect. "All we can say is eating more fish can have some benefit. How many servings of fish or how many grams needed a day, unfortunately we cannot say."
It's possible, he added, that fish may reduce prostate cancer mortality by reducing men's likelihood of developing metastatic disease. The anti-inflammatory effect of fish oils could help fight cancer progression, he and his colleagues suggest in their report.
Several previous studies have indicated that the omega-3 fatty acids in oily fish and fish oil supplements may slow cancer progression by reducing inflammation and by a variety of other mechanisms. The current study did not include fish oil supplements in its analysis.
Because the analysis only describes whether the subjects ate fish and how much, this study cannot determine for sure whether some other aspect of the heavy fish eaters' lifestyles may account for some of the benefits observed.
Fish has known health benefits anyway, and the findings suggest that encouraging men to choose fish more often could have a major impact on public health, Szymanski said.
"Prostate cancer is a very common disease," he added. "If we can possibly introduce a relatively cheap and easy-to-implement policy that could have even a small impact on how this disease affects men, we could make a very big impact overall."
SOURCE: http://link.reuters.com/ben47p American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, published online September 15, 2010.
By Anne Harding – Thu Oct 7, 2:09 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Eating lots of fish may not protect men from developing prostate cancer, but it could reduce their risk of dying from the disease, a new review of the medical literature suggests.
"In the United States, one in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer over their lifetime," Dr. Konrad M. Szymanski of McGill University Health Center in Montreal, one of the study's authors, told Reuters Health. "One in six of these men will die of prostate cancer. Our study findings suggest that the number of men who die once diagnosed is lowered by more than 50 percent among men eating lots of fish."
While fish is known to have many health benefits, including cutting the risk of heart disease and stroke, the question of whether it could protect against prostate cancer has been "a bit controversial," Szymanski said.
To investigate further, he and his colleagues analyzed 31 studies including hundreds of thousands of patients, reporting their findings in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Seventeen of the studies were case-control, meaning they compared eating patterns among people with prostate cancer ("cases") and matched controls without the disease. The remaining 14 studies were cohort studies, which followed men over time and compared diets of those who developed prostate cancer to the diets of the men who remained free from the disease.
Overall, Szymanski and his team found no link between eating lots of fish and men's risk of developing prostate cancer. But they did find that men who ate more fish were 44 percent less likely to develop metastatic prostate cancer, meaning disease that had spread beyond the prostate gland. Higher fish consumption also was associated with a 63 percent lower risk of dying from prostate cancer.
Given that the studies included in their analysis used a number of different measurements of fish intake, the researcher said, it's impossible to say how much fish one would need to eat in order to get a protective effect. "All we can say is eating more fish can have some benefit. How many servings of fish or how many grams needed a day, unfortunately we cannot say."
It's possible, he added, that fish may reduce prostate cancer mortality by reducing men's likelihood of developing metastatic disease. The anti-inflammatory effect of fish oils could help fight cancer progression, he and his colleagues suggest in their report.
Several previous studies have indicated that the omega-3 fatty acids in oily fish and fish oil supplements may slow cancer progression by reducing inflammation and by a variety of other mechanisms. The current study did not include fish oil supplements in its analysis.
Because the analysis only describes whether the subjects ate fish and how much, this study cannot determine for sure whether some other aspect of the heavy fish eaters' lifestyles may account for some of the benefits observed.
Fish has known health benefits anyway, and the findings suggest that encouraging men to choose fish more often could have a major impact on public health, Szymanski said.
"Prostate cancer is a very common disease," he added. "If we can possibly introduce a relatively cheap and easy-to-implement policy that could have even a small impact on how this disease affects men, we could make a very big impact overall."
SOURCE: http://link.reuters.com/ben47p American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, published online September 15, 2010.
RogerB
Crusader
Yep . . . all the "Arabs" go to London, and pay going rates for superb service and treatment.
I was treated by a Doctor in New York a couple of years ago, and it was quite a revelation as to the way he handled it. So much so, I asked him "Where were you trained?" (I've told this story before on ESMB) He replied "Italy."
I replied, "It shows. It is obvious you were not trained in the US."
In the conversation that ensued, he related he had seven years in depth training on anatomy, compared to a skimpy couple of months here. There were other differences as well.
The anecdotes about waiting lists/time to get "major" operations and treatment etc., are really anomalies trumpeted by pundits here . . . and do not occur for truly imperative treatment. Elective surgery is waited for. But all basic care is available and free, and is sure better than not getting it because you don't have the money for it.
Anyone who chooses to pay gets instant respect and service
Also, in Canada, as an example . . . check out how far less drugs for medication costs there, and in the UK/Europe as compared to the "free market rip off system" in the US
Oh, yes, is was England, in the '70s, that cost me £150 a year for BUPA coverage, not Germany
All the other issues of immigration and legal wars . . . are their own subjects for argument. Not the issue I have spoken on . . . I'm simply relating the fact of quality of med care and lower cost if you choose to buy it. . . . and of course, you don't have scenarios like at Humana in California where a doctor was fraudulently doing unneeded operations on patients simply to keep the hospital revenues and profits up!
R
Yep . . . all the "Arabs" go to London, and pay going rates for superb service and treatment.
I was treated by a Doctor in New York a couple of years ago, and it was quite a revelation as to the way he handled it. So much so, I asked him "Where were you trained?" (I've told this story before on ESMB) He replied "Italy."
I replied, "It shows. It is obvious you were not trained in the US."
In the conversation that ensued, he related he had seven years in depth training on anatomy, compared to a skimpy couple of months here. There were other differences as well.
The anecdotes about waiting lists/time to get "major" operations and treatment etc., are really anomalies trumpeted by pundits here . . . and do not occur for truly imperative treatment. Elective surgery is waited for. But all basic care is available and free, and is sure better than not getting it because you don't have the money for it.
Anyone who chooses to pay gets instant respect and service
Also, in Canada, as an example . . . check out how far less drugs for medication costs there, and in the UK/Europe as compared to the "free market rip off system" in the US
Oh, yes, is was England, in the '70s, that cost me £150 a year for BUPA coverage, not Germany
All the other issues of immigration and legal wars . . . are their own subjects for argument. Not the issue I have spoken on . . . I'm simply relating the fact of quality of med care and lower cost if you choose to buy it. . . . and of course, you don't have scenarios like at Humana in California where a doctor was fraudulently doing unneeded operations on patients simply to keep the hospital revenues and profits up!
R
You still haven't "adjusted" this blatant piece of misinformation:
Because in Germany, the healthcare system is surely NOT paid for by the government - which, BTW, you would know if you had ever worked there.
lkwdblds
Crusader
On Drug costs and malpractice insurance
On the higher cost of drugs in the USA, the story I received to explain this is that US companies developed the drugs and spent all the R & D money to do the research. Therefore when the drugs are released in the US market, the drug companies charge high prices to recoup their huge R & D costs. It really does not cost that much to manufacture the pills, the alleged reason the costs are high is primarily to recapture the large sums on R & D needed to develop the drugs, test them and bring them to market.
In a country such as Canada, which is not home to those big drug companies, the Canadian establishment can sell the drugs for much less since the drugs are not protected by Canadian patents so the drugs can be sold without taking into account the companies vast R & D expenses and prices are based only on the costs of manufacturing and bottling the pills.
ON THE MAL PRACTICE INSURANCE: I disagree strongly with your unwillingness to discuss medical malpracitce insurance as a possible major factor in high U.S. costs. You brought up the high cost of medical services in the United States and Enthetan pointed out the high cost of medical malpractice insurance needed to be a medical practioner in the United States.
Since you were mentioning high medical costs in the USA, I pointed out to your that medical malpractice insurance might be a contributory cause. My comments and questiions were right on point. These costs have nothing to do with people in the medical field making mega millions based on an inefficient medical system which is what you were implying. In actuality, the big money may be being made by the trial lawyers and if that was true, it would exonerate the medical practitioners from some of the guilt for higher costs which you inferred had much to do with them.
Also, when we go to Obama care, I pointed out that the trial lawyers will not automatically cease suing the medical establishment. If they can still sue a Federally run Health Care System, then the high costs will persist as the system shifts over from private run to federally run. I feel this is a very important point to look at. By just stating that national health care systems are better and more cost effective than the privately run system in the U.S.A. and then not addressing the existence and implications of sky high medical malpractice insurance being required in the USA, your analysis, which is mainly anecdotal, has a serious gap of knowledge built into it as well.
Lakey
Yep . . . all the "Arabs" go to London, and pay going rates for superb service and treatment.
I was treated by a Doctor in New York a couple of years ago, and it was quite a revelation as to the way he handled it. So much so, I asked him "Where were you trained?" (I've told this story before on ESMB) He replied "Italy."
I replied, "It shows. It is obvious you were not trained in the US."
In the conversation that ensued, he related he had seven years in depth training on anatomy, compared to a skimpy couple of months here. There were other differences as well.
The anecdotes about waiting lists/time to get "major" operations and treatment etc., are really anomalies trumpeted by pundits here . . . and do not occur for truly imperative treatment. Elective surgery is waited for. But all basic care is available and free, and is sure better than not getting it because you don't have the money for it.
Anyone who chooses to pay gets instant respect and service
Also, in Canada, as an example . . . check out how far less drugs for medication costs there, and in the UK/Europe as compared to the "free market rip off system" in the US
Oh, yes, is was England, in the '70s, that cost me £150 a year for BUPA coverage, not Germany
All the other issues of immigration and legal wars . . . are their own subjects for argument. Not the issue I have spoken on . . . I'm simply relating the fact of quality of med care and lower cost if you choose to buy it. . . . and of course, you don't have scenarios like at Humana in California where a doctor was fraudulently doing unneeded operations on patients simply to keep the hospital revenues and profits up!
R
On the higher cost of drugs in the USA, the story I received to explain this is that US companies developed the drugs and spent all the R & D money to do the research. Therefore when the drugs are released in the US market, the drug companies charge high prices to recoup their huge R & D costs. It really does not cost that much to manufacture the pills, the alleged reason the costs are high is primarily to recapture the large sums on R & D needed to develop the drugs, test them and bring them to market.
In a country such as Canada, which is not home to those big drug companies, the Canadian establishment can sell the drugs for much less since the drugs are not protected by Canadian patents so the drugs can be sold without taking into account the companies vast R & D expenses and prices are based only on the costs of manufacturing and bottling the pills.
ON THE MAL PRACTICE INSURANCE: I disagree strongly with your unwillingness to discuss medical malpracitce insurance as a possible major factor in high U.S. costs. You brought up the high cost of medical services in the United States and Enthetan pointed out the high cost of medical malpractice insurance needed to be a medical practioner in the United States.
Since you were mentioning high medical costs in the USA, I pointed out to your that medical malpractice insurance might be a contributory cause. My comments and questiions were right on point. These costs have nothing to do with people in the medical field making mega millions based on an inefficient medical system which is what you were implying. In actuality, the big money may be being made by the trial lawyers and if that was true, it would exonerate the medical practitioners from some of the guilt for higher costs which you inferred had much to do with them.
Also, when we go to Obama care, I pointed out that the trial lawyers will not automatically cease suing the medical establishment. If they can still sue a Federally run Health Care System, then the high costs will persist as the system shifts over from private run to federally run. I feel this is a very important point to look at. By just stating that national health care systems are better and more cost effective than the privately run system in the U.S.A. and then not addressing the existence and implications of sky high medical malpractice insurance being required in the USA, your analysis, which is mainly anecdotal, has a serious gap of knowledge built into it as well.
Lakey
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I liked Bob Hope. He was raised in Cleveland.
Don't worry. I've never held that against him. He was english by birth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDk4Y1q_IFA&feature=related
Mark A. Baker
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Actually lakey you've got that exactly @ss-backwards. The government does NOT control what goes IN. The manufacturer's & producers of food tend to put in those "additives" as a result of "cost effective free market economic forces". The role of government through the FDA is to limit how much of that crap winds up in the food supply.
Thanks to the co-option of the american political system by "free market" forces operating in a spirit of "de-regulation", the effectiveness of the FDA at protecting the nation's food supply has been greatly reduced.
All Hail Monsanto-Archer-Daniels-Midland!
Mark A. Baker
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Things are more complicated nowadays, or haven't you noticed?
If you want to return to simpler times than reduce the population and technology levels to those current in the 18th century.
Mark A. Baker
- Status