The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Terry Mauro]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

Hey genius, one of Obama's main collaboraters on this health care rationing is Simon Stevens who runs United Health.

July 22, 2009 (LPAC)—UnitedHealth Group Inc., the biggest U.S. private HMO insurer (by revenue), closely tied with Britain, today announced that its Second Quarter profit more than doubled, in particular from its increased PPP sign-up of Medicare-supplement enrollees through AARP (American Association of Retired People), and from raising its insurance premiums. This announcement reflects back on President Obama, whose health-care "reform" plans are designed to protect HMO looting rights.

The UnitedHealth Group vice president in charge of Ovations is Simon Stevens, a British national, who was Tony Blair's health-care expert from 1997 to 2004, during which time the infamous NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) was set up to dictate to the British National Health Service how to limit and deny medical treatment, which increased the death rate for millions. Ensconced at UnitedHealth world headquarters in Minnesota since January, 2007, Stevens is leading the charge for "NICE"-practices of Hitler-style care-cutting in the U.S. On May 27, Stevens issued a proposal to the Obama Administration, on how the government should cuts costs by limiting services under Medicare and Medicaid. Obama personally intervened last week to see that a NICE-type measure was inserted into the House health care "reform" bill.

And let me apologize in advance for such "odd input" to an otherwise rational argument about the "Far Right Conspiracy against NHS".

[Craig Lamson]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Amazing, suddenly the google button of "mr google" is broken.

It’s up to you not me to provide documentation for your claims.

A quick google by anyone interested would show my comments were correct. I'm not intereted in the normal and usually superficial "copy and paste" games you like to pley. If that offends you, pound sand.

Its still up to you not me, many of the cases you cited don’t really fit because in a similar situation the result the US would have been similar.

Here's one for you....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...drug/article.do

Or this one....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...care-limit.html

[…]

or this one...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/157...-treatment.html

and on it goes....

I’m more interested in my debate with Greg about the Darwin air raids and don’t have enough time to fight a full fledged two front war. I did however take a quick look at your links. It appears that you may be correct and that some patients may have died due economic rationing but most cases seem to be based on medical grounds, for example not trying to save a 21 ½ week old baby i.e. born before viability or not paying for an experimental cancer treatment NOT approved by the FDA. In the latter case UK patients are better of than US ones because they can pay to get it in their country. Even if is gets approved in the US health plans would be unlikely to cover it. The “article” saying how effective the treatment was is really a press release from a PR firm (gee I wonder who their client is?).

I hope to be able to go through them and make a more thorough reply in the next few days.

My comments were quite clear from the onset (which you failed to understand) and this selection of links from a VERY LARGE SET support my position perfectly. Flail away if you like, but I'm really not interested in your "take" on this.

“Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely.”

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancya...maturebirth.htm

Local man goes overseas for prostate cancer treatment

Posted: Sep 15, 2009 4:30 PM Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:30 PM EST Updated: Sep 15, 2009 6:39 PM

NAPLES: A local doctor is traveling with his patients from Naples to Nassau for a procedure that is not yet available in the United States. NBC2's Nancy Alvarez found out more on a treatment that is changing the lives of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

[…]

Ed decided to go with HIFU and had to travel from Naples to Nassau, in the Bahamas, for the treatment. That's where Dr. Spellberg performs the procedures because HIFU is still not approved by the FDA.

http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=11135463

We can find MANY examples of people leaving the US for treatment and fleeing a GOVERNMENTAL restriction. Of course that supports my original comments.

So you think the FDA should allow hospital/clinic/doctors to perform any sort of treatment they want without proving they are safe and effective? This example was a fail for your argument because the treatment not paid for by the NHS is not allowed in the US.

And yes, Im a "political extremist" since I agree with 56% of Americans who also oppose the Obama health care plan...sheesh...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...lth_care_reform

No because even when Bush’s approval rating was down to about 16% you still supported him.

Once again you live up to your moniker as mr superfical. I was HIGHLY critical of Bush, and voiced that opinion many times on this very forum. The fact of the matter is that my support of him , in his last term at least, centered on National Defence. I despised his position on many other issues.

Actually you said you supported his economic policies as well

“Say what you will about Bush, and there's not much I care for about his record other than the economy and the war on terror, he had the guts to disregard "world opinion" and is willing to do what HE sees as right for America. IMO thats what a leader is supposed to do.” Aug 3 2007

Oh yes I forgot on a few occasions you criticized Bush from the right, that puts you even further into the extremist corner.

“Conservatives have left Bush because he is not a conservative. The only thing that has saved him for the remaining conservatives is his war stance.” Oct 24 2007

“He is being seen as more of a centrist than a conservative. Thats really been true since he was first elected. I really hate to say it but the Republicans are as guilty as the Dems in the fact that GWB was the 'anyone but Gore or Kerry candidate". Oct 24 2007

“My distaste for many things Bush are well known. This is but one of them.” Refferring to the Bush administration’s support of UN anti-poverty goals Feb 23 2008

“And you also miss the boat on Bush. Conservative's see Bush for what he is, and thats a big government, big spending RINO. About the only thing he got right was and is national defence ( except for illegal immigration).” Mar 19 2008

Finally 'mr google" says:

"As for Craig’s question about the number of foreigners coming to the UK and US for medical treatment it is irrelevant because the question at hand is the quality of treatment for the vast majority of the population not a small extremely wealthy elite."

Of course mr google is wrong again. The the subject in question was the overall QUALITY OF CARE. Once again Len shucks and jibes when he can't refute a point.

Exactly overall quality of care, presumably most of the foreigners coming to the US are going to high end-clinics and hospitals. That is the case at least with super rich Brazilians who go there.

Translated from mr google speak: I don't have a clue so I'll just 'Presume"

You’ve yet to produce any evidence of significant # of foreigners coming to the US. Many it seems go to high end facilities beyond the reach of many (most?) Americans.

"The Fraiser Institute estimates about 38,000 Canadians when to the US for non emergency care and state this figure is surely an underestimate.

Broker sin the US claim they set up over 150,000 trips to the US for medical care for Canadians each year.

Use whatever figure you want, but thats still a large number of people wiht FREE medical care willing to travel to the US for care.

And thank you for noting that the Canadian government pays for some care given to patients in the US. What a stunning endorsement of the wonders of single payer healhcare"[/sarcasm]

I agree the system works well for Canadians! It normally pays for patients to get care at private facilities in their country at other times it pays for them to get it in the US.

You didn’t provide any links for the above and I didn’t find anything similar on Google. 38,000 sounds like a lot but that comes out to an unimpressive 1 in 874 Canadians, was that in one year? Or during their life times? How many of them had there treatment paid for by the government? How many of the rest came to the US for privacy reasons? As for the claims of brokers, do you believe what salesmen tell you? Have ever bought a used car? Are you interested in a buying a bridge?

The number of Americans going overseas is much larger than that.

"About 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care last year, and the number is expected to increase eightfold to 6 million by 2010, according to a recent study by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions based on a broader study of health care consumers."

http://www.pbn.com/stories/35355.html

That seems to be far more than the number of foreigners coming to the US.

When you hear the term medical tourism, you probably think of the number of uninsured Americans taking advantage of low-cost heart surgery and hip replacement procedures in places like Thailand and India.

But while the trend continues, and raises important questions about why so many Americans can't afford health care at home, a new report points out that the largest segment of medical travelers are headed stateside. And, experts say, they're also growing in numbers.

An estimated 40% of all medical travelers are looking for the world's most advanced technologies, worrying little about the proximity of the destination or cost, according to consulting firm McKinsey & Co. It narrowly defined medical travelers as only those whose primary and explicit purpose in traveling was to obtain in-patient medical treatment in a foreign country, putting the total number of travelers at 60,000 to 85,000 per year.

In Depth: U.S. Hospitals Worth The Trip

Most of those patients in search of the best care, including 38% from Latin America, 35% from the Middle East, 16% from Europe and 7% from Canada, are heading to the United States. Additionally, it's estimated that 32% of all medical travelers simply want better care than is available in their home countries, mostly those in the developing world, and 15% want quicker access to medically necessary procedures. That's compared to only 9% of medical travelers seeking medically necessary procedures at lower prices and 4% seeking low-cost discretionary procedures.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health-ho...utsourcing.html

Some US HMO’s near the border even send Americans to Mexico for treatment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ico_facilities/

And despite having probably the most expensive health care in the world “A recent Gallup Poll finds that up to 29% of Americans would consider traveling abroad for medical procedures such as heart bypass surgery, hip or knee replacement, plastic surgery, cancer diagnosis and treatment, or alternative medical care, even though all are routinely done in the United States…22% [of respondents] with health insurance.” “would seek cancer care abroad”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118423/american...dical-care.aspx

Yea, in most catagories where the comparisons are apples to apples, the US system delivers the best and most advanced care available.

You provide the data to back that up I’ll take a look the article from Bloomberg cited several diseases for which the survival rate in Canada is better

The monied prove that point. If the care were better ANYWHERE in the world thats where they would travel. Money not an object for them, only the best care. The overwhelming venue of choice...the USA.

- The moneyed often go to facilities many Americans don’t have coverage for, will you HMO or insurance pay for you to go to the Mayo Clinic? Perhaps YOU do but based on other posts of yours your income is well above average.

- I’m not sure of this but I doubt a foreigners have access to facilities in single payer countries meant for residents

I've no doubt that there are places on earth wiht better outcomes on some aspect of treatment or the other. Thats not suprising. But lets take cancer survivial rates as a whole for example, the US leads the way convincingly.

Even according to website with a POV similar to yours the differences between Canada and the US are not huge

• For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.

• For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Those are both with or close to the margin of error and as you point out stats are effected by things like life choices and race/ethnicity.

Compared to Europe though the difference are bigger especially for men

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [see Figure I.]

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

But if you want to get into a cherry picking contest, according to Bloomberg the survival rate for asthma, people who’ve had liver transplants, “deaths considered preventable through health care” “heart attacks, childhood leukemia, and breast and cervical cancer” in Canada is better and they spent 47% less per capita $3,895 vs. $7,290 on health care and 37% less of their GDP 10.1% vs 16%. Even if an average Canadian family spent $10,000 a year getting treatment in the US they’d still be $5,580 ahead of the game.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a_zs1Y1FspIM

" Life expectancy has very little to do wiht the quality or availability of healthcare.

Infant mortality is poor indicator since personal chiocs play a more important role that the health care system.

Access to healthcare is a very poor indicator of the quality of the system."

Like I said by picking and choosing which health care statistics to consider you can argue any position. Since people are more likely to survive some diseases in the US and more likely to survive others in Canada (and I imagine Europe, Australia etc) it is useful to look at more encompassing statistics - and overall people in developed countries with single payer systems pay less per capita yet live longer and are less likely to die of preventable disease than Americans.

Of course you don’t want to look at life expectancy and infant mortality because the US is far behind other industrialized countries in them. The US is a shocking 50th in life expectancy according to the CIA. That’s behind every European nation west of the former Iron Curtin and even some east of it and Jordan its even behind until recently war torn Bosnia - Herzegovina and less than a year in front of Costa Rica, Cuba, Albania and Panama. The CIA says it “is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country”

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2102rank.html

The US also does horribly with infant mortality which the CIA says “is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country” once again behind every European nation west of the former Iron Curtin and even some east of it and even behind Cuba and barely ahead of Belarus, Croatia and Serbia.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...amp;rank=180#us

"Case in point, my mother just had surgery for stagte 3c colon cancer and I've been part of the process from the beginning. Yesterday I took her to have her chemo port implanted. Now, given the treatment she has selected she has about a 30% chance of cancer re-occuring. Not the best odds. She could have greatly reduced her odds by seeing the doctor sooner. She has medicare and a very good supplimental policy ( another strike against US government run healthcare). She had all the access to healthcare she needed and was at no financial disincentive NOT to see the doctor. Sady, she made a personal CHOICE not to seek care a year and a half ago when she says she felt 'something" might be wrong. In fact I, for the most part forced her to go when I found out about it. In this case, the results are the product of HER CHOICES, and not the healthcare system. How many times does that play out in the US?"

Nothing personal but I fail to see relevance of the anecdotal case of you mother. I know of similar cases among wealthy (and poor) Brazilians and a Belgian friend of my mother, if anything it points to the pitfalls of looking at the survival rates for specific diseases between different countries

[Guest]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

I don't wish you dead Craig but I certainly do wish you an education. You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A. Unfortunately other than quoting the (very) odd bilious and misinformed articles from the far right British newspaper the Daily Mail you have produced no evidence to back up these wild and bizarre conspiracy claims.

'

From reading your dispiriting line in right wing polemic I assume that you believe in free markets, small government, unrestrained capitalism and 'individual choice'. These are all legitimate positions. I do not happen to share them but that's another matter.

I would have hoped however that you were capable of constructing an argument within this tradition which didn't rely on lies about the National Health Service, personal insults or general abuse.

[Terry Mauro]

Simon Stevens on Barack Obama's first steps.

November 2008.

http://www.hsj.co.uk/simon-stevens-on-bara...1921193.article

It seems probable, for example, that the US will create its own version of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, probably at arm's length from government. To this end, former senator Tom Daschle recently proposed the establishment of a new Federal Health Board modelled on the Federal Reserve to be just that.

[Craig Lamson]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

I don't wish you dead Craig but I certainly do wish you an education. You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A. Unfortunately other than quoting the (very) odd bilious and misinformed articles from the far right British newspaper the Daily Mail you have produced no evidence to back up these wild and bizarre conspiracy claims.

'

From reading your dispiriting line in right wing polemic I assume that you believe in free markets, small government, unrestrained capitalism and 'individual choice'. These are all legitimate positions. I do not happen to share them but that's another matter.

I would have hoped however that you were capable of constructing an argument within this tradition which didn't rely on lies about the National Health Service, personal insults or general abuse.

Perhaps it's you , Andy Walker, "educator" who needs the education. You wrote:

"You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A."

I've never clained to have "proven" anything in this discussion. In fact I have stated that I CAN'T prove it. I have pointed out that the NHS via the liverpool pathway is ending human life on dubious terms. This is NEWS in the UK. Neither you nor Stepehn can deny this, for if you could you would have offered some form of proof. But you can't. I have also speculated that the NHS is enjoying a substantatial financial savings by seeing terminal patients expire in the minimum amount of time. Again neither you nor Stephen can offer any denials to my conclusiion that there is a great financial savings to be had nor can you dispute the fact that end of life spending is a HUGE part of the HNS spending per patient. I also speculate that the cuirrent goverenment of my country would like to find a way to do somehting very similar.

And not to put a fine point on it, your complaints about the articles, Terry Mauro and myselff have had exactly zero facts and consists completely of namecalling, personal insults and general abuse. You are a hypocrite.

You have now made the claim (once again) that there are "lies" being told about the NHS. Given the above post by you, it's time for you to put up, or admit you can't. Or continue to be a hypocrite...your choice.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

I don't wish you dead Craig but I certainly do wish you an education. You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A. Unfortunately other than quoting the (very) odd bilious and misinformed articles from the far right British newspaper the Daily Mail you have produced no evidence to back up these wild and bizarre conspiracy claims.

'

From reading your dispiriting line in right wing polemic I assume that you believe in free markets, small government, unrestrained capitalism and 'individual choice'. These are all legitimate positions. I do not happen to share them but that's another matter.

I would have hoped however that you were capable of constructing an argument within this tradition which didn't rely on lies about the National Health Service, personal insults or general abuse.

Perhaps it's you , Andy Walker, "educator" who needs the education. You wrote:

"You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A."

I've never clained to have "proven" anything in this discussion. In fact I have stated that I CAN'T prove it. I have pointed out that the NHS via the liverpool pathway is ending human life on dubious terms. This is NEWS in the UK. Neither you nor Stepehn can deny this, for if you could you would have offered some form of proof. But you can't. I have also speculated that the NHS is enjoying a substantatial financial savings by seeing terminal patients expire in the minimum amount of time. Again neither you nor Stephen can offer any denials to my conclusiion that there is a great financial savings to be had nor can you dispute the fact that end of life spending is a HUGE part of the HNS spending per patient. I also speculate that the cuirrent goverenment of my country would like to find a way to do somehting very similar.

And not to put a fine point on it, your complaints about the articles, Terry Mauro and myselff have had exactly zero facts and consists completely of namecalling, personal insults and general abuse. You are a hypocrite.

You have now made the claim (once again) that there are "lies" being told about the NHS. Given the above post by you, it's time for you to put up, or admit you can't. Or continue to be a hypocrite...your choice.

Thank you kindly for giving me a choice - I choose neither of your options however as fortunately I am in the happy position of knowing what I am talking about.

The Liverpool Pathway has caused controversy amongst professionals in health and social care but not in the ways you represent. Instead it has opened a debate about palliative care and dying.

http://www.endoflifecare.nhs.uk/eolc/CS291.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle6832958.ece

http://www.liv.ac.uk/mcpcil/liverpool-care...able%5B1%5D.pdf

I repeat in case you missed it that you too have palliative care in the States modelled on exactly the same principles. Unfortunately of course you will only get it if you have medical insurance. Under your own terms then the 'superior' US model of health care insists that you pay for own 'euthanasia'

It is unfortuntate in the extreme that the discussion has been hijacked by right wing demagogues attempting to rubbish the very tentative and moderate steps being proposed towards socialised medicine in the US. I take it as an acknowledgement of the impossibility of any coherent argument you could forward based on your ideology or rooted in the current experience of US health care that you continue to repeat these laughable calumnies against the UK's NHS.

You currently have a health system in your country which denies medical care to 50,000 of the poorest members of society. I contend that this is something of which you and your fellow citizens should be deeply ashamed.

I don't remember being rude to you Craig. Terry on the other has been justly ridiculed for parroting as she does the ridiculous pronouncements of her favoured political cult at every opportunity.

[Craig Lamson]

Amazing, suddenly the google button of "mr google" is broken.

It’s up to you not me to provide documentation for your claims.

A quick google by anyone interested would show my comments were correct. I'm not intereted in the normal and usually superficial "copy and paste" games you like to pley. If that offends you, pound sand.

Its still up to you not me, many of the cases you cited don’t really fit because in a similar situation the result the US would have been similar.

Epic fail by mr google once again. The discussion is about NICE and the NHS. Try again next time.

Here's one for you....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...drug/article.do

Or this one....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...care-limit.html

[…]

or this one...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/157...-treatment.html

and on it goes....

I’m more interested in my debate with Greg about the Darwin air raids and don’t have enough time to fight a full fledged two front war. I did however take a quick look at your links. It appears that you may be correct and that some patients may have died due economic rationing but most cases seem to be based on medical grounds, for example not trying to save a 21 ½ week old baby i.e. born before viability or not paying for an experimental cancer treatment NOT approved by the FDA. In the latter case UK patients are better of than US ones because they can pay to get it in their country. Even if is gets approved in the US health plans would be unlikely to cover it. The “article” saying how effective the treatment was is really a press release from a PR firm (gee I wonder who their client is?).

I hope to be able to go through them and make a more thorough reply in the next few days.

My comments were quite clear from the onset (which you failed to understand) and this selection of links from a VERY LARGE SET support my position perfectly. Flail away if you like, but I'm really not interested in your "take" on this.

“Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely.”

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancya...maturebirth.htm

Local man goes overseas for prostate cancer treatment

Posted: Sep 15, 2009 4:30 PM Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:30 PM EST Updated: Sep 15, 2009 6:39 PM

NAPLES: A local doctor is traveling with his patients from Naples to Nassau for a procedure that is not yet available in the United States. NBC2's Nancy Alvarez found out more on a treatment that is changing the lives of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

[…]

Ed decided to go with HIFU and had to travel from Naples to Nassau, in the Bahamas, for the treatment. That's where Dr. Spellberg performs the procedures because HIFU is still not approved by the FDA.

http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=11135463

We can find MANY examples of people leaving the US for treatment and fleeing a GOVERNMENTAL restriction. Of course that supports my original comments.

So you think the FDA should allow hospital/clinic/doctors to perform any sort of treatment they want without proving they are safe and effective? This example was a fail for your argument because the treatment not paid for by the NHS is not allowed in the US.

What? You have lost it mr google. The FDA, a GOVENRMENTAL AGENCY, just like NICE is playing god. The difference is it appears NICE makes choices based on cost, not effectivess. Again what does The US not paying for a treeatment have to do wiht NICE not paying? Oh yea, nothing.

And yes, Im a "political extremist" since I agree with 56% of Americans who also oppose the Obama health care plan...sheesh...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...lth_care_reform

No because even when Bush’s approval rating was down to about 16% you still supported him.

Once again you live up to your moniker as mr superfical. I was HIGHLY critical of Bush, and voiced that opinion many times on this very forum. The fact of the matter is that my support of him , in his last term at least, centered on National Defence. I despised his position on many other issues.

Actually you said you supported his economic policies as well

“Say what you will about Bush, and there's not much I care for about his record other than the economy and the war on terror, he had the guts to disregard "world opinion" and is willing to do what HE sees as right for America. IMO thats what a leader is supposed to do.” Aug 3 2007

Why did your stop your google before you got to me complaining bitterly about GWB and the finaincial bailout just prior to the last election? Two choices IMO, superficial research or just blatant selectivity.

Oh yes I forgot on a few occasions you criticized Bush from the right, that puts you even further into the extremist corner.

“Conservatives have left Bush because he is not a conservative. The only thing that has saved him for the remaining conservatives is his war stance.” Oct 24 2007

“He is being seen as more of a centrist than a conservative. Thats really been true since he was first elected. I really hate to say it but the Republicans are as guilty as the Dems in the fact that GWB was the 'anyone but Gore or Kerry candidate". Oct 24 2007

“My distaste for many things Bush are well known. This is but one of them.” Refferring to the Bush administration’s support of UN anti-poverty goals Feb 23 2008

“And you also miss the boat on Bush. Conservative's see Bush for what he is, and thats a big government, big spending RINO. About the only thing he got right was and is national defence ( except for illegal immigration).” Mar 19 2008

Considering that my position was pretty much standard fare for republicans and conservatives at the time, unless you consider the bulk of the republican part "extreme" once again you commit an epic fail. You really suck at this, perhaps you should consider a new hobby.

Finally 'mr google" says:

"As for Craig’s question about the number of foreigners coming to the UK and US for medical treatment it is irrelevant because the question at hand is the quality of treatment for the vast majority of the population not a small extremely wealthy elite."

Of course mr google is wrong again. The the subject in question was the overall QUALITY OF CARE. Once again Len shucks and jibes when he can't refute a point.

Exactly overall quality of care, presumably most of the foreigners coming to the US are going to high end-clinics and hospitals. That is the case at least with super rich Brazilians who go there.

Translated from mr google speak: I don't have a clue so I'll just 'Presume"

You’ve yet to produce any evidence of significant # of foreigners coming to the US. Many it seems go to high end facilities beyond the reach of many (most?) Americans.

Lets see, I quoted the Fraiser Institite for the number of Canadians. Do you think I made that number up out of thin air.

"The Fraiser Institute estimates about 38,000 Canadians when to the US for non emergency care and state this figure is surely an underestimate.

Broker sin the US claim they set up over 150,000 trips to the US for medical care for Canadians each year.

Use whatever figure you want, but thats still a large number of people wiht FREE medical care willing to travel to the US for care.

And thank you for noting that the Canadian government pays for some care given to patients in the US. What a stunning endorsement of the wonders of single payer healhcare"[/sarcasm]

I agree the system works well for Canadians! It normally pays for patients to get care at private facilities in their country at other times it pays for them to get it in the US.

A system is WORKING WELL when it can't even provide the services locally that the people need? Amazing. I can't even begin to imagine how badly Canada would do if there was no US medical next door.

You didn’t provide any links for the above and I didn’t find anything similar on Google. 38,000 sounds like a lot but that comes out to an unimpressive 1 in 874 Canadians, was that in one year? Or during their life times? How many of them had there treatment paid for by the government? How many of the rest came to the US for privacy reasons? As for the claims of brokers, do you believe what salesmen tell you? Have ever bought a used car? Are you interested in a buying a bridge?

I gave you a range, one based on a study by the Fraser Institite and one from a SINGLE medical broker base in Canada. I had zero problems finding the study I quoted based on the 2006 estimates of Canadians traveling to the US for service. Amazingly mr google the cut and paste champion can't find the study. Your superficial research strikes again.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/ReceivingTreatmentOutsideCanada.pdf

The number of Americans going overseas is much larger than that.

"About 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care last year, and the number is expected to increase eightfold to 6 million by 2010, according to a recent study by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions based on a broader study of health care consumers."

http://www.pbn.com/stories/35355.html

That seems to be far more than the number of foreigners coming to the US.

Freedom is wonderful, don't you think?

When you hear the term medical tourism, you probably think of the number of uninsured Americans taking advantage of low-cost heart surgery and hip replacement procedures in places like Thailand and India.

But while the trend continues, and raises important questions about why so many Americans can't afford health care at home, a new report points out that the largest segment of medical travelers are headed stateside. And, experts say, they're also growing in numbers.

An estimated 40% of all medical travelers are looking for the world's most advanced technologies, worrying little about the proximity of the destination or cost, according to consulting firm McKinsey & Co. It narrowly defined medical travelers as only those whose primary and explicit purpose in traveling was to obtain in-patient medical treatment in a foreign country, putting the total number of travelers at 60,000 to 85,000 per year.

In Depth: U.S. Hospitals Worth The Trip

Most of those patients in search of the best care, including 38% from Latin America, 35% from the Middle East, 16% from Europe and 7% from Canada, are heading to the United States. Additionally, it's estimated that 32% of all medical travelers simply want better care than is available in their home countries, mostly those in the developing world, and 15% want quicker access to medically necessary procedures. That's compared to only 9% of medical travelers seeking medically necessary procedures at lower prices and 4% seeking low-cost discretionary procedures.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health-ho...utsourcing.html

Some US HMO’s near the border even send Americans to Mexico for treatment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...ico_facilities/

And despite having probably the most expensive health care in the world “A recent Gallup Poll finds that up to 29% of Americans would consider traveling abroad for medical procedures such as heart bypass surgery, hip or knee replacement, plastic surgery, cancer diagnosis and treatment, or alternative medical care, even though all are routinely done in the United States…22% [of respondents] with health insurance.” “would seek cancer care abroad”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118423/american...dical-care.aspx

Again Freedom is wonderful indeed. At least we have a CHOICE on how to spend out health care dollars. The poor folks in Canada must pay for their system at the point of a gun, if they use it or not.

Yea, in most catagories where the comparisons are apples to apples, the US system delivers the best and most advanced care available.

You provide the data to back that up I’ll take a look the article from Bloomberg cited several diseases for which the survival rate in Canada is better

Apples to apples rarely apples which is why using things like the WHO studies etc. to judge a system sucks. Even survival rates are influenced by personal choices, nationality ethnic makeup of a society etc.

The monied prove that point. If the care were better ANYWHERE in the world thats where they would travel. Money not an object for them, only the best care. The overwhelming venue of choice...the USA.

- The moneyed often go to facilities many Americans don’t have coverage for, will you HMO or insurance pay for you to go to the Mayo Clinic? Perhaps YOU do but based on other posts of yours your income is well above average.

Thanks for proving my point once again. Money goes where the treatment is the best. The rest of your statement is just a standard mr google strawman.

- I’m not sure of this but I doubt a foreigners have access to facilities in single payer countries meant for residents

I've no doubt that there are places on earth wiht better outcomes on some aspect of treatment or the other. Thats not suprising. But lets take cancer survivial rates as a whole for example, the US leads the way convincingly.

Even according to website with a POV similar to yours the differences between Canada and the US are not huge

• For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.

• For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Those are both with or close to the margin of error and as you point out stats are effected by things like life choices and race/ethnicity.

Compared to Europe though the difference are bigger especially for men

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [see Figure I.]

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.

Thanks for making my point once again.

But if you want to get into a cherry picking contest, according to Bloomberg the survival rate for asthma, people who’ve had liver transplants, “deaths considered preventable through health care” “heart attacks, childhood leukemia, and breast and cervical cancer” in Canada is better and they spent 47% less per capita $3,895 vs. $7,290 on health care and 37% less of their GDP 10.1% vs 16%. Even if an average Canadian family spent $10,000 a year getting treatment in the US they’d still be $5,580 ahead of the game.

Yes, but the average american does not spend his money directly on healthcare as Canadians do. If you get your coverage from an employer, you get part or all of your coverage paid by the employeer. What you do pay, is any is generally pretax.

“deaths considered preventable through health care” ..how would they know? Did they acount for genetics, ethnic makeup, willing to see a doctor even ithe people HAVE heathcare? Just points out how ALL attempts at comparison are flawed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a_zs1Y1FspIM

" Life expectancy has very little to do wiht the quality or availability of healthcare.

Infant mortality is poor indicator since personal chiocs play a more important role that the health care system.

Access to healthcare is a very poor indicator of the quality of the system."

Like I said by picking and choosing which health care statistics to consider you can argue any position. Since people are more likely to survive some diseases in the US and more likely to survive others in Canada (and I imagine Europe, Australia etc) it is useful to look at more encompassing statistics - and overall people in developed countries with single payer systems pay less per capita yet live longer and are less likely to die of preventable disease than Americans.

comparisons are mostly are flawed, and thats why using them is mostly worthless.

Of course you don’t want to look at life expectancy and infant mortality because the US is far behind other industrialized countries in them. The US is a shocking 50th in life expectancy according to the CIA. That’s behind every European nation west of the former Iron Curtin and even some east of it and Jordan its even behind until recently war torn Bosnia - Herzegovina and less than a year in front of Costa Rica, Cuba, Albania and Panama. The CIA says it “is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country”

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2102rank.html

The US also does horribly with infant mortality which the CIA says “is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country” once again behind every European nation west of the former Iron Curtin and even some east of it and even behind Cuba and barely ahead of Belarus, Croatia and Serbia.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...amp;rank=180#us

Are they all using the asme definition of the terms livebirth and stillbirth? If not, all bets are off.

"Case in point, my mother just had surgery for stagte 3c colon cancer and I've been part of the process from the beginning. Yesterday I took her to have her chemo port implanted. Now, given the treatment she has selected she has about a 30% chance of cancer re-occuring. Not the best odds. She could have greatly reduced her odds by seeing the doctor sooner. She has medicare and a very good supplimental policy ( another strike against US government run healthcare). She had all the access to healthcare she needed and was at no financial disincentive NOT to see the doctor. Sady, she made a personal CHOICE not to seek care a year and a half ago when she says she felt 'something" might be wrong. In fact I, for the most part forced her to go when I found out about it. In this case, the results are the product of HER CHOICES, and not the healthcare system. How many times does that play out in the US?"

Nothing personal but I fail to see relevance of the anecdotal case of you mother. I know of similar cases among wealthy (and poor) Brazilians and a Belgian friend of my mother, if anything it points to the pitfalls of looking at the survival rates for specific diseases between different countries

DUH...and it points out that access to care is not a good indicator of the quality of a system...

[Guest]

What's Wrong with US Health Care

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/whatswrong/

Some 47 million U.S. residents have no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Because employers increasingly are moving in the direction of providing Wal-Mart-style health coverage by shifting health care costs to employees, America’s workers struggle to pay higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments—if they can afford such coverage at all.

Of the 47 million Americans without health insurance, 8.7 million are children.

Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse—to decline coverage for themselves or their families because of cost. Health care costs are rising at five times the rate of inflation. According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, health care spending rose 10 percent in 2002 and that followed a slightly more than 10 percent increase in 2001—the largest jump in more than a decade. In the first six months of 2003, health spending rose another 8.5 percent. Premiums for employer-sponsored coverage increased nearly 13 percent in 2002. As employers refuse to pay their fair share, this trend may result in millions of workers losing their employer-based coverage (PDF).

Employers are responding to growing cost pressures by shifting more and more health care costs onto workers, especially through larger co-pays and deductibles that must be paid at the time treatment is sought.

Employer’s demands to slash health care coverage for workers was the major issue in the recent Southern California grocery workers' strike and lockout in which nearly 60,000 workers saved health care benefits and beat back employer demands to freeze pension funds after holding strong on the picket line for five months. Under grocery management’s original proposals, a worker making slightly less than $20,000 a year would have had to pay nearly $5,000 to maintain the same level of benefits they had in the previous contract.

Other cost increases hitting workers include larger hikes in the cost of family coverage, less access to needed prescription drugs through stricter HMO formularies and higher prices for more comprehensive coverage. See the Consumers Unions’ Health Care Plans and Managed Care (PDF).

Consumers are using more prescriptions, at younger ages and for more conditions, and substituting newer, more expensive medications for established products. As a result, pharmaceutical spending increased by 17.4 percent annually between 1999 and 2000 and another 16 percent from 2000 to 2001 (PDF).

The lack of quality health care in the United States also stems from our system’s lack of comprehensive quality measure and assurance programs, which unions now are establishing with community partners.

Our most successful public health insurance program, Medicare, is increasingly under attack at a time when the lack of access to health care is already a crisis in America. Most Americans ages 65 and older rely on Medicare, which serves more than 40 million beneficiaries in the United States. Instead of strengthening and modernizing Medicare to include a comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit for all seniors, the Bush administration in late 2003 strong-armed through Congress a Medicare prescription drug bill that moves Medicare toward privatization. The Medicare bill also:

Forced 32.5 million seniors and people with disabilities to pay higher premiums and other Medicare costs.

Dropped coverage for out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100.

Prevented the federal government from negotiating lower drug costs and does nothing to rein in soaring prescription drug prices.

Threatened the employer-provided drug benefits of millions of retirees.

Our health care system lacks safety controls that endanger front-line workers and patients. Staffing levels are dangerously low in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities. As a result, medical errors are rising—and account for an estimated 44,000 to 98,000 needless death each year.

[Terry Mauro]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

I don't wish you dead Craig but I certainly do wish you an education. You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A. Unfortunately other than quoting the (very) odd bilious and misinformed articles from the far right British newspaper the Daily Mail you have produced no evidence to back up these wild and bizarre conspiracy claims.

'

From reading your dispiriting line in right wing polemic I assume that you believe in free markets, small government, unrestrained capitalism and 'individual choice'. These are all legitimate positions. I do not happen to share them but that's another matter.

I would have hoped however that you were capable of constructing an argument within this tradition which didn't rely on lies about the National Health Service, personal insults or general abuse.

Perhaps it's you , Andy Walker, "educator" who needs the education. You wrote:

"You have repeated ad nauseam the claim that you have proved the UK NHS is deliberately killing patients and that your own President plans a similar scheme in the sainted US of A."

I've never clained to have "proven" anything in this discussion. In fact I have stated that I CAN'T prove it. I have pointed out that the NHS via the liverpool pathway is ending human life on dubious terms. This is NEWS in the UK. Neither you nor Stepehn can deny this, for if you could you would have offered some form of proof. But you can't. I have also speculated that the NHS is enjoying a substantatial financial savings by seeing terminal patients expire in the minimum amount of time. Again neither you nor Stephen can offer any denials to my conclusiion that there is a great financial savings to be had nor can you dispute the fact that end of life spending is a HUGE part of the HNS spending per patient. I also speculate that the cuirrent goverenment of my country would like to find a way to do somehting very similar.

And not to put a fine point on it, your complaints about the articles, Terry Mauro and myselff have had exactly zero facts and consists completely of namecalling, personal insults and general abuse. You are a hypocrite.

You have now made the claim (once again) that there are "lies" being told about the NHS. Given the above post by you, it's time for you to put up, or admit you can't. Or continue to be a hypocrite...your choice.

Thank you kindly for giving me a choice - I choose neither of your options however as fortunately I am in the happy position of knowing what I am talking about.

The Liverpool Pathway has caused controversy amongst professionals in health and social care but not in the ways you represent. Instead it has opened a debate about palliative care and dying.

http://www.endoflifecare.nhs.uk/eolc/CS291.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle6832958.ece

http://www.liv.ac.uk/mcpcil/liverpool-care...able%5B1%5D.pdf

I repeat in case you missed it that you too have palliative care in the States modelled on exactly the same principles. Unfortunately of course you will only get it if you have medical insurance. Under your own terms then the 'superior' US model of health care insists that you pay for own 'euthanasia'

It is unfortuntate in the extreme that the discussion has been hijacked by right wing demagogues attempting to rubbish the very tentative and moderate steps being proposed towards socialised medicine in the US. I take it as an acknowledgement of the impossibility of any coherent argument you could forward based on your ideology or rooted in the current experience of US health care that you continue to repeat these laughable calumnies against the UK's NHS.

You currently have a health system in your country which denies medical care to 50,000 of the poorest members of society. I contend that this is something of which you and your fellow citizens should be deeply ashamed.

I don't remember being rude to you Craig. Terry on the other has been justly ridiculed for parroting as she does the ridiculous pronouncements of her favoured political cult at every opportunity.

Andy, you're quite the parrot yourself. How many times do you feel it necessary to repeat the same meaningless phrase? I've always said that I go with the truth.

Craig was right on the money. He has written several times that the firestorm around the involuntary "euthanasia" at LCP has been in the British media for weeks and even months.

You've known all along that this debate wasn't a case of "Far Right" kooks making wild claims. This is something that has caught the attention of the many people in England including the likes of Dr. Clive Seale, who issued a report claiming LCP euthanasia was responsible for 1 out of 6 deaths in England last year!

And you're worried about the un insured in America? My take on you is that you have a strong dislike for Americans. Maybe it's because we are citizens while you're still a lowly "subject" of the Queen. Sure she may allow you to indulge in your personal interests, but when it comes to making policy, you know that's off limits to you and your chums.

Look at the link you provided

http://www.liv.ac.uk/mcpcil/liverpool-care...able%5B1%5D.pdf

This press release issued by LCP was the direct result of all the British media coverage of this killing program. LCP is feeling the heat but somehow you missed all the fuss ?

Furthermore the Liverpool Care Pathway program has been ADOPTED for general use by the NHS. Quit pretending you don't know this to be the case.

This Hitler policy of the British will be defeated here in the United States. After that we'll abolish the HMO laws and send Simon Stevens back to the motherland. He can take Obama with him.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

It's clear that you and Terry are elderly and fanatical. mature and committed advocates of your shared beliefs. I'm glad you've found each other and hope you'll be very happy together.

I wish I could find that weird christian fundy rant you "posted" from several years ago. I think it was posted in the Political Conspiracy section. If anyone had any doubt that you're a nut case then that old posting of yours ought to eliminate all doubt.

Low and behold I found the magic thread by DWD. Wacko!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7221

Edited September 27, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Craig Lamson]

It was wrong of me to wish you death. I'm sorry about that. But the rest of it goes -- you're worthless.

No, you meant every word, which makes you a shining example of the "tolerant" left. Your Hypocrisy is stunning.

Thanks so much for showing in a very graphic fashion just WHO and what YOU REALLY ARE,

Maybe you can join the Obama WHitehouse and ban free speach.

It's clear that you and Terry are elderly and fanatical. mature and committed advocates of your shared beliefs. I'm glad you've found each other and hope you'll be very happy together.

Just for the record and since we all know just how much trouble you had with the term ..willingly'''exactly hop do you define elderly or mature?...you pick...

[Terry Mauro]

Can President Obama fix the US health System?

12/06/2009

Can the USA finally reform its healthcare system?

The optimism that greeted President Obama’s victory will meet its greatest challenge in trying to fix the broken USA health system. Simon Stevens – Tony Blairs advisor now works in the USA and is involved with this effort. Come and hear his perspective on whether this is a change we can believe in.

Speaker

Simon Stevens, Chair, UnitedHealth Europe

Friday 12 June 09:30 - 10:30

Is there any doubt who's pushing this healthcare austerity in the USA?

[Cigdem Göle]

It is amazing that some have so much to say about a health care system they don't even experience.

I wish I could find that weird christian fundy rant you "posted" from several years ago. I think it was posted in the Political Conspiracy section. If anyone had any doubt that you're a nut case then that old posting of yours ought to eliminate all doubt.

Low and behold I found the magic thread by DWD. Wacko!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7221

And it is you who calls people 'nut case/wacko'?!

Edited September 27, 2009 by Cigdem Göle

[Guest]

My take on you is that you have a strong dislike for Americans. Maybe it's because we are citizens while you're still a lowly "subject" of the Queen. Sure she may allow you to indulge in your personal interests, but when it comes to making policy, you know that's off limits to you and your chums.

Classic projection! You who see a 'British' conspiracy everywhere accuse me of being 'anti-american'. You have precisely nothing to contribute to this debate on health care and are clearly unwilling even to read anything that casts doubt on the wisdom of your guru. That's fine it is your right and your choice but please don't think you are actually discussing anything or contributing anything to a discussion. You are just shouting the same things louder and louder sadly confirming the views of many here that you are quite quite mad.