The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Guest]

There is an excellent article of Terry's Far Right Conspiracy against the NHS here

http://spartacus-educational.blogspot.com/...che-on-nhs.html

Andy, I read that a week ago. That hardly proves LaRouche is "far right" whatever that means.

Do you really not understand what 'far right' means? It means rather close to the Nazis in economic and social policies- just like you in fact.

[Guest]

I havent drawn a Hitler mustache on any photos or pictures of world leaders. Where do you come up with this?

Think about it Terry

[Terry Mauro]

There is an excellent article of Terry's Far Right Conspiracy against the NHS here

http://spartacus-educational.blogspot.com/...che-on-nhs.html

Andy, I read that a week ago. That hardly proves LaRouche is "far right" whatever that means.

Do you really not understand what 'far right' means? It means rather close to the Nazis in economic and social policies- just like you in fact.

Hey Mr. Educator you may need a LaRouchian lesson in history, especially British history.

Prince Philip has broken a 60-year public silence about his family's links with the Nazis.

In a frank interview, he said they found Hitler's attempts to restore Germany's power and prestige 'attractive' and admitted they had 'inhibitions" about the Jews.

Philip was born Prince of Greece and Denmark on Corfu in 1921, the youngest of five children and the only son of Prince Andrew of Greece and Princess Alice of Battenberg. All four of his sisters married German princes and three - Sophie, Cecile and Margarita - became members of the Nazi party.

Sophia's husband, Prince Christoph of Hesse, became chief of Goering's secret intelligence service and they were frequent guests at Nazi functions

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-37...l#ixzz0SLiemBLT

[Craig Lamson]

Admit it Andy this is a fact:

Agents of the British Government are deciding when subjects will die.

Now if you can't prove this is incorrect you owe me and the Forum an apology. You are blatantly breaking a forum rule. If f it goes unchecked then I guess you have just decided all can do it.

Since you can't you just hurl invective in a blatant and transparent attempt to hide the truth.

For such an eccentric and unsubstantiated assertion the onus of proof is on you. Getting Terry to draw Hitler moustaches on various world leaders and/or you half quoting foul Daily Mail articles doesn't count as proof.

The crap you are pushing forward does not even begin to register as 'news' here. You are making yourself look ridiculous..... please continue

NHS Dr's are agents of the British goverment. Groups of these agents get together and decide when a patient/subject will die, in the name of the British government.

Please P R O V E this is incorrect, or a lie as you so crudely put it.

Sorry, but this is NEWS in the UK regardless of your inmature rantings to the contrary.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest]

Admit it Andy this is a fact:

Agents of the British Government are deciding when subjects will die.

Now if you can't prove this is incorrect you owe me and the Forum an apology. You are blatantly breaking a forum rule. If f it goes unchecked then I guess you have just decided all can do it.

Since you can't you just hurl invective in a blatant and transparent attempt to hide the truth.

For such an eccentric and unsubstantiated assertion the onus of proof is on you. Getting Terry to draw Hitler moustaches on various world leaders and/or you half quoting foul Daily Mail articles doesn't count as proof.

The crap you are pushing forward does not even begin to register as 'news' here. You are making yourself look ridiculous..... please continue

NHS Dr's are agents of the British goverment. Groups of these agents get together and decide when a patient/subject will die, in the name of the British government.

Please P R O V E this is incorrect, or a lie as you so crudely put it.

Sorry, but this is NEWS in the UK regardless of your inmature rantings to the contrary.

I watch the BBC World News every morning and then listen to Radio 4 news on my commute to work. Not once in the last 14 days has such a dark and evil conspiracy been reported. If what you peddle were to be true I am sure that it might have made a few bulletins. Right wing american demagogues are trying desperately to make lies such as your own 'news' but I am afraid our state sponsored education system must have come into its own in the sense that nobody here is stupid enough to fall for it.

The last BBC article even tangentally connected to this thread was on the 14 August - I would encourage all to read it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8202275.stm

The idea of doctors, nurses and carers as 'agents of the British government' involved in some vast conspiracy to kill UK citizens is deeply ridiculous. If you were really to believe that Craig (which I frankly doubt) then you place yourself in the same asylum as many of the left wing conspiracists you have railed against here so regularly.

[Craig Lamson]

Admit it Andy this is a fact:

Agents of the British Government are deciding when subjects will die.

Now if you can't prove this is incorrect you owe me and the Forum an apology. You are blatantly breaking a forum rule. If f it goes unchecked then I guess you have just decided all can do it.

Since you can't you just hurl invective in a blatant and transparent attempt to hide the truth.

For such an eccentric and unsubstantiated assertion the onus of proof is on you. Getting Terry to draw Hitler moustaches on various world leaders and/or you half quoting foul Daily Mail articles doesn't count as proof.

The crap you are pushing forward does not even begin to register as 'news' here. You are making yourself look ridiculous..... please continue

NHS Dr's are agents of the British goverment. Groups of these agents get together and decide when a patient/subject will die, in the name of the British government.

Please P R O V E this is incorrect, or a lie as you so crudely put it.

Sorry, but this is NEWS in the UK regardless of your inmature rantings to the contrary.

I watch the BBC World News every morning and then listen to Radio 4 news on my commute to work. Not once in the last 14 days has such a dark and evil conspiracy been reported. If what you peddle were to be true I am sure that it might have made a few bulletins. Right wing american demagogues are trying desperately to make lies such as your own 'news' but I am afraid our state sponsored education system must have come into its own in the sense that nobody here is stupid enough to fall for it.

The last BBC article even tangentally connected to this thread was on the 14 August - I would encourage all to read it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8202275.stm

The idea of doctors, nurses and carers as 'agents of the British government' involved in some vast conspiracy to kill UK citizens is deeply ridiculous. If you were really to believe that Craig (which I frankly doubt) then you place yourself in the same asylum as many of the left wing conspiracists you have railed against here so regularly.

You are a testy old fart when cornered, kind of like a rat. And so well informed, why you watch the morning news on tv and listen to the radio in the cart....such a slave to information I see....sheesh.

I see research is also not your forte:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8235106.stm

How many many more stories do you need to make hit fit into your personal and very silly box that defines "news" Andy?

There is no doubt that the British government through the NHS is deciding when a patient/subject will die.

One can argue that it's "compassion", but when 30% of the people (or their famlies) put on this euthanasia program anre not even TOLD that it is happening to them, something is deady wrong.

Pallative care is not the problem here. It's the fact that the STATE is deciding how and when someone dies.

Tha'ts BAD news no matter how you parse it.

This is a MASSIVE conflict of interest. The prople holding the pursestrings are implementing rules that have a huge potential to be used wrongly, or some mihgt say ARE being used wrongly.

The NHS is in deep financial trouble. Reports I have read suggest they will need to make MASSIVE cuts in staff and service in just a few years to survive, or else greatly raise the rate of taxation to the people.

It is also a fact that the elderly are eating up a huge portionvof the NHS budget and that will only get worse, not better.

Add it up Andy, if your propaganda riddled brain will allow the truth to seep in.

But you are correct, americans are angry at our goverements attempt to take over our heathcare system. And its not just the right, but the left and the indies that oppose this takever. You see we don't trust our government nor our Congress for that matter, and for good reason. In fact over 60 percent of Americans said they would rather toss the entire lot of them out of office and replace them with people chosen at radmon from the phone book.

We don't want the government to run the game and perhaps decide when someone dies, like they do in jolly old England. Maybe you enjoy being a ward of the state, most Americans however find that offensive and weak.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest]

What a strange disagreable chap you are Craig. You may be interested in the following (but I doubt it):

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=842

Liverpool Care Pathway

TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS ARE RECEIVING GOOD CARE, SAYS NATIONAL AUDIT

An audit of Care of the Dying covering nearly 4,000 terminally ill patients in over 150 hospitals in England has concluded that use of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is resulting in high quality care for those who are in the very last hours and days of life. The audit, which was conducted by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool in collaboration with the Clinical Standards Department of the Royal College of Physicians and the results of which were made public yesterday, underlines the value of the LCP in providing a framework for decision-making by doctors treating imminently dying patients.

The audit does not support criticisms of the LCP that have appeared recently in the media – namely, that patients who are managed in accordance with the Pathway's guidelines are being heavily sedated until they die or that the LCP is promoting a 'tick box' approach in which doctors sometimes fail to spot where patients show signs of recovery. The audit reveals that two thirds of the 3,893 patients whose deaths were assessed needed no continuous infusion of medication in the last 24 hours of life to control distress caused by restless or agitation and that, of those who did require such infusions, all but 4% needed only low doses. Unlike practices in other countries, such as the Netherlands where deep continuous sedation until death is administered according to a protocol, palliative care physicians in Britain have the skills to ensure that the overwhelming majority of terminally ill patients are able to die peacefully and without any significant sedation.

Commenting on the Audit, Dr Peter Saunders, Director of Care Not Killing, said: “This audit of LCP practice in some three quarters of hospitals in England is reassuring. It confirms that deep sedation of terminally ill patients is rare in Britain and that recent suggestions of its widespread use under the LCP are unfounded. It also underlines that any trusts prescribing relatively high doses of sedatives regularly to dying patients 'need to review their practice'”. Professor John Ellershaw, Director of the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, confirmed this. “The Liverpool Care Pathway”, he said, “does not endorse continuous deep sedation nor, as has been misreported in some places, the removal from dying patients of beneficial medication”.

Commenting on suggestions that doctors following the LCP's guidelines who do not have specialist knowledge of end of life medicine may sometimes fail to recognise signs of a recovery, Dr Saunders said: “Any tool is only as good as the workman who uses it. It is important to remember, however, that clinical decisions in end of life care are not made in isolation and that palliative care hospital support teams are available throughout the country to support other specialities in this work. These teams include physicians who also practice in the local hospice or palliative care unit”. He added: “There is nonetheless a need for continuing education of health care professionals at all levels in all aspects of modern palliative care, including diagnosing correctly that patients are imminently dying and detecting reversible causes of deterioration in patients in advanced illness. The new version of the pathway has addressed past ambiguities in interpretation and has been warmly welcomed by the Patients' Association but we do need to continue close monitoring to ensure that it is being used appropriately.”

Dr Bill Noble, President of the Association for Palliative Medicine, has also commented on recent press reports on the LCP:

“The Liverpool Care Pathway is not a one-way street and, when further deterioration does not occur, it is common practice to take the patient off the Pathway and re-institute previous treatment. The care pathway approach is now commonly used to aid the work of many specialities throughout the health service. It does not replace clinical judgement, but acts as a prompt to assist clinical teams to ensure that every patient gets adequate attention to every aspect of their care. Clinical pathways are useful in auditing practice and developing services. It is possible to misuse any clinical tool, but our experience of working with colleagues in hospitals and the community is that, with adequate training and support, it is used appropriately”.

[Terry Mauro]

Andy,

From the same website.

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/dvd/

And from 2006

09 November 2006

'Assisted dying' – is it now the turn of the new-born?There has been comment in the press about statements by the Ethics Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) on the subject of euthanasia for severely-ill new-born babies. What did the RCOG actually say? And what is its significance?

What the RCOG actually said

In July 2005 the RCOG submitted a memorandum to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in response to a consultation document entitled The Ethics of Prolonging Life in Foetuses and the Newborn. The memorandum asked the Council 'to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal-of-treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are means of widening the management options available to the sickest of the newborn'.

Describing 'active euthanasia' as 'a deliberate intervention to cause the death of an infant', the memorandum continues:

'Whilst pointing out that this presently would constitute homicide, this might be something the Working Party would wish to leave alone, or contrast with the Dutch system, or suggest a wider debate about changing the law (as per the Assisted Dying Bill). The RCOG Ethics Committee does not have a view that we would like euthanasia to be discussed, but do feel that it has to be covered and debated for completion and consistency's sake…If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome...If assisted dying legislation is to be anticipated or enacted at the other end of life, now would be a pertinent time to discuss this'.

The memorandum also touches on what it calls 'economic issues':

'Most babies who leave hospital with severe (or even quite moderate) disabilities get pitifully little help from the state: if a mother really knew the real, life-long costs of caring for such a baby, and also knew that the chances of the central or local government paying anything near enough to cover such costs are very low, perhaps she might feel differently about aggressive resuscitation and treatment of her premature baby…Bringing up a very damaged baby, without nearly enough help, and to such a very uncertain future, would profoundly affect her life and her partner's and her other children's. The estimate of costs…ignores the immense emotional and social cost to mothers and families in many cases, which often they did not anticipate'.

What Does It All Mean?

The RCOG has stated, in response to the criticism of its memorandum in the press, that 'the RCOG and its members do not support euthanasia' and that 'we have never advocated active euthanasia for severely pre-term babies or any form of mercy-killing on disabled newborns'. It is reassuring to hear these words.

It is important also to recognise that the RCOG's suggestion - that, if legalised 'assisted dying' for terminally ill adults were in prospect, it might be an appropriate moment to discuss similar action for newborns – was made in July 2005. Since then an 'assisted dying' bill has been roundly defeated in Parliament. The memorandum might be considered therefore to be less topical than at the time it was submitted.

Nonetheless, the shadow of 'assisted dying' has not gone away and it would be salutary to reflect on the implications of the suggestion (in the memorandum) that 'active euthanasia' might be included among the 'management options' for seriously ill new-born babies.

First, we should look carefully at the terminology used. The memorandum refers to 'non-resuscitation, withdrawal-of-treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia'. There is an inference here which may escape the notice of the casual reader – namely, that the first three actions listed constitute 'passive euthanasia'. This is a persistent theme of the pro-euthanasia lobby – that any decision which a doctor takes in the expectation that a patient will die a result amounts to euthanasia. This is both legal and ethical nonsense. On the one hand, doctors are criticised for heroic interventions and for striving officiously to keep dying patients alive. Yet, when they decide it is time to call it a day and discontinue treatment which has been shown to be futile and burdensome to the patient, they are said to be practising passive euthanasia.

There is, in fact, no such thing as passive euthanasia. Euthanasia means ending life deliberately for reasons of compassion – that's why it is sometimes called 'mercy killing'. But a doctor's intention, when he withdraws futile treatment or does not resuscitate, is not to end the patient's life. It is simply to recognise that enough is enough and that nothing more can be done to prevent nature taking its course. The doctor may expect the patient's death to follow his action, but that is not the intention. And intention is of crucial importance where ethics are concerned. End-of-life decisions are not the same thing as ending-life decisions. We should beware therefore of attempts to brigade euthanasia innocently alongside other perfectly legal and ethical practices.

The second thing which this memorandum illustrates is the existence of a slippery slope in 'assisted dying'. We are always being assured by the proponents of a change in the law that there is no slippery slope. One might have thought that recent statements by Ludwig Minelli, the founder of the Swiss organisation Dignitas, would have shown how hollow these assurances are. Mr Minelli was in Britain early in the autumn telling us that he wanted to see Swiss law permitting assistance with suicide extended so that it included people suffering from severe depression. Here however we have another example. If assisted dying for terminally ill adults, says the RCOG memorandum, is on the table, perhaps this would be a convenient moment to consider extending it to newborn infants as well. This is all reminiscent of the extension of Dutch euthanasia law to include neonates and of pressure in Holland to extend legalised euthanasia yet further to include people with dementia. The RCOG's memorandum provides a glimpse of what might be just around the corner if we were ever foolish enough to go down the 'assisted dying' road.

Care Not Killing

Please also see:

www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/nuffield_prolonging_life_in_fetuses_newborn.pdf

www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=462

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6120126.stm

Debate that harms disabled babies

=========================

Euthanasia is all the rage in England!!!

Edited September 28, 2009 by Terry Mauro

[Guest]

Andy,

From the same website.

You've identified a debate you fool!

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Now, if you want to talk about causing unneccessary deaths, have a read of the attached.

pfan_4ed091409_1_.php

[Guest]

Now, if you want to talk about causing unneccessary deaths, have a read of the attached.

Yes they seem to like to cull a proportion of the poor every year in the US. Perhaps it's more manly and ruggedly individualistic that way?? - I chose the 'weak and offensive' Welfare State any day.

[Terry Mauro]

Andy,

From the same website.

You've identified a debate you fool!

My goodness but you're arrogant.

Of course it's a debate you donkey's rear end. And what prey tell are they debating? That's been the issue all along hasnt it Mr. Educator? And it's an issue you keep pretending doesnt exist on your "lil" island.

Quote:

Ilora Baroness Finlay, Professor in Palliative Medicine:

"What is proposed is not whether you personally can commit suicide. it is whether your doctor can act to kill you."

PS- I'd say that I identified a donkey's rear end.

[Guest]

PS- I'd say that I identified a donkey's rear end.

From your performance in this thread it is quite clear that you wouldn't know at which end of the donkey to start

Or is this the old parlour game 'pin the tail on the donkey' in a new form - 'pin the Hitler moustache on Obama'??

[Guest]

Palliative care in the USA

http://www.capc.org/reportcard/findings

America is doing a mediocre job of caring for its most seriously ill and vulnerable hospitalized patients. Palliative care programs are being put into place at a rapid pace in United States hospitals. However, despite high access in some states wide geographic variation remains a barrier to care for patients and families.

The study, America′s Care of Serious Illness: A State-by-State Report Card on Access to Palliative Care in Our Nation′s Hospitals,conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) and National Palliative Care Research Center (NPCRC), and published in the October issue of the Journal of Palliative Medicine, examines access at the state level in order to determine whether there is equitable care for seriously ill patients throughout the United States.

Where You Live Matters.

As the Dartmouth Atlas* researchers have often pointed out, “geography is destiny.” The same holds true when speaking of access to hospitals offering palliative care. If you′re living in the South, for example, you′re much less likely to find a hospital with a palliative care program. If you′re living in a region where there are only small hospitals (fewer than fifty beds), for example, your chances of having access to palliative care are extremely limited:

•The lowest prevalence of hospital palliative care programs is found in Mississippi (10 percent), Alabama (16 percent), Oklahoma (19 percent), Nevada (23 percent), and Wyoming (25 percent)

•The highest prevalence of hospital palliative care programs is found in Vermont (100 percent), Montana (88 percent), New Hampshire (85 percent), the District of Columbia (80 percent), and South Dakota (78 percent)

Size matters:

•Access to palliative care in small hospitals ranged from 0% in Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and New Mexico to 78% in Vermont, with a national average of 20.1%.

•Access in large hospitals (more than 300 beds) ranged from 0% in Nevada to 100% in twenty states. The national average was 75.4%.

There is considerable variation from state to state:

•States Receiving A Grades

Top Performers (programs in 81 to 100% of hospitals):

Vermont (100%); Montana (88%); New Hampshire (85%)

•States Receiving B Grades

On Their Way (programs in 61 to 80% of hospitals):

District of Columbia (80%); South Dakota (78%); Minnesota (75%); Missouri (73%); New Jersey (72%); Oregon (72%); Iowa (70%); Maine (69%); Michigan (69%); North Caroline (69%); Ohio (68%); Colorado (67%); Maryland (67%); West Virginia (67%); North Dakota (67%); Washington (65%); Wisconsin (64%); Virginia (63%); Kansas (61%)

•States Receiving C Grades

States in the middle (programs in 41 to 60% of hospitals):

Alaska (60%); Delaware (60%); Rhode Island (60%); Illinois (58%) New York (58%); California (56%); Idaho (56%); Nebraska (56%) Utah (56%); Connecticut (54%); Indiana (54%); Pennsylvania (54%) Arizona (50%); Massachusetts (50%); Florida (49%); Hawaii (45%) Tennessee (45%); Arkansas (41%)

•States Receiving D Grades

States that need significant improvement (programs in 21 to 40% of hospitals):

Georgia (38%); Kentucky (37%); New Mexico (33%); Texas (33%) South Carolina (30%); Louisiana (27%); Wyoming (25%) Nevada (23%)

•States Receiving Failing Grades

States with little or no access (programs in 0 to 20% of hospitals):

Oklahoma (19%); Alabama (16%); Mississippi (10%)

•Only three states did not improve at all since the Last Acts® report card of 2002:

Oklahoma; Alabama; Mississippi

Underserved Populations Also Show Disparities in Access to Palliative Care.

Public and sole community provider hospitals often serve as the only option for medical care for the 47 million Americans lacking health care coverage, as well as for communities that are geographically isolated:

•Only 41 percent of public hospitals provide their patients with access to hospital palliative care.

•Only 29 percent of sole community provider hospitals provide their patients with access to hospital palliative care.

For-Profit and Public Hospitals were Significantly Less Likely to Have Hospital Palliative Care Compared with Non-Profit Hospitals.

Not All Medical Schools are Affiliated with a Hospital that Provides a Palliative Care Program.

Improving access to palliative care for our nation′s patients and families requires that all future physicians receive training in the fundamentals of palliative care. This training needs to exist not only in the classroom but also in the hospital where medical students can experience the mentoring and role modeling at the bedside that is so critical to their professional development. At the time of this study:

•Five private medical schools were affiliated with hospitals not reporting a program: Albany Medical College, Boston University School of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Tufts University School of Medicine, and Yale University School of Medicine. (Yale now has a program)

•Four states did not have a state-financed medical school that was affiliated with a hospital palliative care program: Connecticut, Mississippi, Nebraska and Nevada.

•Three states did not contain a medical school that is affiliated with any hospital palliative care program: Mississippi, Nebraska, and Nevada

A Fundamental Issue Facing the American Public is the Lack of Qualified Board Certified Physicians in Palliative Medicine.

In 2007, there were 2,883 physicians board-certified in palliative medicine (1 physician per 31,000 persons living with serious and life-threatening illness, or 1 physician per 432 Medicare deaths from chronic illness). In comparison, there are 16,800 cardiologists (1 per 71 heart attack victims) and 10,000 oncologists (1 per 145 patients newly diagnosed with cancer).

•The highest rates of board-certified palliative medicine physicians are in Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Alaska, New Mexico and Colorado

•The lowest rates of board certified palliative medicine physicians are in Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota

There are also Implications for Patients and Families in the last six months of life.

Our data indicate that in states where there is greater access to palliative care programs, patients:

•Are less likely to die in the hospital

•Experience fewer ICU/CCU admissions in the last six months of life

•Spend less time in an ICU/CCU in the last six months of life

Conclusion

Although access to palliative care in the hospital setting is improving year-by-year, people living with a serious illness will still find significant disparities in their access to a hospital that provides palliative care. Focused efforts by hospital administration, the health care community, and policymakers are required to promote the development of quality palliative care programs in all hospitals, with special attention needed in small, rural, public and for-profit hospitals (see Recommendations for Action section of this report). This will result in a more efficient and effective use of hospital resources, and will enhance the quality of care delivered to our nation′s most seriously ill patients and their families.

[Len Colby]

=== My latest comments preceded by "===" and in this color color

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.

=== ???? You claim that the US system is so much better, citing cases of medical care being denied in the UK when in similar circumstances it probably would have been denied in the US as well don’t help you.

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.

== The fact that the FDA hasn’t approved it suggests as even you admit they have questions about its effectiveness, it is not unreasonable to assume NICE has similar doubts. Is HIFU more expensive that NICE approved treatment options?

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.

=== - I never said I did an in depth study of your political views.

-Your defined period was his 2nd term and it seems like you supported his economic policies until the last few months.

-That was fairly mainstream but the other comments weren't

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.

== If you think being to right of George Bush, even when he was the least popular president ever, didn’t put you outside the political mainstream you are deluded.

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.

=== If you put all the people that study identified into the Ohio State football stadium it would be less than half full. It comes out to 0.14% of Canadians

"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.

=== I think they would find a way to deal with the 0.1 – 0.5% of the populace who go there for medical treatment.

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

== Actually “Mr. Research” the study gave a higher figure than you cited 47,044 vs 38,000. Still doesn’t help you much that comes out to 0.014% vs 0.011% of the population. The brokers claim is not credible of course they want to exaggerate they number of people who use their services. Though the Frasier Institute said the number “is likely to be an underestimate”nothing indicates they think it is a small fraction of the true number. The Canadian government it self estimated 0.5, still not very significant

.

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?

== Prime example of cognitive dissonance:

0.1 – 0.5% of Canadians going to the US for top quality medical treatment ¾ of whom went there for other reasons, many (most?) having there treatment paid for by the government, many getting drug/alcohol rehab or abortions and traveling for privacy = the system sucks

0.25% of Americans going to 3rd world countries for medical treatment because they can’t afford it at home = the wonders of freedom.

Who is better off Canadians who get medical care in the US or Americans who get in Mexico?

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.

== People who don’t have kids or have them but home/private school them pay for public education, people don’t use it pay for public transportation, people who don’t own cars pay for highway improvements, a very small percent of the population lives in rural areas yet everyone pays for farm subsidies, people who’ve never been in one pay for local, state and national parks etc, etc. Life sucks, if you don’t like it move to a ranch in Montana or Idaho, surround it with trip wire, declare it to be outside governmental jurisdiction and stock up on food stuffs guns and ammo.

“The poor folks in Canada” on average pay a lot less “for their system “ than Americans. As for your claim they “must pay for their system at the point of a gun, if they use it or not.”

1) I haven’t heard about any “tax protesters” there and polls show the vast majority of Canadians are happy with their system. Can you show that a significant numbers of Canadians would prefer an American style system?

2) Most Americans who have coverage pay for “, if they use it or not” because their employer pays for it. Even if it is not deducted from their pay an employer who pays an average $6000 year per worker for medical coverage will pay them oh about $ 6000 a year less than if he (or she) didn’t

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.

=== ??? “Apples to apples rarely apples” sounds like Dr. Seuss I think you decide what “sucks” and what makes sense in comparing medical systems is whether or not it supports your argument. Please provide additional data backing your assertion that survival rates for most diseases is better in the US than Canada. You made the claim about cancer but I found the data and the difference is small. According to Bloomberg the rate for several other ailments is better there.

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.

=== You choose to ignore the point. The argument should be over what is best for the vast majority of Americans. Yes America has the best hospitals in the world, it also has the best universities in the world but just as very few can study at Ivy League schools very few can afford treatment at the Mayo Clinic. You also didn’t answer my question, can YOU go there? And hate to touch on something so personal can your mom?

- 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.

=== Actually the difference between Canada and US for men and women and Europe and the US for women and for men in a few European countries is very small. You obviously want to focus on cancer survival rates because it’s the only statistic you’ve found where the data is in your favor. If you are more likely to survive cancer but less likely to survive asthma are you better off?

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.

=== I’m not going to hide data I’ve dug up because it doesn’t point in my favor. The fact that the numbers for Canada and for European women and for men in several European countries are very close suggests the differences aren’t inherent to single payer systems.

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.

=== Come on you run a small business you know that’s BS. If you pay for a workers healthcare you will pay them that much less.

“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.

=== Since you have zero expertise in the area and can’t point to anyone who does who agrees with you and have not seen the cited studies your objections amount to blowing smoke. As I said above you simply choose to ignore what ever contradicts your POV.

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.

=== Comparisons which contradict you are “flawed”, those that support you are exemplary. The CIA, not exactly a bastion of socialism, disagrees with you.

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.

=== Do you have any evidence they don’t? Ask the CIA

"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...

=== Now, you’ve really go me confused as to your point:

“She had all the access to healthcare she needed”

“access to care is not a good indicator of the quality of a system”