The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Craig Lamson]

mr google sez:

“=== ???? 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.”

Learn to read Len. The question was about NICE, not about the US or the FDA. NICE decided not to supply life saving or life extending drugs based on PRICE. My links support exactly that fact. It was YOUR strawman argument to compare NICE to the FDA and it was an epic fail in context.

mr google sez:

“== 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?”

Sure there are instances where NICE MAY make decisions based on effectiveness, that’s not the issue. They CLEARLY make decisions based on cost. Of course that was the issue all along until mr google introduced his textbook strawman argument.

mr goolge sez:

“=== - 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”

My god, your spin is amazing…

Mr google sez:

== 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.

Deluded eh, look in the mirror. You need to spend some long term time in the US, your vision of what America really is totally warped.

“=== 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”

And 38,000+ (admitted to be under reported by the authors of the study0 people passed over by their HOME heathcare with is praised as FREE and available to all is not significant? Amazing! I guess those who had their lives saved BECAUSE they were able to receive care in the US, not available to them in a timely fashion in Canada are just insignificant to mr google.

mr google sez:

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

Which begs the question why are they not doing it now????

mr goggle sez:

== 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

You are correct I gave you the wrong link. I quoted the 2006 study (which seems to have blown right over your head) and posted the link to the 2007 study (which again blew right over your head). Play whatever parsing games you want mr google, if you consider the number as not very significant, I suggest you take that up with those who were unable to get timely care in the land of that wonderful “free heathcare”, Canada. Their free system let them down.

mr google sez:

== 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?”

I not sure your statements are accurate but I’m not going to get into a pissing match over your stats.

The fact remains, people who have the cash to travel to other countries to get care from the US most likely have the means to purchase heath insurance coverage. They are traveling to save a few bucks personally or are going to receive a service not available in the US.

Aside from services not available in the US, yes THE FREEDOM of choice far outweighs the Canadian system, at least in my opinion.

mr google sez:

== 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 and paying for services they don’t use really pisses people off. Money taken at a point of a gun and people are starting to rebel, at least in the US.

I have plenty of guns and ammo thank you.

I’m sure most people in Canada are satisfied but resentment is growing and there is talk about going private as there talk of going private as the only way to save the system. Most people on the dole rarely want to change. Why take personal responsibility when the nanny state can take care of you? Once a population finds they can vote themselves the keys to the national treasury they rarely go backwards regardless of the quality of service they receive, Why should they when for a part of them someone else pays their way.

Whats ‘significant” ?

More employers allow an employee to opt out of a healthcare plan. While I’m sure some may give the opt out employee the cash, none I nor my wife has ever worked for has given us the cash when we opted out. And between us we have opted out a number of times. The only money we saved were the employee contributions.

Mr google sez:

=== ??? “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.

Excuse my typo, I know you never make them. [/sarcasm]

Of course I decide since I’m voicing MY opinion. The point which is valid is that there are MANY factors in survival rates, infant mortality and life expectancy etc, all data points people like to use to compare healthcare systems between countries. The data is flawed, it’s not apples to apples. Clearly I thought you might have the intelligence to understand this simple point. I was wrong.

mr google sez:

“=== 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?”

Strawman again, when you can’t win, you try and change the argument.

Sure I can go to the MAYO and so can my Mom. I don’t have a clue if her Medicare supplement or my policy will pay all, part or nothing, but the fact remains we CAN go if you make the required sacrifices and find the funds. That’s the beauty of freedom.

Sorry to break it to you but the best is the best regardless of who may or may not have access. Of course THAT was the point.

mr google sez:

”=== 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?”

Sheesh, I don’t want to use ANY of the data points to measure one system against the other, because the data is fundamentally flawed. My point, and again it flew right over your head, is that there are data points where one system might look better than another, but they are poor yardsticks. Both of us can find data points to support a position but they are not apples to apples data points and thus useless.

mr goole sez:

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

See above.

The CIA sez: “is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country”

Notice they don’t state it is a quality indicator.

Why they don’t…

http://reason.com/news/printer/135603.html

BTW, I would not have asked the question if I did not know the answer…..

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/infant...ements-not.html

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/art...0924/2healy.htm

finally mr google sez:

“=== 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”

Access is a major part of the WHO ranking if a countries health care system. It’s the one most used arguments by those who rate the US in comparison to the UK and Canada.

My mom is a perfect example of why the metric is fatally flawed. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out, I was wrong.

[Guest]

Learn to read Len. The question was about NICE, not about the US or the FDA. NICE decided not to supply life saving or life extending drugs based on PRICE. My links support exactly that fact. It was YOUR strawman argument to compare NICE to the FDA and it was an epic fail in context.

NICE makes decisions based on clinical trials and efficacy. Not always good for Big Pharma shareholders but always good for health care consumers.

[Craig Lamson]

Learn to read Len. The question was about NICE, not about the US or the FDA. NICE decided not to supply life saving or life extending drugs based on PRICE. My links support exactly that fact. It was YOUR strawman argument to compare NICE to the FDA and it was an epic fail in context.

NICE makes decisions based on clinical trials and efficacy. Not always good for Big Pharma shareholders but always good for health care consumers.

BULL--oney.

C O S T never figures in eh? Denying the latests and best drugs and treatments is always good for health care consumers ? Boy you must buy your koolaid by the tanker load.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Guest]

Learn to read Len. The question was about NICE, not about the US or the FDA. NICE decided not to supply life saving or life extending drugs based on PRICE. My links support exactly that fact. It was YOUR strawman argument to compare NICE to the FDA and it was an epic fail in context.

NICE makes decisions based on clinical trials and efficacy. Not always good for Big Pharma shareholders but always good for health care consumers.

BULL--oney.

C O S T never figures in eh? Denying the latests and best drugs and treatments is always good for health care consumers ? Boy you must buy your koolaid by the tanker load.

If 'Big Pharma' could be trusted both to carry out impartial scientific trials and to price their products reasonably there would of course be less need for NICE. Unfortunately the drug companies principle motivation is to make maximum profits and unless and until we nationalise them I can't see this changing.

Thus in the civilised world we rely on health care professionals to make sure scarce resources are being allocated fairly and reasonably. Your problem Craig is you have no trust in professionals and an enormously exaggerated trust in capitalists..... It must make going to the doctor very stressful for you.

[Guest]

There has been displayed in this thread by my american friends a really quite staggering ignorance of the NHS. In the interests of education I therefore present the following clip.

[Terry Mauro]

There has been displayed in this thread by my american friends a really quite staggering ignorance of the NHS. In the interests of education I therefore present the following clip.

You continue to assert that there is an attack on the NHS. What's being attacked is the Hitler "euthanasia" program developed at Liverpool Care Pathway and approved for general use by the NHS.

[Terry Mauro]

Tony Blair Kills Another Brit: Living Wills for Suicide

Oct. 2 (LPAC)--Tony Blair has succeeded in killing another

innocent British subject, and setting a precedent for many more.

A deeply disturbed 26-year-old woman, who had attempted suicide

numerous times, swallowed poison, then wrote out a note saying

she did not want to be saved and gave it to the hospital staff.

Under a 2005 law called the Mental Capacity Act, passed under

Blair's government, living wills became legally binding. The

doctors, therefore, under threat of prosecution, consulted

lawyers, then intentionally let the woman die without receiving

the relatively simple treatment to save her life.

The law, although passed by the Labour Party in Parliament

(against fierce opposition from backbenchers), only went into

effect in 2007, as the economy crashed. The infamous "Liverpool

Pathway," to apply "deep sedation" and deny sustenance or fluids

to anyone deemed terminally ill, was likewise passed in 2005

under Blair, and implemented at the time of the crash in 2007--as

was also the case with Hitler's T4 euthanasia policy, which

waited implementation until the war began in September 1939.

The young lady's father is furious, saying that he was

"ashamed to be English with the way the law stands. It is plain

daft."

The Mental Capacity Act explicitly makes doctors legally

liable if they save a life of someone with a living will, called

an "advanced directive." The law reads:

"Advance decision means a decision made by a person (P),

after he has reached 18 and when he has capacity to do so, that

if (a) at a later time and in such circumstances as he may

specify, a specified treatment is proposed to be carried out or

continued by a person providing health care for him, and ( at

that time he lacks capacity to consent to the carrying out or

continuation of the treatment, the specified treatment is not to

be carried out or continued.... A decision may be regarded as

specifying a treatment or circumstances even though expressed in

laymans terms."

Further: "An advance decision does not affect the liability

which a person may incur for carrying out or continuing a

treatment in relation to [a patient] unless the decision is at

the material time (a) valid, and ( applicable to the

treatment." I.e., the doctor is liable if he saves the patient

with such a living will.

[Guest]

Please try and have an original idea Terry. Or at least give us the source of your pastings

[Guest]

There has been displayed in this thread by my american friends a really quite staggering ignorance of the NHS. In the interests of education I therefore present the following clip.

You continue to assert that there is an attack on the NHS. What's being attacked is the Hitler "euthanasia" program developed at Liverpool Care Pathway and approved for general use by the NHS.

Have you read anything in this thread?

[Terry Mauro]

There has been displayed in this thread by my american friends a really quite staggering ignorance of the NHS. In the interests of education I therefore present the following clip.

You continue to assert that there is an attack on the NHS. What's being attacked is the Hitler "euthanasia" program developed at Liverpool Care Pathway and approved for general use by the NHS.

Have you read anything in this thread?

Have you read anything in this thread? Read the title "The Far -Right Conspiracy against the NHS".

I don't think you'll find my comments having much to do with NHS but rather the "euthanasia" program promoted by the Kings Trust through Liverpool Pathway and now approved for general use by the NHS.

Got it now?

[Terry Mauro]

Please try and have an original idea Terry. Or at least give us the source of your pastings

The source is contained in the by line of the news story. You might try reading a little more carefully. It will save time for both of us.

[Guest]

Please try and have an original idea Terry. Or at least give us the source of your pastings

The source is contained in the by line of the news story. You might try reading a little more carefully. It will save time for both of us.

When you are pasting directly from other sources please make sure you provide the link. Quite why you want to paste directly from such other sources is another matter.

On your other point - You are of course quite within your rights to be fixated with this Larouche nazi character but repeating again and again the lies of your beloved leader and his assorted and bizarre right wing lickspittles about the Liverpool Pathway palliative care programme does not make those lies true.

You are indeed engaged in a 'far right conspiracy against the NHS'.

The chances of you seeing or understanding this this side of 10 years of intense therapy are I will concede remote.

[Terry Mauro]

Please try and have an original idea Terry. Or at least give us the source of your pastings

The source is contained in the by line of the news story. You might try reading a little more carefully. It will save time for both of us.

When you are pasting directly from other sources please make sure you provide the link. Quite why you want to paste directly from such other sources is another matter.

On your other point - You are of course quite within your rights to be fixated with this Larouche nazi character but repeating again and again the lies of your beloved leader and his assorted and bizarre right wing lickspittles about the Liverpool Pathway palliative care programme does not make those lies true.

You are indeed engaged in a 'far right conspiracy against the NHS'.

The chances of you seeing or understanding this this side of 10 years of intense therapy are I will concede remote.

Instead of your typical sophistry why don't you invite Education Forum member Tony Chaitkin to answer any questions you and other members might have? You've done this with Jim Hougan, Joan Mellon and others so why not have Tony here to answer questions?

As far as your repeated reference to "Nazi" leanings, you might look a little closer to home to find your "Nazi's". As I showed you Prince Phillip was up to his arse with the Nazi party. Where do you think Hitler got his ideas of eugenics, and euthanasia?

[Guest]

Instead of your typical sophistry why don't you invite Education Forum member Tony Chaitkin to answer any questions you and other members might have? You've done this with Jim Hougan, Joan Mellon and others so why not have Tony here to answer questions?

As far as your repeated reference to "Nazi" leanings, you might look a little closer to home to find your "Nazi's". As I showed you Prince Phillip was up to his arse with the Nazi party. Where do you think Hitler got his ideas of eugenics, and euthanasia?

Please feel free to invite any other fan boys or fan girls of your Fuhrer to engage in discussions here. We do support free expression.

You however so far have 'shown me' nothing. Mental regurgitation is no more edifying or enlightening than physical regurgitation.

[Terry Mauro]

Instead of your typical sophistry why don't you invite Education Forum member Tony Chaitkin to answer any questions you and other members might have? You've done this with Jim Hougan, Joan Mellon and others so why not have Tony here to answer questions?

As far as your repeated reference to "Nazi" leanings, you might look a little closer to home to find your "Nazi's". As I showed you Prince Phillip was up to his arse with the Nazi party. Where do you think Hitler got his ideas of eugenics, and euthanasia?

Please feel free to invite any other fan boys or fan girls of your Fuhrer to engage in discussions here. We do support free expression.

You however so far have 'shown me' nothing. Mental regurgitation is no more edifying or enlightening than physical regurgitation.

Call your bluff and you fold. It's as simple as that.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Terry Mauro