Cancer Fighting Strategies
JohnB
NICK
> http://www.visit_my_site.com
Yeah, sure.
But you left yourself of the hook with this this disclaimer:
Disclaimer: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and
Drug Administration. The products and information contained herein are
not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any diseases or,
medical problems. It is not intended to replace your doctor's
recommendations. The information is provided for educational purposes
only. Nutritional benefits may vary from one person to another.
JohnB
ask yourself how scientific are the orthodox cancer treatments.
http://www.health-science-spirit.com/cancerscience.html
I am sure you have all the answers Dr. Nick! ;-)
"NICK" <CALIFORN...@PEOPLEPC.COM> wrote in message
news:1167504851.2...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Alan Meyer
"JohnB" <sugars_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LVAlh.8089$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> To prevent persecution from the FDA this disclaimer is necessary. You should ask
> yourself how scientific are the orthodox cancer treatments.
>
> http://www.health-science-spirit.com/cancerscience.html
>
> I am sure you have all the answers Dr. Nick! ;-)
Nick doesn't have all the answers Dr. John, but unlike you, Nick is not
claiming to be able to cure cancer.
The web page that you refer to above has many inaccuracies and
outright falsehoods.
There are indeed errors in scientific medicine. Some of the errors are
indeed due to insufficient attention to the need for scientific rigor in
testing drugs and medical procedures. But I believe most of the
errors and inadequacies in scientific medicine are due not to malfeasance
or stupidity, but to the fact that cancer is an extraordinarily complicated
disease and it is still far from being fully understood.
I am certain however that the scientific doctors understand more of
it than you or Walter Last (if he is not you) do. Anyone who thinks
that scientific treatments are inadequately tested should stay far, far
away from the completely untested cures promoted on your website.
Alan
JohnB
It is so easy for you to state that the website I reference contains errors
yet you don't mention what they are, maybe you don't know you just throw
that out there to make your argument, how convenient.
You put a lot of blind faith in the 'scientific' highly profitable cancer
industry, which like the internal combustion engine found in 'modern' cars,
hasn't changed much in the last fifty years. No point in improving a very
profitable industry. I wonder how many cancer patients would still be alive
today if they approached their disease from a dietary perspective. Do you
need scientific validation that you should eat a nutritious meal everyday?
Get real, empirical evidence is just as valid as scientific; it has survived
the test of time!
Are you aware that properly prescribed drugs are the fourth leading cause of
death in the USA. The scientific approach to modern medicine sure seems to
be killing a lot of people. Let's face it there is more money in treating
disease then curing it, which is why I really doubt that cures will ever be
found for cancer or aids, no matter how much of our money your noble
scientific community spends.
Death by Doctoring, Cancer: the good, the bad and the ugly
http://www.cancertutor.com/ChemoSpill/deathbydoctoring1.htm
JohnB
"Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nNCdnVBMRcaGdgvY...@comcast.com...
NICK
> Are you aware that properly prescribed drugs are the fourth leading cause of
> death in the USA. The scientific approach to modern medicine sure seems to
> be killing a lot of people.
The 10 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S.
1. Heart disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7 Influensa and pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's disease
9. Kidney disease
10. Blood poisoning
Alan Meyer
> contains errors yet you don't mention what they are, maybe you
> don't know you just throw that out there to make your argument,
> how convenient.
John,
First off, I apologize for the tone of my posting if you are
indeed sincere in what you say. I looked at the website, clicked
the "Home" button, and found an ad for a book for $45. That
immediately put me on guard.
The first thing quack medicine salesmen do is try to create fear
and doubt in the patient. Your doctor won't help you because all
he wants is your money. Trust _us_. We aren't in this for the
money. But for just $45 we'll show you how to cure your cancer.
So I took you for one of the quack medicine salesmen. Frankly,
you still haven't convinced me that you are not.
> However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared
> with the survival rates of untreated patients, and never with
> patients who adopted natural therapies.
Success rates for surgery are indeed compared to untreated
patients, as you acknowledge. But I'm not sure what constitutes
a "natural" therapy here. Certainly many of the popular
unconventional therapies have been tested. See:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cancer.html
If some "natural" therapy shows no effect in curing cancer by
itself, why in the world would anyone want to compare
conventional medical treatment against it?
> Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is inherently
> unscientific.
The fact that conventional medical treatments are not compared
against the myriad "natural" therapies hardly makes them
inherently unscientific. In fact a great deal of scientific
research goes into conventional medicine.
If you say that some conventional doctors are quacks, or that
some are solely in it for the money, you'll get no argument from
me. That's true of many medical school graduates and _at least_
as true for the many "natural" therapy practitioners who
advertise on the Internet, as you do. But that doesn't mean that
conventional medicine is unscientific.
I have met many medical researchers where I work at the National
Cancer Institute and in other places. I can vouch for their
intelligence, their integrity, their commitment to evidence based
medicine, and their commitment to patients.
You will not convince me that they are in this for the money,
or that they are stupid, ignorant, or unscientific.
As I say, I can vouch for many of the scientists and doctors I
have met. Who vouches for you?
> The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be
> accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect.
Are you saying that this is true for all cancers? How can you
say that? Which of the citations in your list supports that?
Your statement is absolutely false. There are medical treatments
that can cure some cancers, and other treatments that can keep
people alive for longer periods.
> Basically all types and combinations of conventional breast
> cancer treatment appear to result in the same low long-term
> survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this
> is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term
> survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, M.D., a leading
> British breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery
> tends to increase the risk of relapse or death within three
> years. He also linked surgery to the accelerated spread of
> cancer, which it does by forming metastases in other parts of
> the body (5).
There are reputable scientists who believe this, but they are a
minority of cancer specialists. Furthermore, a strong argument
could be made that they too have an axe to grind.
There is a problem in the United States in that doctors are paid
for treatment and so tend to promote treatment whether it is
useful or not. This is a serious problem and it leads to
overtreatment of many conditions.
However there is a corresponding problem in countries like the
U.K. (from which this and many others of your citations come) of
doctors getting paid salaries whether they treat people or not
and having a vested interest in justifying the low level of
treatment that occurs and the long waiting lines for treatment.
We see this particularly in prostate cancer treatment. The UK
National Health Service will generally not perform PSA tests and
has a much lower rate of early detection and treatment than in
the U.S. It turns out that the death rates from prostate cancer
are significantly higher in the UK than in the US.
According to the National Cancer Institute, the trends in cancer
survival are definitely pointing upward. See:
http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2005&chid=25&coid=227&mid=#trends
How could this be the case if medical treatment did no good?
On another web page
(http://www.cancerfightingstrategies.com/causes.html) you state
that cancer is always in the body and fighting it is merely a
matter of avoiding carcinogens and boosting the immune system.
My understanding of cancer is that this is not a true statement.
Cancer is a disease of damaged DNA. Cells become cancerous if
enough damage accumulates to DNA that the normal mechanisms of
control of DNA replication and repair no longer function properly
and the cells begin to divide when they should not, and establish
themselves in places in the body where they should not. Most
cancers take many years to develop and are not in the body all
the time.
Carcinogens can cause DNA damage and should be avoided, but the
most common risk factor for carcinogenic DNA damage is probably
old age. Some percentage of people who have completely avoided
carcinogens and who have very healthy immune systems will still
die of cancer.
Here's a quote at random from one of your web pages:
> The major waste product of candida is acetaldehyde, which
> produces ethanol. ...
You go on to tell of the horrors of ethanol - never even
mentioning that the major source of ethanol in people is not
candida infection but drinking alcoholic beverages. I understand
that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, but I can tell you
there are more than one nonagenarians who have a drink or two
each day.
Much more could be said. I will stop here not because I accept
everything else on the web pages that you cite, but because I
will not devote more of my time to rebuttal.
Again, if you are sincere and not simply a salesman trying to
convince people to buy from you instead of from doctors, then
I apologize for my harsh tone. But I fear that you have convinced
some people who could be saved by conventional medicine into
taking quack cures instead - causing needless deaths.
Alan
Mary Fisher
>
> However there is a corresponding problem in countries like the
> U.K. (from which this and many others of your citations come) of
> doctors getting paid salaries whether they treat people or not
> and having a vested interest in justifying the low level of
> treatment that occurs and the long waiting lines for treatment.
Not true.
>
> We see this particularly in prostate cancer treatment. The UK
> National Health Service will generally not perform PSA tests
Not true.
> and
> has a much lower rate of early detection and treatment than in
> the U.S. It turns out that the death rates from prostate cancer
> are significantly higher in the UK than in the US.
Evidence?
>
Someone told me by mail when I came here that some of the US posters had a
down on our National Health Service (although I can't think why). It seems
that it's true.
Well, I speak as a user. I'm VERY happy with the NHS. It's not perfect - is
US medicine?
Mary
Alan Meyer
The intent of my posting was to debunk some of JohnB's claims,
not to bash the NHS, though I see that I what I said could be
interpreted as doing so.
However as a persistent critic of the U.S. health care system,
or rather the lack thereof, I'm really not anti-National Health
Service. On average, I think that UK residents probably get
better care than we do in the U.S., and I wish we had something
like the NHS in the U.S.
But here my replies to your comments.
Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:FMOdnWRx1OIcDAXY...@comcast.com...
> >
> > However there is a corresponding problem in countries like the
> > U.K. (from which this and many others of your citations come) of
> > doctors getting paid salaries whether they treat people or not
> > and having a vested interest in justifying the low level of
> > treatment that occurs and the long waiting lines for treatment.
>
> Not true.
To my eye, there do seem to be cases where well accepted medical
practices in the US are rejected in the UK for reasons of cost, but
the reasons are disguised as being about medical science rather than
cost.
One recent, very public, example of this was the decision to withdraw
Alzheimer's drugs from UK patients on the grounds that they don't do
any good. It was my understanding that the medical experts on the
commission that made this decision thought the drugs did do good,
and there is clinical trial evidence in the U.S. that they do good for
some significant number of patients. But the commission recommended
against them and, it is my recollection (possibly flawed) that they
claimed to do so on medical, not cost, grounds.
> >
> > We see this particularly in prostate cancer treatment. The UK
> > National Health Service will generally not perform PSA tests
>
> Not true.
I believe that the rate of PSA testing in the UK is substantially below
that in the U.S.
Here is a quote from _The Lancet_, Volume 355, Issue 9217, 20 May
2000, Pages 1788-1789, "Comparison of trends in prostate-cancer
mortality in England and Wales and the USA".
"Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer
mortality in men in England and Wales, accounting for more than
8500 deaths in 1997. Its cause is unclear, and efforts to
decrease the burden of disease focus on secondary prevention
through screening. The effectiveness of screening with
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is controversial and trials are
continuing. Since the introduction of PSA testing in the USA,
death rates from prostate cancer have fallen. Some have suggested
that this trend provides evidence of the effectiveness of
screening.1 However, PSA screening is less common in the UK, and
has been discouraged."
However the article does point out that death rates have also
fallen in the UK (though not as fast) and states:
"Although the similar reversal of trends in prostate-cancer
mortality in the USA and England and Wales does not necessarily
imply similar causation, it suggests that it is too soon to claim
success for screening in the USA on the basis of falling death
rates alone."
>
> > and
> > has a much lower rate of early detection and treatment than in
> > the U.S. It turns out that the death rates from prostate cancer
> > are significantly higher in the UK than in the US.
>
> Evidence?
See above.
I tried hard to find some statistics and I found some, but
they're hard to interpret. They're from different years, cover
different age groups, different races (black men in the US,
for some reason, have much higher PCa rates), include men
who have had PSA testing and those who have not, and so
on.
The authors of the Lancet article above believe that the death
rate is higher in the UK, but not by much. However it is also
true that (as far as I can tell from reading) only 19% of US men
get regular PSA tests (compared to 3-4% of UK men). What we
really need to know is whether testing lowers death rates. The
only conclusion that careful researchers seem to be willing to
make is that it "may".
> >
> Someone told me by mail when I came here that some of the US posters had a
> down on our National Health Service (although I can't think why). It seems
> that it's true.
Most of us have been brainwashed since childhood, and happily go
on brainwashing ourselves, to believe that anything having to do
with government operation of anything is necessarily inefficient,
uncaring, and doomed to bureaucratic strangling.
One reason for this is that it is sometimes true. But another is
that the lobbies for privatized everything are very powerful in
the U.S. and truly astonishing sums of money are poured into
political campaigns by drug companies, insurance companies, and
other private health care providers to prevent the creation of a
U.S. national health plan.
>
> Well, I speak as a user. I'm VERY happy with the NHS. It's not
> perfect - is US medicine?
>
> Mary
In my personal view - which will be hotly disputed by some others
on this newsgroup, U.S. medicine ranges from being the best in
the world for some of those who can afford it, to third rate for
most of those who cannot - which is an increasingly large
fraction of US citizens.
On average, in my view, and certainly when considered on a value
for dollar or pound basis, the UK does better.
My wife and I now pay a combined total of $12,000 per year for
"health maintenance organization" participation, which provides
service something like NHS except that they nickel and dime us
every chance they get. The care I get is sometimes excellent,
and sometimes poor. But I don't dare switch to a cheaper plan
with someone else because my "pre-existing condition" will make
it impossible to get care for it, and impossible to switch back
if I don't like what I get.
Alan
I.P. Freely
> I wish we had something like the NHS in the U.S.
We've tried at least twice, by formally implementing the Democrat's NHS,
under their direction, in WA and TN, with total failure.
I.P.
rosbif
>To my eye, there do seem to be cases where well accepted medical
>practices in the US are rejected in the UK for reasons of cost, but
>the reasons are disguised as being about medical science rather than
>cost.
>
>One recent, very public, example of this was the decision to withdraw
>Alzheimer's drugs from UK patients on the grounds that they don't do
>any good. It was my understanding that the medical experts on the
>commission that made this decision thought the drugs did do good,
>and there is clinical trial evidence in the U.S. that they do good for
>some significant number of patients. But the commission recommended
>against them and, it is my recollection (possibly flawed) that they
>claimed to do so on medical, not cost, grounds.
Alan, my view of this is different. I remember the caffuffle last
year surrounding the alzheimer drug - it seems most of us have either
a relative or know of a relative of a close friend who suffers. The
advisory body more generally spoke of the 'cost effectiveness' rather
than 'effectiveness' of these drugs and as such their decisions were
based on both cost AND medical grounds - bang per buck. There's
generally no obvious attempt to censor or filter prevailing science -
although where evidence is mixed it will of course be presented with
various political slants in variously mixed media. Unfortunately, the
NHS is fighting a losing battle against impossible financial odds so
there is increasingly a utilitarian approach to health care; spreading
the benefit as widely as possible also means more thinly than some
would like. Wherever there's a hint of controversy over a costly
procedure/medication the public know very well what's coming.."we have
to rob Peter if we're to pay Paul"....the rose-tinted specs freely
handed round at the inception of the NHS have been discarded and
replaced by weary realism.
>
>> >
>> > We see this particularly in prostate cancer treatment. The UK
>> > National Health Service will generally not perform PSA tests
>>
>> Not true.
>
>I believe that the rate of PSA testing in the UK is substantially below
>that in the U.S.
That wouldn't surprise me - I was tested regularly within the NHS but
perhaps only because I asked for it (difficulty peeing + father had
PCa). I used my medical insurance and remained private as soon as a
biopsy was recommend and PCa diagnosed.
Yes, but not forgetting that current death rates reflect past
practice.
JohnB
1. It is not my website
2. I am not getting rich - Big Pharma is..
Big Pharma, Bad Science
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725
Natural medicines - the safest way to avoid death
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0610/S00037.htm
Best Regards,
<rosbif> wrote in message news:v2ppp2577jneudvcb...@4ax.com...
Steve Kramer
dave perry
such as drug companies, doctors, the federal government, or others, or
a combination of these didn't sign on and fought it with tooth and nail
undermining any chance at success. It is very hard to believe that
every first-line country in the world plus a lot of 2nd tier countries
can offer government run health care as good as ours and in a few cases
better than ours at a fraction of the cost and I'm not talking a
fraction like 9/10 but more like 1/3 or less.
Our present system is either going to bankrupt individuals or medicare
or maybe the whole government if steps aren't taken to reign in the
cost of medications, the cost of endless testing, the cost of defending
against lawyers, and the cost of a whole slew of scalawags and
scoundrels who make unnecessary and ridiculously high profits at our
expense. As an example, my elderly mother last year spent five days in
the hospital after suffering what appeared to me to be a heat stroke
that caused her to have leg weakness. She had turned on her heater,
fell asleep, and when she awakened a few hours later her room was in
the 90's, she was pouring out sweat, and was very weak. A few sips of
water perked her up but just to be safe, I took her to emergency and
within a couple of hours she was back to normal. The docs said they
wanted to keep her overnight which was also OK with me even though she
said she was ready to go home. The next morning, her doctor suggested
they run a few tests "to make sure". Four days later after an MRI, a
panel of chest x-rays, a cat scan, a complete blood workup, an
ultrasound of her carotids, and an ultrasound of her heart, she was
finally released. Of course the tests showed nothing, the doctor
collected $200 for each five minute visit every morning to see how mom
was doing and to top it off, on the next to last day, mom was told she
might as well stay another night in the hospital since she would only
have to come back the next morning for her last test. Of course, the
fact that Medicare and Blue Cross paid for that extra day was of no
significance, certainly not to the hospital.
At least my mom got decent meals thanks to all of you who pay into your
insurances and she thanks you from the bottom of her heart. It's the
scoundrels who are flat out dishonest that cause the biggest problems.
I heard just yesterday of an excellent example of this very thing. Do
you recall the flap a few years back regarding childhood innoculations
causing autism? The source of this commotion was a study done by one
doctor who claimed a connection. It turns out, this doctor along with
his associates and others were paid millions by a group of lawyers to
publish this nonsense so that a whole new batch of class-action
lawsuits could be filed. The projected profits to these lawyers was to
be astronomical. There have already been lawsuits by distraut parents,
there has already been millions spent in testing to discount the bogus
claim, and I'm sure all our premiums reflect this hoax. My wife works
with many doctors and she and her colleagues regularly discuss the
medical issues in this country and they all agree nothing is going to
be done until the entire system is bankrupt.
Sometimes we're so frickin' arrogant with our constant prattle of
"We're the best." Well, we're not the best in everything and medical
care is one area where we as a nation could do a whole lot better and
if it takes something like the NHS, all the better.
Dave Perry
I.P. Freely
> If it was a total failure in WA and TN, then it was because somebody
> such as drug companies, doctors, the federal government, or others, or
> a combination of these didn't sign on and fought it with tooth and nail
> undermining any chance at success.
>
>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> I wish we had something like the NHS in the U.S.
>> We've tried at least twice, by formally implementing the Democrat's NHS,
>> under their direction, in WA and TN, with total failure.
Don't speculate, Dave; its 1990s trial in WA was closely observed from
the Clinton White House as its flagship trial run, the facts are readily
available and were audited and analyzed in depth by numerous
authoritative sources, and the web is full of the outcome. As a few
examples . . .
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG1121.cfm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15036
http://www.haciendapub.com/article38.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_51/ai_56754223
One formal, in-depth, professional analysis I read a year or so ago ran
tens of pages, and included impressive, objective detail. And I haven't
even begun to look into the TN trial. But in general, what have we ever
seen the government tun efficiently or effectively? And how could anyone
want a health care system that promises to fine and imprison us and
the doctor we chose to perform our daughter's spine transplant BECAUSE
we chose that doctor, as the Democrat's version of NHS did (or maybe
still does)?
I.P.
Steve Kramer
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:zOGnh.155$ce3...@newsfe03.lga...
> dave perry wrote:
> But in general, what have we ever seen the government tun efficiently or
> effectively?
What impresses me is that I have seen this question asked more than 100
times and no one can come up with an answer on the "efficiently" side of the
equation and can only come up with the military on the "effectively" side.
Perhaps that is why so little was allowed of the government in our
Constitution. Hell, the government has worked for over 200 centuries to
boggle down the functioning of government!!
.... which aint altogether a bad thing.
--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
dave perry
to NHS? Why is it only our government that is so ineffective and
inefficient? How do Austria, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark,
...(it's a long list)..., Canada, Germany, Japan, etc. provide equally
good care to their citizens at much less expense? By every measure
from infant mortality to elder care we fall somewhere in the middle of
the pack yet we spend tons more money. Something ain't right.
Dave Perry
I.P. Freely wrote:
I.P. Freely
> How is it only our government fails when it tries to do something akin
> to NHS? Why is it only our government that is so ineffective and
> inefficient? How do Austria, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark,
> ...(it's a long list)..., Canada, Germany, Japan, etc. provide equally
> good care to their citizens at much less expense? By every measure
> from infant mortality to elder care we fall somewhere in the middle of
> the pack yet we spend tons more money. Something ain't right.
Just one click into Google, this condemnation of government involvement
in health care emerged from Wikipedia, FWIW:
"Healthcare regulatory costs:
The healthcare industry is likely the most heavily regulated industry in
the United States. A Cato Institute study suggests that this regulation
provides benefits in the amount of $170 billion but costs the public up
to $340 billion [12]. The majority of the cost differential arises from
medical malpractice, FDA regulations, and facilities regulations [12].
Part of the cost arises from regulatory requirements that prevent
technicians without medical degrees from performing treatment and
diagnostic procedures that carry little risk [13]. In addition to
regulatory costs, commentators and economists observe that government
programs bid up healthcare prices because they lack the financial
incentives to bargain with healthcare providers [14]"
Nationalizing it will just exacerbate this sorry state of affairs, IMO.
Dave, the 21st century Democrat Party is socialist, and by definition,
not accusation; just examine the voting and track records and public
statements of its leaders as proof. It knows that the secret to staying
in power is to win the votes of the masses, and the masses are ordinary
folks living on five-figure incomes. The way to get their votes is to
BUY THEM, i.e., give them cheap or free health care and welfare and
college and homes below sea level in New Orleans and $400/month to lay
on the sidewalks and piss in doorways and ever-fatter minimum wages (we
heard Teddy's rant on *that* just weeks ago?), greatly reducing
motivation to actually EARN or PRODUCE their way through life. And even
worse, who do you think provides the taxes to fund all these free
programs that buy votes and suppress initiative? *THE PEOPLE WHO GOT OFF
THEIR ASSES AND EARNED MORE MONEY!* (Sorry, Jerry; a pair of asterisks
just don't cut it sometimes, IMO. Caps make a more lasting image.)
Didn't you hear the news: *SOCIALISM (and its big brother, communism)
DOES NOT WORK*. Just look at its obvious failures in Russia, Cuba,
France (their health care is about the only thing that *does* work
there), eastern Europe, etc. And don't forget that European nation tax
burdens, as a percentage of GNP, *average* 60% higher (some are twice
ours) than the U.S. tax burden (40% vs 25%). The term "free lunch"
enters here somewhere.
Part of the reason our government is so ineffective and inefficient is
its sheer size: It's been bloated beyond belief for many decades, and
the Bush administration has drastically worsened that bloat, up to
doubling it by some estimates. IMO, the government is the LAST entity we
should want running something that big and that ripe for monetary
exploitation. The VA system is a small sample of U.S. socialized
medicine, and despite Bush's 40% increase in its funding, I strongly
suspect it killed-me-and-we-just-don't-know-it-yet because of a high
proportion of inept doctors unqualified and/or unmotivated to find
better jobs (with apologies to the dedicated good doctors who work there
altruistically). And I don't know the numbers, but 12M illegal aliens
surely can't help our medical costs, and the whole congress is leaning
evermore towards amnesty for them and maybe even their extended families.
NHS is no panacea, especially if run by OUR government.
I.P.
JerryW
"I.P. Freely" wrote in message news:2BSnh.83$%k2...@newsfe05.lga...
>
> Dave, the 21st century Democrat Party is socialist, <snip>
Uh oh... here we go again!
JerryW
I.P. Freely
> "I.P. Freely" wrote
>
> Uh oh... here we go again!
Notice that, once again, it wasn't I who brought up the topic of
socialized medicine.
And notice how many here say without opposition that it's topical.
I.P.
Steve Kramer
"dave perry" <jud...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168103192.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> How is it only our government fails when it tries to do something akin
> to NHS? Why is it only our government that is so ineffective and
> inefficient? How do Austria, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark,
> ...(it's a long list)..., Canada, Germany, Japan, etc. provide equally
> good care to their citizens at much less expense? By every measure
> from infant mortality to elder care we fall somewhere in the middle of
> the pack yet we spend tons more money. Something ain't right.
Yup; the premise.
dave perry
the size of our existing medical establishment. Thanks to very
effective marketing, everyone wants (and either gets or has available)
every new med or gadget that comes down the pike. An HMO with which I
am very familiar is the Kaiser Permanente system which operates mostly
in western states and a few others around the country. They provide
excellent service to their patients at relatively low cost. In the SF
Bay Area, the Kaiser facilities always rank at or near the top of all
HMOs and compare favorably with all other facilities. One way they
manage to do so by limiting the availability of various modes of
treatment if there is no evidence that patient care is compromised.
For instance, you will not find a daVinci at any of their facilities
(saving well over a million bucks each) since outcomes using the
daVinci have not yet been proven to be any better than open surgery.
They will not provide Viagra but will provide Levitra because there is
no evidence one is better than the other and Levitra is less expensive.
The problem we face in this country is that every Joe Blow wants and
gets Cadillac service and be damned the cost. The bottom line is that
there are an awful lot of people making one hell of a lot of money from
us directly and from our insurances with no contribution to our QOL or
how long we live (recall my mother's many nights in the hospital for no
good reason except she has excellent insurance.)
Incidently, speaking of my mother, I forgot yet another outragious to
you and me. I mentioned that they kept her in the hospital an extra
night since there was "no sense in her having to return the following
day for one last test." That's bad enough but what I forgot to mention
was that the next morning I was there at 9AM expecting to take mom home
and discovered the test had not yet been done. The technician doing
the test (an ultra sound of mom's heart) finally arrived about 10:30,
finished the test around 11AM, it took another hour or so for an expert
to evaluate the results and finally mom was discharged around 1:30PM.
I later learned that since mom was still a patient in the hospital at
11AM, the hospital can (and did) charge for yet another night's stay
even though mom was out of there by early afternoon. What a scam.
Now, it turns out, hospitals and private doctors do have to pull these
scams to take care of the uninsured (whether illegal or not). In our
area and probably everywhere, every hospital must take care of anyone
who shows up on their doorstep, insured or not. These people are
treated until stable and then sent off to whoever can take them which
is typically the county hospital which is always full so the patients
stay put with no money to pay. The hospitals, in order to stay in
business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what
insurance companies pay and hit the insurances and medicare as much as
they can get away with as per my mom. For my prostatectomy, the
hospital billed my insurance over $80,000 for two nights, my insurance
notified me that they "saved" me $72,000 since they contracted for only
$8,000 which is what the insurance paid. Had I no insurance, I'd still
be paying off the $80,000 three years later.
Call NHS socialized (or heaven forbid "liberal") medicine but what we
have now does not work for all Americans, it barely works for a bare
majority of us, but it works really well for a privileged few who are
all too eager to promote it for a buck or a million.
Dave Perry
I.P. Freely
> The problem we face in this country is that every Joe Blow wants and
> gets Cadillac service and be damned the cost.
Yep. And that's why Joe resents the fact that Trump or Gates can buy
better care, and wants *the gum'mint" to intercede at everyone else's
expense.
> The bottom line is that
> there are an awful lot of people making one hell of a lot of money from
> us directly
Yep. Movie stars, jocks, rock stars, the porn industry (it's bigger than
most pro sports *combined*). It's called capitalism. The CEO of Home
Depot was just fired for substandard performance (Lowe's beat HD out)
yet paid a $210M severance bonus. Why? Because that was part of the
contract that lured him to HD in the first place after he wasn't
selected to replace Jack Welch at GE. *Capitalism*. If the gum'mint ran
HD, their vinyl padded wooden toilet seats would cost $850, not $8.50.
and from our insurances with no contribution to our QOL or
> how long we live
Docs have contributed immensely to my QOL and lifespan.
> (recall my mother's many nights in the hospital for no
> good reason except she has excellent insurance.) ... What a scam.
I hope she informed her carrier, as I do when I think they're getting
hosed.
> The hospitals, in order to stay in
> business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what
> insurance companies pay
Hey .. they could and should have bought insurance with their money.
It's their choice.
> For my prostatectomy, the
> hospital billed my insurance over $80,000 for two nights, my insurance
> notified me that they "saved" me $72,000 since they contracted for only
> $8,000 which is what the insurance paid. Had I no insurance, I'd still
> be paying off the $80,000 three years later.
So aren't you glad you bought your insurance rather than that Beemer?
> Call NHS socialized (or heaven forbid "liberal") medicine
I don't equate the two terms, and it's not what I "call" NHS.
"Socialized medicine" and "socialists" are short, distinct, related
entries in the dictionary; "liberalism" is a very broad, fuzzy term that
includes socialism at the left side of its range.
> but what we have now does not work for all Americans
And what does? We *are* not all the same; who the heck would *want* us
to be? B-O-R-I-N-G ... and crowded as hell when we all show up at the
same ball game or ER or Sears at once. Freedom in general and America in
particular are grounded in *free choice*, not institutionalized uniformity.
> it barely works for a bare
> majority of us, but it works really well for a privileged few who are
> all too eager to promote it for a buck or a million.
And if it weren't for those bucks or millions, a free society would have
NO health care. The alternative would then be far higher taxes (there is
no free lunch) and a health monstrosity run by the same people who bring
us the U.S. Congress, $850 toilet seats, and the Katrina aftermath.
Be very careful what you ask for; you might get it.
I.P.
dave perry
> > business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what
> > insurance companies pay
>
> Hey .. they could and should have bought insurance with their money.
> It's their choice.
Not necessarily so. We're not talking about Bill Gates here. Your
average Joe Schmuck has a hard time coming up with $1000 or more per
month for health coverage. There are lots of small business guys who
are barely making ends meet without the added burden of health
insurance. Sure, everyone can cut back on cigarettes, Starbucks or
other choices to save a few bucks but we're not talking pocket change
here. Twelve grand a year and up is a big chunk of change for most
people.
Besides those who can't afford it, there are those who are flat-out
denied coverage at any price or at truly extraordinary rates because of
pre-existing conditions.
In addition, there are a ton of people out there, one of my daughters
for one, who are stuck in dead-end jobs simply because they can't
afford to pay for their insurance if they were to leave and open their
own business which is what my daughter wants to do. Also, what about
all the poor buggers who want to retire but can't since by doing so
they lose their coverage? My best friend is in that box.
So, it's not that people have a choice - they simply can't afford it.
And, these are middle-class types, not the illegals who have become the
whipping boys de jour of all our domestic problems.
Incidentally, I heard recently of a class-action lawsuit initiated in
one state, I can't recall which, where these uninsured have filed
against their health providers for the bills they receive that are ten
times the actual cost of service. It will be interesting to see what
develops if they prevail.
Dave Perry
rosbif
<fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote:
>dave perry wrote:
>> The problem we face in this country is that every Joe Blow wants and
>> gets Cadillac service and be damned the cost.
>
>Yep. And that's why Joe resents the fact that Trump or Gates can buy
>better care, and wants *the gum'mint" to intercede at everyone else's
>expense.
I doubt Joe the leveler really expects his Utopia to bring parity with
Gates.
>
>> The bottom line is that
>> there are an awful lot of people making one hell of a lot of money from
>> us directly
>
>Yep. Movie stars, jocks, rock stars, the porn industry (it's bigger than
>most pro sports *combined*). It's called capitalism.
Oddly enough, the entertainment industry, although it exacts a high
price in the form of cultural bankruptcy, is one of the few examples
of *virtually* un-rigged capitalism. Don't, please don't confuse it
with its vested-interest counterpart.
>The CEO of Home
>Depot was just fired for substandard performance (Lowe's beat HD out)
>yet paid a $210M severance bonus. Why?
Your "why" telegraphs a good reason....but there cannot be a good
reason for bad performance. Still time and again our industry
captains are laughing all the way to the bank, come what may.
> Because that was part of the
>contract that lured him to HD in the first place after he wasn't
>selected to replace Jack Welch at GE. *Capitalism*. If the gum'mint ran
>HD, their vinyl padded wooden toilet seats would cost $850, not $8.50.
Then they'd sell fewer of these. As a capitalist who respects the
market mechanism I know you'd have no problem with that.
>
>and from our insurances with no contribution to our QOL or
>> how long we live
>
>Docs have contributed immensely to my QOL and lifespan.
Is this discussion really only about you, I.P.?
>
>> (recall my mother's many nights in the hospital for no
>> good reason except she has excellent insurance.) ... What a scam.
>
>I hope she informed her carrier, as I do when I think they're getting
>hosed.
>
>> The hospitals, in order to stay in
>> business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what
>> insurance companies pay
>
>Hey .. they could and should have bought insurance with their money.
>It's their choice.
For the lower paid, a domestic budget is CONSTRAINT, not choice. I do
wish you would stop presenting 'choice' as a universal. It isn't.
>
>> For my prostatectomy, the
>> hospital billed my insurance over $80,000 for two nights, my insurance
>> notified me that they "saved" me $72,000 since they contracted for only
>> $8,000 which is what the insurance paid. Had I no insurance, I'd still
>> be paying off the $80,000 three years later.
>
>So aren't you glad you bought your insurance rather than that Beemer?
More of your 'choice' fantasy. Fine for those choosing between health
insurance and the beemer. Not so good when it's either health
insurance OR one of life's other staples -
food/heating/education/utility bills.
>
>> Call NHS socialized (or heaven forbid "liberal") medicine
>
>I don't equate the two terms, and it's not what I "call" NHS.
>"Socialized medicine" and "socialists" are short, distinct, related
>entries in the dictionary; "liberalism" is a very broad, fuzzy term that
>includes socialism at the left side of its range.
Most of us these days live in mixed economies, a local blend of
capitalism with varying levels of social and state provision through
tax'n'spend. The labels are not particularly interesting.
>
>> but what we have now does not work for all Americans
>
>And what does? We *are* not all the same;
Of course we're not. But there's a lot to be said for a society which
recognises and positively discriminates in favour of helping the
disadvantaged. Even with such provision, we wouldn't expect to see
beloved Bill Gates shuffling up to join the queue of a soup-kitchen
franchise.
> who the heck would *want* us
>to be? B-O-R-I-N-G ... and crowded as hell when we all show up at the
>same ball game or ER or Sears at once. Freedom in general and America in
>particular are grounded in *free choice*, not institutionalized uniformity.
>
>> it barely works for a bare
>> majority of us, but it works really well for a privileged few who are
>> all too eager to promote it for a buck or a million.
>
>And if it weren't for those bucks or millions, a free society would have
>NO health care.
Perhaps we could do without THOSE particular millions. Capitalism is
good, but not when it stinks of corruption.
> The alternative would then be far higher taxes (there is
>no free lunch) and a health monstrosity run by the same people who bring
>us the U.S. Congress, $850 toilet seats, and the Katrina aftermath.
>
>Be very careful what you ask for; you might get it.
I would ask for an I.P. who elevates the argument above the joys of
vested-interest/exploitative/fiat-capitalist simplism.
I KNOW that would be risk-free.
>I.P.
I.P. Freely
> The hospitals, in order to stay in
>>> business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what
>>> insurance companies pay
>> Hey .. they could and should have bought insurance with their money.
>> It's their choice.
>
> Not necessarily so. We're not talking about Bill Gates here. Your
> average Joe Schmuck has a hard time coming up with $1000 or more per
> month for health coverage. There are lots of small business guys who
> are barely making ends meet without the added burden of health
> insurance. Sure, everyone can cut back on cigarettes, Starbucks or
> other choices to save a few bucks but we're not talking pocket change
> here. Twelve grand a year and up is a big chunk of change for most
> people.
Re-read the stated premise. We're talking about "the uninsured who can
pay ten times what insurance companies pay"
> So, it's not that people have a choice - they simply can't afford it.
> And, these are middle-class types
The middle class, by any definition I have seen, can afford health
insurance; they *choose* to buy middle trappings RATHER than health
insurance. I posted a long list of ways they can spring five figures for
health care if they wish to do so. I did it; so can they.
> Incidentally, I heard recently of a class-action lawsuit initiated in
> one state, I can't recall which, where these uninsured have filed
> against their health providers for the bills they receive that are ten
> times the actual cost of service.
How is the "cost of service" defined and established? Right or wrong, I
look at insurance payments in an entirely different light: they're
paying health care providers a pittance. I feel guilty using my
insurance with a good physical therapist who my insurer is paying
something like $25 for an hour or so of treatment by highly trained
specialists with expensive equipment in a nice, convenient facility.
The uninsured aren't charged more than I am; I get billed for the same
$80 they do. It's just that my insurer tells them to shove their usual
rates if they want that insurer to send them patients. i.e., it's the
provider, not the uninsured, who are being pressured.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> I doubt Joe the leveler really expects his Utopia to bring parity with
> Gates.
Then the socialists, such as Congressman Barney Franks and much of the
U. S. left, should quit demanding we reverse the growing income gap.
I.P. wrote
>> Docs have contributed immensely to my QOL and lifespan.
>
> Is this discussion really only about you, I.P.?
Don't start playing word games. You know my comment was a direct
refutation of your "The bottom line is that there are an awful lot of
people making one hell of a lot of money from us directly and from our
insurances with no contribution to our QOL or how long we live"
>>> The hospitals, in order to stay in
>>> business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what
>>> insurance companies pay
>> Hey .. they could and should have bought insurance with their money.
>> It's their choice.
>
> For the lower paid, a domestic budget is CONSTRAINT, not choice.
Read the premise again. It addresses "the uninsured who can pay - often
ten times what insurance companies pay".
> I do
> wish you would stop presenting 'choice' as a universal. It isn't.
I never said that everyone had choices to make, but certainly the *vast*
majority make many choices that very significantly affect their
financial lives. Consider the homeless man about to be compacted because
he fell asleep in a dumpster who used his cell phone to call for help.
Cell phone fees won't pay the rent, but I'll bet that isn't the only
choice he made that affected his status.
>>> For my prostatectomy, the
>>> hospital billed my insurance over $80,000 for two nights, my insurance
>>> notified me that they "saved" me $72,000 since they contracted for only
>>> $8,000 which is what the insurance paid.
Let's see . . . $80k minus $8k equals . . . uh . . . about $72k. The
math looks sound to me. Your complaint is . . . ?
>>>Had I no insurance, I'd still
>>> be paying off the $80,000 three years later.
>> So aren't you glad you bought your insurance rather than that Beemer?
>
> More of your 'choice' fantasy. Fine for those choosing between health
> insurance and the beemer. Not so good when it's either health
> insurance OR one of life's other staples -
> food/heating/education/utility bills.
Even those involve choices, such as restaurant meals, home temperatures,
state vs private colleges, and on and on and on. My posted list, again.
> We *are* not all the same.
So why should we expect parity?
> Of course we're not. But there's a lot to be said for a society which
> recognises and positively discriminates in favour of helping the
> disadvantaged.
Define disadvantaged. Certainly financial need alone doesn't determine
it, because anyone can overspend and/or under-earn.
> I would ask for an I.P. who elevates the argument above the joys of
> vested-interest/exploitative/fiat-capitalist simplism.
> I KNOW that would be risk-free.
And how do Gates, Winfrey, Britney, Clooney, etc. "exploit" anyone?
I.P.