http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870374000457451361154097
8146.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
"X Factor judge Simon Cowell showed his more generous side
[yesterday] when he gave £100,000 [about $160,000] to help save the
life of a cancer-stricken youngster," reports London's Daily Mail:

    The pop Svengali donated the money for 18-month-old Sophie Atay--
from Birtley, Gateshead--to fly to the US for pioneering treatment at
the Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York.

    He acted after learning the youngster's family launched a last-
ditch appeal for £500,000 to pay for the treatment last week after
they were told Sophie was suffering from a rare form of neuroblastoma
and needed treatment within days.

    Alexandra Burke, last year's X Factor winner, broke the news to
Sophie's mum Karine, 33, on the telephone today that Simon had now
dipped into his own pocket to top up the total to the necessary
amount.

Wait, we're confused! Why does a little English girl have to come all
the way to the U.S. to get medical care, and why does this Cowell
fellow have to pay for it? We thought Britain had free medical care!

But wait, another Daily Mail story reports on what happens to older
people who get cancer in Britain:

    Alarming research is showing that elderly cancer patients are
missing out on the breakthroughs in chemotherapy and surgery that
have dramatically improved the outcome of younger patients.

    In fact, up to 15,000 elderly people with cancer in the UK are
dying prematurely every year when compared to the rest of Europe and
the U.S., according to a report published by the North West Cancer
Intelligence Service (NWCIS) which compiles cancer statistics. . . .

    A major concern is that the NHS Cancer Plan, introduced in 2000
to improve cancer survival in the UK, has a cut-off point at 70. This
results in hospitals having less interest in the elderly. "Yet half
of all those diagnosed with cancer are over 70," says Dr Tony Moran,
NWCIS research director. "It's an area that has been grossly
neglected. . . ."

Yet according to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the
government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've
all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these
stories are false."

s

In <MPG.255a363d530f8f75989...@news.supernews.com>, on 11/03/2009
   at 12:45 PM, Steve <iva...@invalid.com> said:

What does this have to do with net abuse?

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
     <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me.  Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

    Yeah, lord know no one ever discusses anything OT in this group....

--
.

Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard.     -    Sam

In <hcv3dj$2h...@posting2.glorb.com>, on 11/05/2009
   at 11:52 AM, "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.use...@gmail.com> said:

Typically that's the result of thread drift.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
     <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me.  Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org

"Shmuel  Metz" (spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid) writes:
Some people just have to share their opinions. I thought that
thread would die, until I saw this pair of followups.

I found it highly ironic, since the USA has one of the highest
infant mortality rates in the developed world. I assume the
USA is the supposed alternative to "Socialized Medicine", since
the USA was the only G8 country which didn't have a nationally
funded health care program available to anyone who wants to
participate.

The USA was also the country to which this very sick infant was sent.

I'm sure that very expensive experimental treatement is available
to every USA child who might benefit from it. Right? -)

Here in Victoria we get off air and cable access to Washington State
TV stations such as KIRO, KCPQ, KOMO, KING, and KVOS.

I can't recall which of those aired a segment about a Seattle area
woman who dragged her son with terminal cancer around to bars
begging for cash for treatment, only to have him die when they
were within $10,000 of the amount needed to get him admitted for
treatement which had a high probability of extending his life.

One of my cousins died of the same cancer before the Canadian
Medicare program started. My uncle rarely visited, because one
of my brothers has a striking family resemblence to his dead son.

Americans spend more (patient/family out of pocket, government,
charity) per capita on health care than any other country in the
world, but are not the healthiest country, or the longest lived.

Canada isn't the longest lived, but our health life expectancy
is 2 years (men) and 3 years (women) longer than Americans. The
difference begins at birth, with an infant mortality rate of
5.04 per 1000 live births, nothing to boast about in comparison
to Sweden (2.75) but better than the USA infant mortality rate
of 6.26 per 1000 live births. So much for non-socialized health
care and the health of very young children.

If Canadians want to improve our "broken" system socialist
Nordic countries such as Sweden, Iceland, Finland and Norway
would seem to be a better place to look than the non-socialist
USA system. At least for reducing infant mortality.

Other health issues, such as gun control, are a no brainer. A
USA resident's odds of dying from a gunshot fired from a hand
gun are 8 times the Canadian rate. Less guns, less gunshot death.
In Canada 80% of gunshot deaths are suicide.

Quite the Darwin Award, that one, except that family homicides
are 3 times higher in Canadian homes with guns, compared to
a 5 times higher suicide completion rate in gun homes.

Hm I see the Moose shooting mom was running off at the web about
some supposed "perfect storm" that would prevent USA national
health care from ever being financially viable. Supposedly
the healthy and young would simply opt out, starving the plan
of funding, and start paying premiums if they suffered a
catastrophic health problem.

Perhaps she should look to British Columbia instead of Russia.

Membership in Health Insurance BC is not compuslory, anyone can
opt themself, but not their dependents, out for a year at a time,
and take their chances. They cannot opt back in during that year
and can loose all their assets if they have a catastrophic
illness.

Employers pay the premiums for many workers.

Individuals who don't opt out in writing, and don't pay premiums,
find collectors seeking payment for back premiums if their doctor
or care facility makes a claim for them as a BC Resident.

Getting a new driver's licence or BC ID card is pretty much
impossible if you owe back MSP premiums, although people who can
prove low or no income get up to 90% subisdy.

There is also a universal Pharmacare plan, with a sliding
payout based on income. I'm not about to complain about the fact
that I make so much that I never get any part of presriptions
paid. My employer's extended Health Benefits plan takes care
of most of the cost during the year anyway, with a $500 spend
as I see fit amount for bona fide items not specifically
covered by my Employer's plan. Doctor's note and they are
covered.

Compare that to many people, particularly seniors, in the USA
either not taking prescriptions as often as prescribed, or in
lower amounts, because they can't afford to subsisize Pharmaco
advertising and executive salaries an bonuses. Pharmacos spend
more on ads and execs than they do on research.

In <hd72gg$eq...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, on 11/08/2009
   at 06:26 PM, bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kelly Bert Manning) said:

You have to understand that in the American political arena anything to
the right of feudalism is labelled as socialism. Also, giving welfare to
the poor is immoral; welfare should only be given to corporations and the
rich.

--
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
     <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me.  Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

    It's not immoral, it's a stupid waste of MY tax money. ANY form of
welfare is.

--
.

Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard.     -    Sam

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:4af81993$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...

Indeed, and it's a green policy. the very poor pollute very little and of
there're onlya a few multi-billionnaires, we don;t need to worry about their
impact on our ecology.

In addition we don't want to incentivise poverty, poverty should be taxed at
a high rate to encourage wealth generation.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...

180 United States 6.26  2009 est.
189 Canada        5.04  2009 est.

222 Sweden        2.75  2009 est.
223 Bermuda       2.46  2009 est.
224 Singapore     2.31  2009 est.

I think it's more a question of access to medical facilites,
overall parental health (obesity, drugs, etc), and education
than "socialized medicine" However, infant mortality is just
one aspect and is affected by such things as drug use and
nutrition.  The numbers would make more sense if they were
broken down by the reason for death.

I have no problem giving some so that others may benefit.  But I do
have a problem supporting those that are unwilling to help themselves.

What was that saying, "I'll give you a hand up, not a hand out."?

--
rbg

Not clear to me what this has to do with email abuse, but then most of
the participants in this thread seem to be in my kill files....

Does the the infant mortality figure account for the fact that many
high-risk pregnancy cases come here for help (the big concern in Canada
is that the action of our Politburo is eliminating their private care
option)?

Does it "correct" for the fact that if a newborn, but premature, baby
(not counting deliberate killings of unborn babies) dies, it is counted
as a death?  In other places the newborn has to survive for some
considerable time before it is counted as a live birth.

So, you complain about this being off-topic, then you jump into the fray.
How very predictable of you. Are you channeling The Ferg or something?

--
Dude: he's gonna wake up tomorrow morning and still be Mark Ferguson,
which is a loss in any sense of the word. Perhaps if he woke up one
morning to discover that he'd turned into a giant cockroach, that would
be something, but I don't have a lot of faith that he's capable of that
kind of self-improvement. -- Huey Callison, October 11, 2009

In article <hd72gg$eq...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
Kelly Bert Manning <bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

Based in part on the US defining as "live births" what many other
countries define as "stillborn".

Just like it is to every foreign child in his own country?

Do you know what happens when you look at various groups?  Simpson's
Paradox occurs.

What percentage in the US?

More important, what percentage from *legally owned* guns in the US?
After all, criminals by definition don't obey laws, so gun control
laws won't magically make their guns disappear.

Hasn't the amount of gun crime in Britain been on the increase?

Correlation is not causation.

Or consider a hypothetical society with the following statistics:

99% of drug dealers have guns.  50% of drug dealers with guns get
shot; 99% of drug dealers without guns get shot.

50% of non-drug-dealers have guns.  .1% of non-drug-dealers without
guns get shot, .05% of non-drug-dealers with guns get shot.

So, whether or not you're a drug dealer, not having a gun makes you
about twice as likely to be shot.

10% of the people are drug dealers.  If you only look at overall
statistics, .13% of people with guns get shot, and .10% of people
without guns get shot, so you draw the wrong conclusion (Simpson's
Paradox again).

And prices based on government coercion of US drug companies ("sell at
the price we set or we'll steal your patent and tell a local company
to manufacture the product").

Seth

The total cost of robbery is (simple approximation) police + welfare +
insurance.  Why not minimize the total cost rather than deciding a
particular part of it is a "stupid waste" so you end up spending more
overall?

Seth

The Elf from S.U.S.A.N. wrote:

    It must be awful to have so much hate for a particular person, yet
you can not stop thinking about him every minute of every day and night.

--
.

Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard.     -    Sam

    Ehh, I don't quite understand that question.

--
.

Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard.     -    Sam

You claim that welfare is "a stupid waste of MY tax money".  Suppose
that spending $1 million on welfare reduces the cost of police and
crime by $2 million; doesn't that make it a worthwhile expenditure?

Seth

I don't think it would but IF it did I'd say only as a temporary
solution. Providing a free life for someone because they are lazy in
return for them not being a criminal amounts to extortion IMO.

The large majority of people on welfare get off it within two years.
So it's more like education: they get a year or two to get their lives
(back) together, then they find a job and do something useful (and pay
taxes).  How is that not a win?

Seth

    I don't have so much a problem with that, it's the ones that live
there permanently that I have a problem with.