 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / January 2007Cancer Fighting Strategies
http://www.cancerfightingstrategies.com JohnB Sugars_that_heal@hotmail.com > 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. 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! ;-) >> http://www.visit_my_site.com > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recommendations. The information is provided for educational purposes > only. Nutritional benefits may vary from one person to another. > 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 Alan 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 >> To prevent persecution from the FDA this disclaimer is necessary. You >> should ask yourself how scientific are the orthodox cancer treatments. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Alan > 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 > 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. 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 > 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 Mary, 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. > > However there is a corresponding problem in countries like the > > U.K. (from which this and many others of your citations come) of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 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. 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. 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 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> 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. > 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.  SignaturePSA 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 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. Dave Perry > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I.P. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 a.ses 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. > Dave, the 21st century Democrat Party is socialist, <snip> Uh oh... here we go again! JerryW > "I.P. Freely" wrote >> Dave, the 21st century Democrat Party is socialist, <snip> > > 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. It's not just the size of our government that's the problem, it's also 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 > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > I.P. > 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. 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. 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 > The hospitals, in order to stay in >>> business, soak the uninsured who can pay - often ten times what [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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. >Here is a quote from _The Lancet_, Volume 355, Issue 9217, 20 May >2000, Pages 1788-1789, "Comparison of trends in prostate-cancer [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> > the U.S. It turns out that the death rates from prostate cancer >> > are significantly higher in the UK than in the US. Yes, but not forgetting that current death rates reflect past practice. >> Evidence? > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Alan Alan you need not be concerned! 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, JohnB sugars_that_heal@hotmail.com >>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 [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] >> >> Alan PLUNK!! "JohnB" <sugars_that_heal@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:S0Bnh.57327 Text Deleted |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.