Larry King with Michael Moore.

I am watching it. Reminded the suystoen of limitinig medical
school enrollments to a certqin number to keep a certain
Doctor--patient ratio. The female head of the AMA lived a few miles
from me. She adamantly defended the system.

Allegedly during Jack kwennedy's presidency there was an effort to
change this, An Ohio Medcal school was tryng to get money for new
facilitries.

The administration told we them they did not need new fqacilities with
their enrollment. Allegedly when they found that this free money
was not comig then they did increase enrollment. Then I was told
they increased the flunk out rate.

Only fools eat the golden egg and the hen too.. Pigs promote
slavery.

It is easy for the US to be number one in health care.

The patient is not a saint. I know one woman on dialysis
that get an ambulance to go to dialysis. I also note she drives
for many other functions.

Both issues of this type are so very wrong.

I do not expect big changes in my lifetime.

At least we can express dissatisfaction without fear of
going to a gas chamber. The chaos of Germany n the
1920's led to hitler. DO NOT FORGET that.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Jun 29, 7:14 pm, g...@consolidated.net wrote:
> I am watching it. Reminded the suystoen of limitinig medical
> school enrollments to a certqin number to keep a certain
> Doctor--patient ratio. The female head of the AMA lived a few miles
> from me. She adamantly defended the system.
>
> Allegedly during Jack kwennedy's presidency there was an effort to
> change this, An Ohio Medcal school was tryng to get money for new
> facilitries.
>
> The administration told we them they did not need new fqacilities with
> their enrollment. Allegedly when they found that this free money
> was not comig then they did increase enrollment. Then I was told
> they increased the flunk out rate.
>
> Only fools eat the golden egg and the hen too.. Pigs promote
> slavery.
>
> It is easy for the US to be number one in health care.
>
> The patient is not a saint. I know one woman on dialysis
> that get an ambulance to go to dialysis. I also note she drives
> for many other functions.
>
> Both issues of this type are so very wrong.
>
> I do not expect big changes in my lifetime.
>
> At least we can express dissatisfaction without fear of
> going to a gas chamber. The chaos of Germany n the
> 1920's led to hitler. DO NOT FORGET that.

The health care crisis is too important of an issue to be wasted on
Michael Moore being its whistle blower. Moore is the biggest
opportunist and scam artist since P.T. Barnum. He goes after issues
that will pull at the heartstrings of movie goers and insure big box
office. His filmmaking style lacks any kind of objectivity or
solutions and he edits his films without any regard for showing the
truth or the whole picture; he only shows what fits HIS own personal
agenda. If you think he makes documentaries I have a bridge to sell
you. His movies are just that, movies and contain about as much
realism as Star Wars. Bottom line -- Michael Moore should not be the
one to take on the health care system because his work is always
slanted fiction and not the truth.

It is obvious to anyone living in the US that our health care system,
more specifically access to it, is in need of a major overhaul. It's
not the only country with health care problems...and given the choice of
countries to get my health care from, I would choose America over most
any other country. The problem is the expense and accessibility for
all, but not the quality of its care. Health insurance and basic
health needs should be available to every American.

Now if Michael really wants to focus in on a crisis issue, he could
tackle greed and obesity. He then could just turn the camera on
himself.

fortycent4u@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 7:14 pm, g...@consolidated.net wrote:
>> I am watching it. Reminded the suystoen of limitinig medical
>> school enrollments to a certqin number to keep a certain
>> Doctor--patient ratio. The female head of the AMA lived a few miles
>> from me. She adamantly defended the system.
>>
>> Allegedly during Jack kwennedy's presidency there was an effort to
>> change this, An Ohio Medcal school was tryng to get money for new
>> facilitries.
>>
>> The administration told we them they did not need new fqacilities with
>> their enrollment. Allegedly when they found that this free money
>> was not comig then they did increase enrollment. Then I was told
>> they increased the flunk out rate.
>>
>> Only fools eat the golden egg and the hen too.. Pigs promote
>> slavery.
>>
>> It is easy for the US to be number one in health care.
>>
>> The patient is not a saint. I know one woman on dialysis
>> that get an ambulance to go to dialysis. I also note she drives
>> for many other functions.
>>
>> Both issues of this type are so very wrong.
>>
>> I do not expect big changes in my lifetime.
>>
>> At least we can express dissatisfaction without fear of
>> going to a gas chamber. The chaos of Germany n the
>> 1920's led to hitler. DO NOT FORGET that.
>
> The health care crisis is too important of an issue to be wasted on
> Michael Moore being its whistle blower.

Yeah. Just wait a few more years until someone more suitable comes along.
Mustn't waste it.

> Moore is the biggest
> opportunist and scam artist since P.T. Barnum. He goes after issues
> that will pull at the heartstrings of movie goers and insure big box
> office.

Unlike all the other film makers who disregard profit and only work out of
sense of social duty.

His filmmaking style lacks any kind of objectivity or
> solutions and he edits his films without any regard for showing the
> truth or the whole picture; he only shows what fits HIS own personal
> agenda.

Who should he edit for if not for himself?

> If you think he makes documentaries I have a bridge to sell
> you. His movies are just that, movies and contain about as much
> realism as Star Wars.

Are you suggesting that the Force isn't real?

> Bottom line -- Michael Moore should not be the
> one to take on the health care system because his work is always
> slanted fiction and not the truth.

You're on of those idiot fellows aren't you? Don't deny it, I can tell!

>
> It is obvious to anyone living in the US that our health care system,
> more specifically access to it, is in need of a major overhaul.

It is even more obvious to those dying in the US.

It's
> not the only country with health care problems...and given the choice of
> countries to get my health care from, I would choose America over most
> any other country. The problem is the expense and accessibility for
> all, but not the quality of its care. Health insurance and basic
> health needs should be available to every American.
>
> Now if Michael really wants to focus in on a crisis issue, he could
> tackle greed and obesity. He then could just turn the camera on
> himself.
>

BTW, where do you live? I thought that if Michael Moore decided to do a
project on crass stupidity and bias your address would be of use to him.



David - (Eskimo Joe)

convicted neighbor Guy (g...@consolidated.net) wrote:
>
> I am watching it. Reminded the suystoen of limitinig medical
> school enrollments to a certqin number to keep a certain
> Doctor--patient ratio. The female head of the AMA lived a few miles
> from me. She adamantly defended the system.
>
> Allegedly during Jack kwennedy's presidency there was an effort to
> change this, An Ohio Medcal school was tryng to get money for new
> facilitries.
>
> The administration told we them they did not need new fqacilities with
> their enrollment. Allegedly when they found that this free money
> was not comig then they did increase enrollment. Then I was told
> they increased the flunk out rate.
>
> Only fools eat the golden egg and the hen too.. Pigs promote
> slavery.
>
> It is easy for the US to be number one in health care.
>
> The patient is not a saint. I know one woman on dialysis
> that get an ambulance to go to dialysis. I also note she drives
> for many other functions.
>
> Both issues of this type are so very wrong.
>
> I do not expect big changes in my lifetime.
>
> At least we can express dissatisfaction without fear of
> going to a gas chamber. The chaos of Germany n the
> 1920's led to hitler. DO NOT FORGET that.

Chaos reigns as long as lies persist.

Suggested reading:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp

The 4th of July is Independence Day (Revelation 7:4).

May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist

Michael Moore has lost thirty pounds since he was doing this film in the
last three months. He is also up to an hour a day of walking. He did
turn the camera on himself and he didnt like what he saw.

He even got cleaned up

Loretta

Loretta Eisenberg wrote:
> Michael Moore has lost thirty pounds since he was doing this film in the
> last three months. He is also up to an hour a day of walking. He did
> turn the camera on himself and he didnt like what he saw.
>
> He even got cleaned up

Then he is hungrier.

May his possible participation in the following on-line event help him
become healthier (hungrier) than ever:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp

May GOD bless you in HIS mighty way making you healthier (hungrier)
than ever.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist

>From the San Jose Mercury News - Jun. 11:

Michael Moore was in Sacramento on Tuesday to testify before a state
Senate committee, lead a rally for universal health care with the
California Nurses Association, and, of course, promote his new movie
"Sicko," which opens nationwide June 29.

No one would deny that there are serious problems with the American
health care system, and Moore's new film eloquently dramatizes the
suffering of people caught up in it. There is no doubt that it will
jump start the debate over health care reform in America.

Yet it is curiously incomplete.

Moore ignores the positive side of American health care. For all its
problems, the United States still provides the highest quality health
care in the world. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize
in medicine are either U.S. citizens or work here. With no price
controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead
to innovation breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical
technologies.

U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines
introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. In fact, Americans have
played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances
of the past 30 years.

Instead, Moore focuses on life expectancy, suggesting that people in
Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba live longer than Americans
because of their health care systems. But most experts agree that life
expectancies are a poor measure of health care, because they are
affected by too many exogenous factors like violent crime, poverty,
obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to a
country's health system.

When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or
heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the
world.

Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more
likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in
other countries, we are less likely to die of it. Fewer than one out
of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a
quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of
British men and nearly half of French and German men will.

Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer, AIDS and heart
disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed
heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even
an Italian hospital - he went to the Cleveland Clinic.

As one would expect, Moore frequently refers to the 47 million
Americans without health insurance, but fails to point out that most
of those are uninsured for only brief periods, or that millions are
already eligible for government medical programs but fail to apply.

Moreover, Moore implies that people without health insurance don't
receive health care. In reality, most do. Hospitals are legally
obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and while
physicians do not face the same legal requirements, few are willing to
deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. Treatment for the
uninsured may well mean financial hardship, but by and large they do
receive care.

On the other hand, Moore overlooks the flaws of national health care
systems. He downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no
more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians
who claim they have no problem getting care.

Somehow, Moore failed to find any of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who
are not so lucky. Nor apparently did he have time to interview
Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who wrote in a
2005 decision striking down part of Canada's universal care law that
many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and that
"patients die while on the waiting list."

Similarly, Moore presents a truly funny sequence in which he struggles
to find the payment window at a British hospital. But it might not
have been so funny if he talked to any of the 850,000 Britons waiting
for admission to those hospitals.

Every year, shortages force the British National Health Service to
cancel as many as 50,000 operations. Roughly 40 percent of cancer
patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving
treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer
cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the
time treatment is finally offered.

The American health care system clearly needs reform. But it would be
a shame if Moore's latest piece of propaganda stampedes Americans into
sacrificing the quality, choice and freedom that our health care
system provides today.

On Jun 30, 12:37 am, fortycen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 7:14 pm, g...@consolidated.net wrote:
>

> The health care crisis is too important of an issue to be wasted on
> Michael Moore being its whistle blower. Moore is the biggest
> opportunist and scam artist since P.T. Barnum. His filmmaking style lacks any kind of objectivity or
> solutions and he edits his films without any regard for showing the
> truth or the whole picture; he only shows what fits HIS own personal
> agenda. If you think he makes documentaries I have a bridge to sell
> you. His movies are just that, movies and contain about as much
> realism as Star Wars. Bottom line -- Michael Moore should not be the
> one to take on the health care system because his work is always
> slanted fiction and not the truth.
> The problem is the expense and accessibility for
> all, but not the quality of its care. Health insurance and basic
> health needs should be available to every American.
>
> Now if Michael really wants to focus in on a crisis issue, he could
> tackle greed and obesity. He then could just turn the camera on
> himself.

I agree; here are two examples from my experience: A few years
back, I had a trip to California. Although I had arranged a direct
flight from Toronto to LA that would have got me to my destination
at noon (and thus been able to avoid the worst of the traffic), Air
Canada in their infinite stupidity routed me through Vancouver,
and then Vancouver to LA (after a two-hour layover). The bottom
line was by the time I reached LA it was 4:30, and I still had to
get to Irvine. By this time, I'd been up for over 18 hours. As I
inched
south on the 405 at 5-15 mph, it was another two hours before I
neared Irvine. Unsure of my directions, I pulled off at a side street,
and into a strip mall parking lot to check. I pulled out to return to
the highway, and had a "micronap" while driving. I hit another car,
and my damage was a broken foot and lacerated tongue from the
airbag. The airbag also knocked me out for about ten minutes.

I was taken to Irvine Medical Center, where they set my foot, and
took a chest X-ray. The X-ray showed nothing so they decided to
do an MRI. The MRI showed nothing, so they filled me up with a
barium contrast and did another MRI - all this despite my blood
pressure, heart rate, respiration, etc. were all completely normal.
They later sent me a bill for $30,000 for ten hours - I was sent
out at 6 pm the next day. I know the doctors were just covering
their butts for a possible malpractice suit. This type of "defensive
medicine" is what makes American medicine effective if you have
insurance, and ineffective if you don't.

Now, Moore referred to Emergency Room service in London, Ontario,
Canada. He claimed no one ever had to wait more than 45 minutes.
Well, I had heart palpitations yesterday, and I went to York Central
Hospital in Richmond Hill, a few miles north of Toronto. I arrived at
6:30 am; I wasn't seen until 9:30am , and I didn't get any treatment
until
10:30. By 9:30 am, the Emergency waiting room was full, and I heard
the triage nurse telling people it would be seven - that's SEVEN -
hours before they would be seen. I received two EKG's and two sets
of blood tests for heart function; I spoke to a very caring nurse, and
three doctors - one to assess me generally, an endo to take a look
at my diabetes, and a cardio to assess my heart function. Before I
was discharged, I was told I would be contacted in a week to schedule
a "cardio stress test" - walking on the treadmill while all hooked
up.
I also received a bunch of different medications while under
treatment.
Cost to me: zero.

So Moore distorts the facts: Canadian emergency room service is not
an in-and-out affair. Each year, there are reports of people who died
while waiting in the ER. Average wait times at busy periods - like
Saturday nights - can be hours just to be seen, and more hours just
to get treatment.

Meanwhile, in Canada, if I'd had my car accident, they would have
set my foot, perhaps stitched my tongue, kept me for a few hours
observation to see if I was concussed, and sent me home. They
figure the cost would have been $3,500 Cdn.

If Moore was intellectually honest - which I do not think he is - he'd
focus on the real problem of American medicine: the vulture
malpractice
lawyers who are just looking the slightest excuse to sue for millions,
which in turn cause doctors to order millions of unnecessary tests
each year. This raises the cost of health insurance, which in turn
prevents the insurance companies from offering affordable insurance
to everyone. Cap malpractice awards at reasonable levels - say
$100,000-$250,000 depending on the severity of the aftermath,
and leave in a clause for "egregious malpractice" where awards
don't have to be capped, but only when a medical board decides
that the most basic standard of care was denied - such as when
the doctor was drunk or under the influence of drugs, or when a
patient gets parked on a stretcher, and then is forgotten for hours.
A further advantage to this is by not ordering all the unnecessary
tests, labs can respond more quickly, patients who do need MRI
or CAT scans can get them faster, patients can move through the
emergency rooms more quickly, and the whole system would
move more smoothly.

It's too bad ideology prevents people from looking for innovative
solutions, and of course, the strength of the trial lawyers' lobby,
for which John Edwards is the poster boy.

<kevinbertschglf@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1183225692.837777.192110@n2g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jun 30, 12:37 am, fortycen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 7:14 pm, g...@consolidated.net wrote:
>>
>
>> The health care crisis is too important of an issue to be wasted on
>> Michael Moore being its whistle blower. Moore is the biggest
>> opportunist and scam artist since P.T. Barnum. His filmmaking style
>> lacks any kind of objectivity or
>> solutions and he edits his films without any regard for showing the
>> truth or the whole picture; he only shows what fits HIS own personal
>> agenda. If you think he makes documentaries I have a bridge to sell
>> you. His movies are just that, movies and contain about as much
>> realism as Star Wars. Bottom line -- Michael Moore should not be the
>> one to take on the health care system because his work is always
>> slanted fiction and not the truth.
>> The problem is the expense and accessibility for
>> all, but not the quality of its care. Health insurance and basic
>> health needs should be available to every American.
>>
>> Now if Michael really wants to focus in on a crisis issue, he could
>> tackle greed and obesity. He then could just turn the camera on
>> himself.
>
> I agree; here are two examples from my experience: A few years
> back, I had a trip to California. Although I had arranged a direct
> flight from Toronto to LA that would have got me to my destination
> at noon (and thus been able to avoid the worst of the traffic), Air
> Canada in their infinite stupidity routed me through Vancouver,
> and then Vancouver to LA (after a two-hour layover). The bottom
> line was by the time I reached LA it was 4:30, and I still had to
> get to Irvine. By this time, I'd been up for over 18 hours. As I
> inched
> south on the 405 at 5-15 mph, it was another two hours before I
> neared Irvine. Unsure of my directions, I pulled off at a side street,
> and into a strip mall parking lot to check. I pulled out to return to
> the highway, and had a "micronap" while driving. I hit another car,
> and my damage was a broken foot and lacerated tongue from the
> airbag. The airbag also knocked me out for about ten minutes.
>
> I was taken to Irvine Medical Center, where they set my foot, and
> took a chest X-ray. The X-ray showed nothing so they decided to
> do an MRI. The MRI showed nothing, so they filled me up with a
> barium contrast and did another MRI - all this despite my blood
> pressure, heart rate, respiration, etc. were all completely normal.
> They later sent me a bill for $30,000 for ten hours - I was sent
> out at 6 pm the next day. I know the doctors were just covering
> their butts for a possible malpractice suit. This type of "defensive
> medicine" is what makes American medicine effective if you have
> insurance, and ineffective if you don't.
>
> Now, Moore referred to Emergency Room service in London, Ontario,
> Canada. He claimed no one ever had to wait more than 45 minutes.
> Well, I had heart palpitations yesterday, and I went to York Central
> Hospital in Richmond Hill, a few miles north of Toronto. I arrived at
> 6:30 am; I wasn't seen until 9:30am , and I didn't get any treatment
> until
> 10:30. By 9:30 am, the Emergency waiting room was full, and I heard
> the triage nurse telling people it would be seven - that's SEVEN -
> hours before they would be seen. I received two EKG's and two sets
> of blood tests for heart function; I spoke to a very caring nurse, and
> three doctors - one to assess me generally, an endo to take a look
> at my diabetes, and a cardio to assess my heart function. Before I
> was discharged, I was told I would be contacted in a week to schedule
> a "cardio stress test" - walking on the treadmill while all hooked
> up.
> I also received a bunch of different medications while under
> treatment.
> Cost to me: zero.
>
> So Moore distorts the facts: Canadian emergency room service is not
> an in-and-out affair. Each year, there are reports of people who died
> while waiting in the ER. Average wait times at busy periods - like
> Saturday nights - can be hours just to be seen, and more hours just
> to get treatment.
>
> Meanwhile, in Canada, if I'd had my car accident, they would have
> set my foot, perhaps stitched my tongue, kept me for a few hours
> observation to see if I was concussed, and sent me home. They
> figure the cost would have been $3,500 Cdn.
>
> If Moore was intellectually honest - which I do not think he is - he'd
> focus on the real problem of American medicine: the vulture
> malpractice
> lawyers who are just looking the slightest excuse to sue for millions,
> which in turn cause doctors to order millions of unnecessary tests
> each year. This raises the cost of health insurance, which in turn
> prevents the insurance companies from offering affordable insurance
> to everyone. Cap malpractice awards at reasonable levels - say
> $100,000-$250,000 depending on the severity of the aftermath,
> and leave in a clause for "egregious malpractice" where awards
> don't have to be capped, but only when a medical board decides
> that the most basic standard of care was denied - such as when
> the doctor was drunk or under the influence of drugs, or when a
> patient gets parked on a stretcher, and then is forgotten for hours.
> A further advantage to this is by not ordering all the unnecessary
> tests, labs can respond more quickly, patients who do need MRI
> or CAT scans can get them faster, patients can move through the
> emergency rooms more quickly, and the whole system would
> move more smoothly.
>
> It's too bad ideology prevents people from looking for innovative
> solutions, and of course, the strength of the trial lawyers' lobby,
> for which John Edwards is the poster boy.
>

and don't forget, sadly America is FULL of "sue-happy" fools that if
a doctor puts a stitch in a mm off center, and they happen to have
a .0005in scar, they believe it's definately worth milliions! and damnit
they're going to find that one lawyer that wants to make a name for
him/herself.... and no matter how it clogs the legal system, causes
insurance rates to rise, because doctors have to carry more malpractice
insurance, etc.... it's a catch-22 all the way around.. but bottom line,
if people were more accepting of human error, we'd all be better off.

just my .02 as an American stuck in the medical elevator.



--
Reisa, T1
dx-5/00 asd-7/00
Animas IR1250 pumper

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:28:06 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Moore ignores the positive side of American health care. For all its
>problems, the United States still provides the highest quality health
>care in the world.


For those who can afford it...

Will, T2

"For those who can afford it..." (Will, T2)

For many years I had excellent health insurance. But life has its ups
and downs, and no matter how secure we think we are, everything can
change.

These days I'm not one of those who can afford it.

But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in an objective perspective
on this subject.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:28:06 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
wrote:


..
Clearly the problem is not Mr. Moore but in a part of the our
medical profession that does not understand they are not God.

Most doctors never served time in the trenches but were pampered
all of their life.

So we must expect it to go the course it has led by some of them that
have tunnel vision.

Any of us are prone to take this path. We see the world from a very
biased viewpoint.

Some where, some how there must be some audit on people that
get self serving

Most doctors are balanced humans and try to do a good job.

A few predators seem to be pushy and trey to redefine the reason for
the medical Professional IN all area, it seem there is a distorted
view of our reason to exist. They are ambitious and usually have
lower talent..

MR. Moore is the tool to expose a distorted situation.

In our society, there are "bums at every level. This type
finally cause so much unnecessary suffering to all.

We currently are being plague by two elements.
The people that are fairly well off and want more.
Most are productive people.

The other element is the group that think they can yell
instead of bearing down and being productive. They
pass this attitude from generation to generation

The ultimate goal is to give each new generation an
open opportunity to achieve. There is no
responsibility to give up earned resources to those that fail
when given a level playing field.

There is no reason that those worked and produced for
tens of years to be raped by a distorted system. when
they there was no excess neglect on their part.

Bull shit will not win in the long run.

There is a gross problem and the profession that
came from the best, selected to get medical training
should turn into a abusive element in our society.

The politician are a poor choice to have to depend
on to correct a problem. The current default is to the
politicians.

Very biased posts will not change a thing.

Dr Debakey was on a salary. and maybe earned all he was paid.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"In our society, there are "bums at every level..."

In our area even the bums use cellphones : )

"The politician are a poor choice to have to depend on to correct a
problem."

And coincidentally they have the best health insurance money can buy.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:44:23 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And coincidentally they have the best health insurance money can buy.

Isn't that the truth....

Will, T2

>
> When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or
> heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the
> world.
>
> Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more
> likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in
> other countries, we are less likely to die of it. Fewer than one out
> of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a
> quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of
> British men and nearly half of French and German men will.

This is a clear example of a man using statistics like a drunk uses a
lamp-post; for support, not illuminaton.

For example, in 2004, the murder rate per 100,000 people in the US
was 5.5; in Canada, it was 1.95. Since most murdered men in the US
are under 30, they don't really have a chance to develop prostate
cancer.

Similarly, vehicular death is higher in the US, again most often
killing
young men before they can develop cancer.

And what's your difference? One in five American men is 20%; a quarter
of Canadian men is 25%. If you compared lung cancer deaths in both
countries, I'd be willing to bet that, due to higher US smoking rates,
the
difference between lung cancer deaths is more than 5% (I couldn't find
the stats, though.)

Finally, having worked in Detroit for a couple of years, where I saw
the
fattest people I've ever seen, I'd be willing to bet that US deaths
from
diabetes complications, coronary deaths, and other obesity related
causes far outweigh those in Canada. So, you have made the statistical
error we call "survivor bias". Fewer men in the US live to be the
55-65
where prostate cancer is most likely to strike than in Canada. The
ultimate proof is men in Canada enjoy a higher life expectancy; for
all the reasons above and more, Canadian men live longer, healthier
lives.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:26:40 -0700, kevinbertschglf@yahoo.ca wrote:

>
>>
>> When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or
>> heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the
>> world.
>>
>> Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more
>> likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in
>> other countries, we are less likely to die of it. Fewer than one out
>> of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a
>> quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of
>> British men and nearly half of French and German men will.
>
>This is a clear example of a man using statistics like a drunk uses a
>lamp-post; for support, not illuminaton.
>
>For example, in 2004, the murder rate per 100,000 people in the US
>was 5.5; in Canada, it was 1.95. Since most murdered men in the US
>are under 30, they don't really have a chance to develop prostate
>cancer.
>
>Similarly, vehicular death is higher in the US, again most often
>killing
>young men before they can develop cancer.
>
>And what's your difference? One in five American men is 20%; a quarter
>of Canadian men is 25%. If you compared lung cancer deaths in both
>countries, I'd be willing to bet that, due to higher US smoking rates,
>the
>difference between lung cancer deaths is more than 5% (I couldn't find
>the stats, though.)
>
>Finally, having worked in Detroit for a couple of years, where I saw
>the
>fattest people I've ever seen, I'd be willing to bet that US deaths
>from
>diabetes complications, coronary deaths, and other obesity related
>causes far outweigh those in Canada. So, you have made the statistical
>error we call "survivor bias". Fewer men in the US live to be the
>55-65
>where prostate cancer is most likely to strike than in Canada. The
>ultimate proof is men in Canada enjoy a higher life expectancy; for
>all the reasons above and more, Canadian men live longer, healthier
>lives.

I first worked in a GM factory at 17( 18`) I saw these old fellows
around 45 were almost gone. They were burned out by our
production systems.

A lot of Americas greatness came from using people like
Kleenex.

That needs to be considered in our evaluations.

Sudden death in this group in their late 30s or early 40's was so
common.

So many studies ignore the details. It does nor matter since they are
compiled to prove a per conceived "fact"

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:16:26 -0400, "Will, T2" <wmmckee@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:44:23 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And coincidentally they have the best health insurance money can buy.
>
>Isn't that the truth....
>
>Will, T2

And of course most of us know that any health insurance company can
cancel your coverage at any time they choose.
--

Grandpa Chuck
-ô¿ô-
~

Americans killed in the occupation of Iraq as of June 29, 2007 is 3,578.
United Kingdom = 156 Other = 128.

How many more Americans must die to satisfy Bush's ego?
Let us all pray for Bush - God knows he needs it!

As of June 30, 2007 it has been 1522 days since Bush
while standing in front of the banner which was sent
to the ship by the White House saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
declared,"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our
allies have prevailed." IOW MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Isn't Bush's "surge" of troops working well?
Pay attention to the frequency of American deaths since it began.


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross." --Sinclair
Lewis

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:11:30 -0500, Grandpa Chuck
<GrandpaChuck@B4me.org> wrote:

>And of course most of us know that any health insurance company can
>cancel your coverage at any time they choose.


If you are just 1 minute late on paying the bill, you lose....

Will, T2

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:48:12 -0700, kevinbertschglf@yahoo.ca
wrote:

>I agree; here are two examples from my experience:

Thank you for a rational, unemotional and non-partisan
comment on the problem. As another non-US commentator on
this problem I want to stress that our opinions are intended
to assist, not criticise. From your description, I suspect
that there are many similarities between the Ontario system
and ours here.

One significant difference is that ours is a blend of both
State and Private. Thus I am covered by the government
Medicare system (nothing like US medicare) but I also have
elected to pay private Health insurance.

One example of that difference. Years ago I frantically
drove my son to the casualty (emergency) section of Monash
Medical Centre in Melbourne, a large Public Hospital, while
my son writhed in pain with possible appendicitis. He had
had an earlier scare for appendix a couple of months
earlier.

Triage had a kiddy-clock on the wall under a sign saying
"the present wait until you see the doctor is:" which showed
three hours. When I pointed out to the triage nurse that he
was in agony, the response indicated that he would only be
moved up the list if he deteriorated further; however, the
nurse did assist me to ring around to find the nearest
Private Hospital with an Emergency Room; we found one twenty
minutes away in Knox. I broke a few traffic laws and thirty
minutes later my son was on that operating table as they
removed his appendix.

If we had waited at the Public Hospital the cost would have
been zero - presuming they acted in time; who knows. The
co-pay cost at the Private Hospital was several hundred
dollars, not exorbitant. The cost of my top-level private
insurance, for both of us, is about $50 per week.

Our system has many faults; insufficient hospitals, delays
for elective surgery, shortages of doctors in rural areas
and so on. People still die here from medical negligence or
bureaucratic incompetence and doctors still close ranks to
protect each other. But with all it's faults, no person will
be untreated for a lack of money, nor will they have to
choose between medication and food. We have a separate
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which subsidises medications
for all and increases the subsidy for Pensioners, veterans
and those in financial need.

Thus I still think it's one others could study to select
it's good points for their own.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Kuranda Skyrail near Cairns
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
latest: Ki Si Ming

You forgot to say...the best health insurance OUR money can buy.

Cheri


Will, T2 wrote in message
<5ged83h5k2bv8eeel2019440hea3n7o1h2@4ax.com>...
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:44:23 -0000, dsolo <dalesolomonson@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And coincidentally they have the best health insurance money can
buy.
>
>Isn't that the truth....
>
>Will, T2

And the best retirement. Never forget that.

Cheri


dsolo wrote in message
<1183232663.688795.245900@e16g2000pri.googlegroups .com>...
>"In our society, there are "bums at every level..."
>
>In our area even the bums use cellphones : )
>
>"The politician are a poor choice to have to depend on to correct a
>problem."
>
>And coincidentally they have the best health insurance money can buy.
>
>

dsolo wrote:
> From the San Jose Mercury News - Jun. 11:
>
> Michael Moore was in Sacramento on Tuesday to testify before a state
> Senate committee, lead a rally for universal health care with the
> California Nurses Association, and, of course, promote his new movie
> "Sicko," which opens nationwide June 29.
>
> No one would deny that there are serious problems with the American
> health care system, and Moore's new film eloquently dramatizes the
> suffering of people caught up in it. There is no doubt that it will
> jump start the debate over health care reform in America.
>
> Yet it is curiously incomplete.
>
> Moore ignores the positive side of American health care. For all its
> problems, the United States still provides the highest quality health
> care in the world. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize
> in medicine are either U.S. citizens or work here. With no price
> controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead
> to innovation breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical
> technologies.
>
> U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines
> introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. In fact, Americans have
> played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances
> of the past 30 years.
>
> Instead, Moore focuses on life expectancy, suggesting that people in
> Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba live longer than Americans
> because of their health care systems. But most experts agree that life
> expectancies are a poor measure of health care, because they are
> affected by too many exogenous factors like violent crime, poverty,
> obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to a
> country's health system.
>
> When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or
> heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the
> world.
>
> Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more
> likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in
> other countries, we are less likely to die of it. Fewer than one out
> of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a
> quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of
> British men and nearly half of French and German men will.
>
> Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer, AIDS and heart
> disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed
> heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even
> an Italian hospital - he went to the Cleveland Clinic.
>
> As one would expect, Moore frequently refers to the 47 million
> Americans without health insurance, but fails to point out that most
> of those are uninsured for only brief periods, or that millions are
> already eligible for government medical programs but fail to apply.
>
> Moreover, Moore implies that people without health insurance don't
> receive health care. In reality, most do. Hospitals are legally
> obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and while
> physicians do not face the same legal requirements, few are willing to
> deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. Treatment for the
> uninsured may well mean financial hardship, but by and large they do
> receive care.
>
> On the other hand, Moore overlooks the flaws of national health care
> systems. He downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no
> more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians
> who claim they have no problem getting care.
>
> Somehow, Moore failed to find any of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who
> are not so lucky. Nor apparently did he have time to interview
> Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who wrote in a
> 2005 decision striking down part of Canada's universal care law that
> many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and that
> "patients die while on the waiting list."
>
> Similarly, Moore presents a truly funny sequence in which he struggles
> to find the payment window at a British hospital. But it might not
> have been so funny if he talked to any of the 850,000 Britons waiting
> for admission to those hospitals.
>
> Every year, shortages force the British National Health Service to
> cancel as many as 50,000 operations. Roughly 40 percent of cancer
> patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving
> treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer
> cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the
> time treatment is finally offered.
>
> The American health care system clearly needs reform. But it would be
> a shame if Moore's latest piece of propaganda stampedes Americans into
> sacrificing the quality, choice and freedom that our health care
> system provides today.

Rising health care costs, which is at the root of this crisis, is a
global problem because the obesity epidemic is actually a pandemic.

The only solution is to overcome that terrible lie which is compelling
folks worldwide to overeat:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp

Be hungry.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist

Hi Alan,

We can buy private insurance in Canada as well; in fact,
most companies provide it as a benefit after 3 months
of employment. However, the benefits are generally
limited to vision care (glasses/contacts), dental care
(with restrictions), prescription meds, and if you end
up in the hospital, you get a semi-private room instead
of an 8-bed ward.

Because the government forbids any private facilities
(except for so-called "walk-in clinics", where you can
go to be treated for sniffles, broken fingers, etc. but
no surgery, X-rays, or anything more sophisticated),
private insurance doesn't give you any more options
in an Emergency.

I wish Canadian politicians would look at your system;
it seems much more sensible than ours. However,
any suggestion of a public/private mixed system is
greeted by "no two-tier health care" and especially
"no American style health care". This is the rallying
cry of our three left-of-centre parties (who actually
control the majority of seats in Parliament), and
the ruling right-of-centre Conservatives are too
cowed to bring it up.

My suggestion was that credits be given to medical
facilities that don't charge patients and accept only
Medicare fees for treatment. Those credits can then
be sold to private interests who want to start up
facilities where they are free to charge what they
want. For example (just to make the numbers
simple), let's say a hospital does $100 million
in Medicare charges in a year, and that generates
$10 million in credits. A private company wants to
start a knee replacement clinic (this is currently
one of the most demanded treatments, and the
one with the longest waiting lists). If the Medicare
charge for a knee replacement is $10,000, and
the private firm buys the $10 million in credits
from the hospital, that would give the private
firm the right to perform 1,000 replacements
that year. It's likely a secondary market in
these credits would develop.

And, if this system was in place, hospitals
operating in rural areas could be given a
higher rate of credits, which would allow
them to offer higher salaries to doctors,
and thus attract more medical professionals
to the enormous rural areas that both our
countries have.

Too bad I'm constantly ignored by the
politicians!

Cheers,

Kevin

<kevinbertschglf@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1183318166.071878.84470@q75g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
> However,
> any suggestion of a public/private mixed system is
> greeted by "no two-tier health care" and especially
> "no American style health care".
>

Apparently it's ok, though, for people to actually leave the country and get
their "American style health care" *in* America. Or do they penalize you for
doing that? How is that different from having facilities in Canada to take
that money rather than having it leave the country?
bj

Frances' health care is high on anyones list and rightly so.
People even come over from the UK to get better and faster
treatment than that in the UK.
One example close to my heart is the care for pregnant women,
s my wife will give my a chile in December.
The "tracking" is almost automate now.
There is a lot of help (phone number to call, medical advice
for even the most uneducated in booklet form etc etc)
It has been thought out and very wekk executed the way women
are hand held through their nine months.
Even in society, women are well received when it is perceived
that they are pregnant, their jobs are kept for them, they have
(I don't know how much ) extra leave from their jobs.
Most adults are willing to give a lot of help when they see a
pregnant woman.

It has been raised to cult level, almost.
These are some of the reasons which make the french birth rate
the highest in Europe .. and I'm not complaining, given my
personal interest in this matter.
The main downside is France gets most refugees from Africa
and Eastern Europe, it also has to bring the fight to the many
fraudsters who try to abuse it.
In the meantime, the average person in the street has to pay
extra at least until the Social Security books can be balanced.

If only this were mimicked on other countries, in other fields of health
care ...


"dsolo" <dalesolomonson@gmail.com> a écrit ...
> >From the San Jose Mercury News - Jun. 11:
>
> Michael Moore was in Sacramento on Tuesday to testify before a state
> Senate committee, lead a rally for universal health care with the
> California Nurses Association, and, of course, promote his new movie
> "Sicko," which opens nationwide June 29.
>
> No one would deny that there are serious problems with the American
> health care system, and Moore's new film eloquently dramatizes the
> suffering of people caught up in it. There is no doubt that it will
> jump start the debate over health care reform in America.
>
> Yet it is curiously incomplete.
>
> Moore ignores the positive side of American health care. For all its
> problems, the United States still provides the highest quality health
> care in the world. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize
> in medicine are either U.S. citizens or work here. With no price
> controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead
> to innovation breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical
> technologies.
>
> U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines
> introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. In fact, Americans have
> played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances
> of the past 30 years.
>
> Instead, Moore focuses on life expectancy, suggesting that people in
> Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba live longer than Americans
> because of their health care systems. But most experts agree that life
> expectancies are a poor measure of health care, because they are
> affected by too many exogenous factors like violent crime, poverty,
> obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to a
> country's health system.
>
> When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or
> heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the
> world.
>
> Take prostate cancer, for example. Even though American men are more
> likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than their counterparts in
> other countries, we are less likely to die of it. Fewer than one out
> of five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a
> quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of
> British men and nearly half of French and German men will.
>
> Similar results can be found for other forms of cancer, AIDS and heart
> disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed
> heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even
> an Italian hospital - he went to the Cleveland Clinic.
>
> As one would expect, Moore frequently refers to the 47 million
> Americans without health insurance, but fails to point out that most
> of those are uninsured for only brief periods, or that millions are
> already eligible for government medical programs but fail to apply.
>
> Moreover, Moore implies that people without health insurance don't
> receive health care. In reality, most do. Hospitals are legally
> obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and while
> physicians do not face the same legal requirements, few are willing to
> deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. Treatment for the
> uninsured may well mean financial hardship, but by and large they do
> receive care.
>
> On the other hand, Moore overlooks the flaws of national health care
> systems. He downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no
> more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians
> who claim they have no problem getting care.
>
> Somehow, Moore failed to find any of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who
> are not so lucky. Nor apparently did he have time to interview
> Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who wrote in a
> 2005 decision striking down part of Canada's universal care law that
> many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and that
> "patients die while on the waiting list."
>
> Similarly, Moore presents a truly funny sequence in which he struggles
> to find the payment window at a British hospital. But it might not
> have been so funny if he talked to any of the 850,000 Britons waiting
> for admission to those hospitals.
>
> Every year, shortages force the British National Health Service to
> cancel as many as 50,000 operations. Roughly 40 percent of cancer
> patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving
> treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer
> cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the
> time treatment is finally offered.
>
> The American health care system clearly needs reform. But it would be
> a shame if Moore's latest piece of propaganda stampedes Americans into
> sacrificing the quality, choice and freedom that our health care
> system provides today.
>
>

On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> <kevinbertsch...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:1183318166.071878.84470@q75g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > However,
> > any suggestion of a public/private mixed system is
> > greeted by "no two-tier health care" and especially
> > "no American style health care".
>
> Apparently it's ok, though, for people to actually leave the country and get
> their "American style health care" *in* America. Or do they penalize you for
> doing that? How is that different from having facilities in Canada to take
> that money rather than having it leave the country?
> bj

Well, for one thing, it's enormously more expensive to have to travel
to
the US for treatment (airfare, accomodation for your loved ones, phone
calls, etc.). However, you are quite correct; very rich Canadians skip
the
lines by going to the US if required. But it happens less than you
think,
and here's why:

The dirty secret of Canadian health care; if you're rich, you likely
know
some senior physicians from your golf/tennis/curling/whatever club.
My
mother-in-law had both knees replaced. The first time, she waited in
line
as she was told, and it took over 16 months for her to get operated
on.
The second time she needed one, I mentioned it to our private banker
over dinner, and hoped she would get one sooner than that. "16
months?!"
he replied. "Let me make a call." Two days later, we received a call
from
the secretary of one the best ortho surgeons in Toronto. My mother in
law was in for diagnosis in two weeks, and received the surgery six
weeks
later. The surgeon's rationale "I get paid the same amount whether I
do
the operation for a stranger, or whether I do it for a friend. So why
not do
it for the friend?".

I think this is the real reason the so-called "elites" fight against
any
changes to the Canadian system; they get "head of the line" access
through their connections without having to pay anything extra. The
only exceptions are some closely monitored procedures - like kidney
transplants, where the government, not the physician, monitors the
list, and certain cancers, etc., where US facilities do boast some of
the best doctors and treatments in the world. So, in Canada, the
well connected get the best of both worlds - privileged access with
no price tag. The only place they can't use their pull is the ER -
which is why most of the outcry is about ER waiting times.

Finally, if the facilities were in Canada, as I noted, the total cost
would be much less. F