Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?

"Doesn't Frequently Mop" wrote in
message ...
Make credence recognised that on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:02:50 GMT,
"William Black" has scripted:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:51:00 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:



The avowed policy of the government of India is the encouragement of
medical
tourism.

Of course. They're a bunch of ratbags too. Still haven't addressed
those billion Indians have you?


As they're a democratically elected government I assume they reflect the
will of the people.

Sure, just like Blair did the British in Iraq. Or don't you have
democratic elections there?

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Invading Iraq is the new Godwin's law apparently.

Ah, right.

This Bosnia thing seems to be what the more putrescent amongst the
population across the pond from me takes as some sort of absolute argument
stopper with Europeans.

I've met it before and always wonder what they're rabbiting on about. They
do seem to have forgotten the Canadian screw ups in Bosnia and the fact that
the US Marines got hung up in customs in Greece, poor dears, and that a
British general had to send a signal to his American commander at one stage
that read 'I am not going to start World War III for you' when told to shoot
up a Russian motor rifle regiment.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:47:14 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:18:57 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:43:35 GMT, grant
kinsley has scripted:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 10:09:28 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

Like what and where? How about giving examples that demonstrate
anywhere near the dependence worldwide medicine has on the US?

start with heart transplanrts. C. Barnard, South Africa

insulin. Best and Banting, Canada

International drug companies. GlaxoSmithKline, U.K. Sanofi-Aventis,
France. Novartis, Switzerland. F.Hoffman-La Roche, Switzerland.
Astra-Zeneca, Great Britain/Sweden.

hemodialysis. Willem Kolff, Netherlands

cataract extraction, modern. Jacques Daviel, France

intraocular lens placement, Sir Harold Ridley, U.K.

cardiac catheterization, Werner Forssmann, Germany

radiology, Roentgen, Germany

computed tomography, Hounsfield, U.K.

M.R.I, Lauterbur&Mansfield, U.S.A/U.K

E.K.G, Wilhelm Einthoven, Netherlands

discovery of blood groups, Landsteiner, Austria

Penicillin, Fleming, U.K.

discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick, U.K/U.S.A (work done in the U.K.)

H.pylori and relation to gastric disease, Marshall and Warren,
Australia

electrophoresis, Tiselius, Sweden

chromatography, partition and GL, Martin and Synge, U.K.

just a few to get you started.

While it is true that the U.S.A. contributes greatly to medical
science, it is not even close to the amount that you would like to
believe.

Thanks for doing the legwork I was too lazy to do, but even if Mr Kulp
reads that, it will not change his mind.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Why would I? I never said that the US does everything, just that it
does a great deal of it that the entire rest of the world benefits
from. Can't you read? And did you also notice from this list that
lots of this was done years ago and not today? Or did that fly right
by you? Did you also bother to check to see how many of those drug
companies listed here do great amounts of their research in the US?
Try virtually all of them. Just drive around New Jersey and see for
yourself.

actually you claimed thge U.S. does 90%, which is patently untrue, the
U.S. benefits from other countries research as much or more than it
contributes.

GK

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:38:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

I should have known you wouldn't be intelligent enough to figure out
what I meant.

If it is unintelligent to be able to guess what someone means, how intelligent
is it to not be able to write what one means oneself?

blah,blah, blah


Sure. Start here http://www.facs.org/ahp/views/emtala2.html

I asked for a pointer to the legislation, not a pointer to interpretations and
commentaries. I distrust interpretations and paraphrases of legislation,
especially those written by parties with specific agendas to promote.

Do your own search then.


Nevertheless, in the material to which you've pointed, I've noticed details
that you failed to mention, such as the restriction of EMTALA to providers
receiving Medicare funding, and the extremely constrained nature of the
required services. I also note that nothing prevents a hospital from billing
for its services, which was my point.

Your point is on the top of your head obviously. What's extremely
contained? You are treated and stabilized which is what was said. Of
course, a hospital can bill for its services but can't collect from
the indigent. Which was also what was said.


Can't pay means can't pay whether they take you to court or not.

But being able to take you to court to make you pay means the services are not
free.

An obligation to provide services is not necessarily an obligation to give
them away for free.

That's what causes heat exhaustion that you treat medically ace.

Heat exhaustion is not fatal. Those who died developed hyperthermia and acute
dehydration.

Well, that's a great reason not to do those that do isn't it?

No, but there is a common misconception that screening tests will reduce
mortality, and that isn't necessarily true. One of the main reasons for tests
in the U.S., though, is to reduce potential liability for providers, not to
reduce mortality. Providers test for as much as they can so that they don't
get sued if they miss something exotic.

The only reason any of my doctors ever did any testing was to find
something which couldn't be found without the test. What do you think
a test is for if not to see if something is wrong that can be fixed.
So I guess in Europe they don't do any tests because they can't be
held liable so they just miss things and you die. That's just what
happened to my Danish friend. Well, it does cut costs and make the
system cheaper because he died. And Blake calls our system ghastly.


Bull****. There are all kinds of dangerous drugs that doctors know
about that layman don't.

Which drugs are known to be dangerous to doctors but not to government
regulatory agencies?

Who said they weren't known to government agencies twit?


Not knowing some drug brought in from
overseas that fits that category according to a medical specialist
doesn't negate anything.

If it came from overseas, then it would seem that at least some doctors do not
consider it dangerous. But since you don't actually know what drug you are
talking about, it's hard to discuss it.

Sure, the one's where you don't have the red tape some fool cited
earlier that protects you from dangerous drugs. Remember Thalidomide?
That was developed in Germany and sold in over 50 countries causing
thousands of birth defects. We'll take the red tape and be safe as
much as possible.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:39:02 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

They cannot. They are forbidden from doing that and would be stupid
to do so in any case because they would collect nothing.

If you can provide a pointer to the legislation, I'd like to see exactly what
they are forbidden to do for myself.

Go do your own research. The act was given in the url I gave you

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:39:55 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Boy, you are a bizarre cretin. Heat exhaustion can lead to heat
stroke that can kill.

But if it does not lead to heatstroke (hyperthermia), it does not kill. QED.

Next you be saying that those thousands that died in France died from
stubbing their toes. The subject was thousands that died because the
French system failed miserably. What difference does it make what the
exact cause was?


Here, read for yourself to alleviate at least some of your
complete ignorance.

I'm already familiar with this.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:52:31 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


"Doesn't Frequently Mop" wrote in
message ...
Make credence recognised that on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:31:41 +0200,
Martin has scripted:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:21:39 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Heat exhaustion is treated here all the time during the summer.

Heat exhaustion does not kill. Hyperthermia does. Very rapid
intervention is
required to treat acute hyperthermia.

There's a deja vu epidemic this summer.

I love these two arguing. For once I'm rooting for Mixi!

Me too.

But it's a battle of wits between two unarmed men...


Midget minds are so easy to satisfy. And now you're stealing my
sayings as well. Well, at least you can copy if you can't think.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:04:39 GMT, "William Black"
wrote:


Invading Iraq is the new Godwin's law apparently.

Ah, right.

This Bosnia thing seems to be what the more putrescent amongst the
population across the pond from me takes as some sort of absolute argument
stopper with Europeans.

Probably has something to do with your complete failure to solve your
own problems, letting tens of thousands die?


I've met it before and always wonder what they're rabbiting on about. They
do seem to have forgotten the Canadian screw ups in Bosnia and the fact that
the US Marines got hung up in customs in Greece, poor dears, and that a
British general had to send a signal to his American commander at one stage
that read 'I am not going to start World War III for you' when told to shoot
up a Russian motor rifle regiment.


And all this has exactly what to do with the facts you Europeans sat
on your asses while thousands died? You love to try to change the
subject everytime you're shown wrong or idiotic don't you? As if that
absolves you of your stupidity or immorality.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:27:30 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:



Why would I? I never said that the US does everything, just that it
does a great deal of it that the entire rest of the world benefits
from. Can't you read? And did you also notice from this list that
lots of this was done years ago and not today? Or did that fly right
by you? Did you also bother to check to see how many of those drug
companies listed here do great amounts of their research in the US?
Try virtually all of them. Just drive around New Jersey and see for
yourself.

actually you claimed thge U.S. does 90%, which is patently untrue, the
U.S. benefits from other countries research as much or more than it
contributes.


Actually, I did not say that. I said that NOW 90% of pharmaceutical
inventions were done in the US--not 1920, not overall, not anything
else. Those were the numbers that were reported publicly a couple of
years ago. Show that it's patently untrue if you can. Show anywhere
where we benefit from other countries' research as much or more than
we contribute.

"Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with
how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent
health care?"

Luckily, I can help you.
1) Western Europe and a lot of other countries survive birth
better, then live longer, thinner, and healthier than we do. So
maybe what those all tacky furriners have noticed are the most
excellent medical-corporation profits in the U.S.. Then they discover
that "we" don't get to decide whether, or how much, to spend on
medical corporations. The medcorps themselves are The Deciders.

2) Son, somebody's been twitting you about "excellent health
care" and how "we" spend our bucks. Some of us do have excellent
health care. And millions more of us have arbitrarily rationed health
care doled out by the clerks and accountants in medical-corporation
bureaucracies. And some 45 million+ don't have excellent care, or in
fact, any health care except brief sessions of trauma care.

3) If POD is any indication, the obsession definitely runs in the
other direction:

Socialized medicine UK: Number of beds decrease as births increase
Socialized medicine Australia: Queensland public hospitals ....
Socialized Medicine: See the queues OUTSIDE their facilities ....
Socialized Medicine: Australians pay big bucks to avoid queues ....
Socialized Medicine: UK patient treated in France relates
French ....
Socialized Medicine: Crowded emergency rooms fatal for Canadians
Socialized Medicine: Australians pay big bucks to avoid queues
at ....
Socialized medicine: Australians must bribe to jump the queue
Socialized medicine UK: NHS saves big bucks denying patients ....
Saving bucks with Socialized Medicine: Elderly left to die in UK
Inescapable parallels between India and Iraq
Socialized medicine UK: Number of beds decrease as births increase

Is this your great UK system Mr. Black?

More options Aug 12, 8:56 am
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty, talk.politics.misc,
uk.politics.misc, aus.politics, soc.retirement
From: PJ O'Donovan
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:56:20 -0700
Local: Sun, Aug 12 2007 8:56 am
Subject: Socialized medicine UK: NHS saves big bucks denying patients
cancer treatment according to NHS doctors
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/511286.stm
Health

UK cancer care 'fails patients'

Excerpts:

Money for cancer services needs to increase vastly, say doctors

Cancer care in Britain is to be examined by a committee of MPs in the
light of claims by specialists that services are no better than those
in some developing countries

The conference, "Costs of Cancer Care", heard that Britain spent 95
pence per head on chemotherapy in 1997, compared with =A37.76 in the
US.

Campaigers claim they are being denied access to the best
treatments...
\

..=2E..Some doctors admitted that they lied to patients that no
treatments were available rather than say that the NHS could not
afford them

As many as 55 per cent of people diagnosed with cancer in Britain
never get to see a cancer specialist and almost nine out of ten
doctors said they had difficulty prescribing new cancer drugs.

Survival rates in Britain are also lower for many types of cancer. In
Switzerland a patient with colon cancer has a 51 per cent chance of
surviving five years and a 60 per cent chance in the US, but in
Britain the figures falls to 36 per cent