Socialized medicine UK: NHS saves big bucks denying patients cancer treatment according to NHS doctors

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 £7.76 in the
US.

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

.....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

PJ wrote on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:13:04 -0700:


PO More options Aug 12, 8:56 am
PO Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty, talk.politics.misc,
PO uk.politics.misc, aus.politics, soc.retirement
PO From: PJ O'Donovan
PO Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:56:20 -0700
PO Local: Sun, Aug 12 2007 8:56 am
PO Subject: Socialized medicine UK: NHS saves big bucks
denying
PO patients cancer treatment according to NHS doctors

The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but
people should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to
Work Law", the "Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and
Republicans. An author's stance is not in doubt when they use
such words.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:14:22 GMT, "James Silverton"
wrote:

PJ wrote on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:13:04 -0700:


PO More options Aug 12, 8:56 am
PO Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty, talk.politics.misc,
PO uk.politics.misc, aus.politics, soc.retirement
PO From: PJ O'Donovan
PO Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:56:20 -0700
PO Local: Sun, Aug 12 2007 8:56 am
PO Subject: Socialized medicine UK: NHS saves big bucks
denying
PO patients cancer treatment according to NHS doctors

The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but
people should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to
Work Law", the "Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and
Republicans. An author's stance is not in doubt when they use
such words.


So is ours, but that's not the issue. And the Patriot Act was voted
for by Democrats as well as Republicans, so just how is that a
rightist phrase?

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:14:22 GMT, "James Silverton"
wrote:

PJ wrote on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:13:04 -0700:


PO More options Aug 12, 8:56 am
PO Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty, talk.politics.misc,
PO uk.politics.misc, aus.politics, soc.retirement
PO From: PJ O'Donovan
PO Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:56:20 -0700
PO Local: Sun, Aug 12 2007 8:56 am
PO Subject: Socialized medicine UK: NHS saves big bucks
denying
PO patients cancer treatment according to NHS doctors

The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but
people should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to
Work Law", the "Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and
Republicans. An author's stance is not in doubt when they use
such words.


So is ours, but that's not the issue. And the Patriot Act was voted
for by Democrats as well as Republicans, so just how is that a
rightist phrase?

'Cos who would have named it the Curtailment of Rights Act?

Surreyman

"a.spencer3" wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:14:22 GMT, "James Silverton"
wrote:

The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but
people should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to
Work Law", the "Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and
Republicans. An author's stance is not in doubt when they use
such words.


So is ours, but that's not the issue. And the Patriot Act was voted
for by Democrats as well as Republicans, so just how is that a
rightist phrase?

'Cos who would have named it the Curtailment of Rights Act?

Bad name indeed.

Samuel Johnson gives us a better idea: The Scoundrels' Act.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:39:49 GMT, "a.spencer3"
wrote:


The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but
people should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to
Work Law", the "Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and
Republicans. An author's stance is not in doubt when they use
such words.


So is ours, but that's not the issue. And the Patriot Act was voted
for by Democrats as well as Republicans, so just how is that a
rightist phrase?

'Cos who would have named it the Curtailment of Rights Act?

Not some feckless politician, that's for sure, but what law isn't?

James Silverton wrote:

The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but people
should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to Work Law", the
"Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and Republicans. An
author's stance is not in doubt when they use such words.

What's supposed to be wrong with "Socialized Medicine" anyway? We're all
members of society aren't we? Doesn't every citizen have a basic human
right to heath care? Why is medicine any different in this regard to,
say, policing, or the fire service, or indeed defence, all of which are
paid out of central taxation.

There was a time in England (early 19th Century), when a householder had
to strike a deal with one of several fire brigades, and if the wrong one
turned up they would be likely just to stand around and watch the fire
burn. Often strikes me that the current US healthcare system is very
much like that!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:45:55 +0100, mike o'sullivan
wrote:

James Silverton wrote:

The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but people
should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to Work Law", the
"Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and Republicans. An
author's stance is not in doubt when they use such words.

What's supposed to be wrong with "Socialized Medicine" anyway? We're all
members of society aren't we? Doesn't every citizen have a basic human
right to heath care? Why is medicine any different in this regard to,
say, policing, or the fire service, or indeed defence, all of which are
paid out of central taxation.

Nothing per se, except that it has gotten a very bad connotation here
in the US which not a lot of discussion or understanding of the issues
and options involved. To give you an example, here it is seen as a
system run by the government where inevitable rationing and poor care
have resulted as evidenced by the BBC article. The perception,
sometimes wrong, is that ours is a higher quality system for those
that obtain the care, which also seems at least partly true, again as
evidenced by the BBC article. Twice the survival rate for something
like colon cancer, a major killer, is not trivial.

And we don't have any significant rationing for those that are covered
as far as I know and have experienced. Having theoretical coverage
when it is, in fact, rationed and/or poor quality care when it is
available doesnt' seem an attractive alternative to most Americans who
ultimately make the decision through their vote. Just as Europeans do
through their vote. Further, we have seen private healthcare being
offered alongside the public one in many of these countries, making
people think that this indicates a failure of the primary, pulbic
system so you end up having to pay twice to get your care. Again, not
a very appealing alternative to Americans.

To me, the issue isn't whether there is government or private
involvement, but how is the best way to get everyone coverage, which I
am all for if it can be done right as I think most Americans are.
Having the government actually run the system is another matter, as
opposed to having it be the payer as it is with Medicare which works
quite well, except our moronic politicians managed to restrict
Medicare from negotiating drug prices to any extent running the costs
through the roof and causing them to recently create yet another
Medicare program to cover drugs at exhorbitant prices.

Oddly enough, according to statistics, the Veteran's heathcare system
to which I belong, and was set up a long time ago before the idiot
politicians got involved, is a higher quality system than the private
one, and drugs cost $8 a prescription no matter what they are, because
they CAN and do negotiate drug prices just like the European ones do.
It also has a fully automated system for record keeping, testing, etc.
which is the best in the country and far ahead of private ones, so
there is evidence that even a government run system can run well, but
the politicians use scare tactics to protect their lobbyists in the
drug industry, etc.

Hillary Clinton didn't help this one bit with her idiotic Hillarycare
proposal that would have created a monstrous bureaucracy that turned
off everyone but her. Had they started moving incrementally, I think
it would have passed and a lot would have been accomplished by now,
but that's not a politician's style.

And policing and fire stations are not paid out of central taxation
here. It is locally funded as in the education system.


There was a time in England (early 19th Century), when a householder had
to strike a deal with one of several fire brigades, and if the wrong one
turned up they would be likely just to stand around and watch the fire
burn. Often strikes me that the current US healthcare system is very
much like that!

I don't know where you got that impression from, but it's not even
close to how the healthcare system operates here.

More options Jul 23, 7:44 am
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty, talk.politics.misc,
uk.politics.misc, aus.politics, soc.retirement
From: PJ O'Donovan
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:44:28 -0000
Local: Mon, Jul 23 2007 7:44 am
Subject: US health ca Comparable utilization of high tech imaging
yields highest breast cancer survival rate for American women
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"U.S. Women Likelier to Survive Breast Cancer

December 29, 2003

"Detecting and treating breast cancer early appears to be the reason
that U.S. women have significantly greater five-year survival rates
than women in Europe -- 89 percent vs. 79 percent.

"Breast cancer is diagnosed at earlier stages in the U.S. than in
Europe, and this is the reason for the higher survival found by
previous studies," says lead researcher Dr. Milena Sant, an
epidemiologist from the National Institute for the Study and the Cure
of the Tumors in Milan, Italy....."

http://www.romanfranklinmd.com/arti...p?articleId=113

High-Tech Imaging - U.S. Ranks Highest Worldwide
18 May 2005

The US ranks highest in utilization of high-tech imaging compared to
other countries worldwide, while Germany and Singapore ranks high in
utilization of both high and low tech imaging, a new study shows.

The study compared utilization of radiography (low-tech imaging) to
CT and MR (high tech imaging) in 15 countries (U.S., Canada,
Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, South
Korea, China, India, Singapore, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico) to
determine how the world's radiology resources were being used.

On the other hand, the U.S. had the highest per capita use of MR and
CT, almost 10 times more than Singapore and Germany, which each ranked
second in per capita utilization of high-tech imaging. The lowest MR
usage was in India, China and Indonesia.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0521124833.htm


On Aug 12, 10:13 am, PJ O'Donovan wrote:
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 authorhttp://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 £7.76 in the
US.

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

....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

mike o'sullivan wrote:
James Silverton wrote:


The National Health Service of the UK is far from perfect but people
should note that "Socialized Medecine" is like, "Right to Work Law",
the "Patriot Act" etc, a cant phrase of rightists and Republicans. An
author's stance is not in doubt when they use such words.


What's supposed to be wrong with "Socialized Medicine" anyway? We're all
members of society aren't we? Doesn't every citizen have a basic human
right to heath care? Why is medicine any different in this regard to,
say, policing, or the fire service, or indeed defence, all of which are
paid out of central taxation.

There was a time in England (early 19th Century), when a householder had
to strike a deal with one of several fire brigades, and if the wrong one
turned up they would be likely just to stand around and watch the fire
burn. Often strikes me that the current US healthcare system is very
much like that!

Exactly! (And if the householder couldn't afford to pay any
fire brigade, his house burned down.) SFAIK, the U.S. is
the only civilized country in the world that doesn't have
SOME sort of "universal" health care for its citizens.
(Which raises the question of how "civilized" we really are!)