ot health care

On 2009-09-18 08:49:28 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

Louie's doubts may be baseless but they can't technically
be called "wrong", so I never asserted that he's wrong.

My "doubts" are based on what Canadian and GB men told me. My "doubts"
are what an endocrinologist told me fairly recently while reviewing my
medical records: "Wow. You've had some outstanding men and women as
doctors over the past 20 years. Leaders in their fields."

Did I tell you I am very happy with my health care and I don't want
your swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?

Davey

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:40:34 +0100, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?


I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

Um...I am? IAC, while lawyers get blamed for a lot of things - some deservedly
so, some iffy, and many unfairly so, I'll go out on a limb and state that I
unreservedly believe that "lawyers" aren't responsible for the IMR in the US,
Cuba, or anywhere else.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

Why do you find it "astonishing" in and of itself? Let me propose a situation -
take country "A" and country "B." In country A, for a variety of reasons,
pregnancies are treated with some thoughtful seriousness by "adults" ("adults"
in the broad sense, by local standards, and certainly, there are "accidents,"
but as a broadly general statement, most pregnancies in "A" are
"planned"/desired/"wanted" by "adults" who want a child/children). OTOH, in "B"
a fair portion of the pregnancies are "accidents" involving "children" (again,
local standards) or legal "adults" who don't want a child and/or are not
prepared in any way to be parents (including pre-natal responsibilities). OTOH,
if a prospective parent in "B" was even half-heartedly "responsible," a baby
born in "B" would have heroic measures used, with _generally_ little thought of
cost, should such be necessary. Now, let's suppose the CIA had some way of
determining the IMR of "A" versus those live births in "B" only to those parents
who generally resembled, insofar as the (prospective) parents' pre-natal picture
from a general "desire" standpoint, those in "A." What do you think the numbers
might then show?

As another example - let's take a spoiled child in the UK and give them what to
them would be a small, inexpensive toy, the kind they wouldn't normally even
pick up if it were offered. Now, let's give that same toy to a child who
doesn't have much in the way of toys. What do you imagine the "toy mortality
rate" is going to be with the UK kid versus the other?

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

I haven't asked them - have you? But if I must make a guess, I'll guess that it
would probably be more than you think and less than I would hope...and I doubt
Democrats in their entirety (or Labour or Tory or...) would do significantly
better...also less than I'd hope, and, I'm guessing by your use of "Republican,"
some groups wouldn't do as well as you think...

HTH,
R

Lazarus

On 2009-09-18 09:02:19 -0400, said:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:49:28 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
David LaCourse wrote:
I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for certain
procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be done NOW
and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.
You're just making **** up. You have absolutely no way of knowing
your chances of survival in Canada or the UK because you don't
know diddly about health care in Canada or the UK. But you've
never let ignorance stop you from spouting off your fat mouth
before so why should this time be any different.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

Um, just out of curiosity, what personal experience do you have with those
health care systems?

I've been to a hospital in Atikokan, Ontario. Other
than that, none.

Um, well, I've been to not only Cape Canaveral, but the Texas, Mississippi AND
Alabama space facilities...I'm not claiming to be Neil Armstrong...and speaking
of outer space, how's the view up Uranus way these days....?

On what do you base your assertion that he's wrong?

Louie's doubts may be baseless but they can't technically
be called "wrong", so I never asserted that he's wrong.

Fair enough. On what do you base your assertion that his doubts are
(or may be)
"baseless?"

HTH,
R

Hey, Ken once got to first "base" with a girl - well, at least he
*said* it was a girl - so he knows what "baseless". And I know about
Canadian health care because Peter Charles lives within a half mile of
an Ontario hospital, and I drove by it several times - hell, maybe even
a *dozen* times.

On 2009-09-18 09:46:10 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
On what do you base your assertion that his doubts are (or may be)
"baseless?"
I base that assertion on the fact that Louie doesn't know
diddly about health care in Canada or the UK.

And on what do you base your assessment of Louie's knowledge of the health care
in Canada or the UK? ...

Louie himself said he has little knowledge of the health care
in Canada or the UK other than "it seems" they have long waiting
times for certain procedures.

I also stated that I talked with Canadian and GB men on an
international forum and their doctors had failed them - wrong advice,
wrong procedures. Their GS were less than mine yet they ended up
impotent and incontinent, and in some cases NOT cured. It was not just
in Canada and GB, but the US also. A dear friend who lived on the
sheep farm down the road from us was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
His Gleason was 8 - bad, but not as bad as mine. He went with the
radiation. I told him that I thought surgery was the best. This was
only six months after my cure. He died three years later with bone
cancer - a result of the prostate cancer spreading. **** happens,
right? Even with the best doctors it can happen.

On 2009-09-18 11:10:29 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

wrote:

... Let
me ask you - do people in the US get to select their own doctors? How about
people in Holland, China, Cuba, or Tahiti...?

Why are you asking me questions about countries other than
Canada and the UK when my assertion was about Louie and
health care in Canada and the UK ?

Louie obviously does not know diddly about health care in
Canada or the UK. Dispute that if you want, it's obvious
to me.

I DO know about Canadian health care 13+ years ago when I had prostate
cancer. Canadian men were dying from it, or walking around wearing
diapers the rest of their life, while men who were fortunate enough to
have good surgeons using the nerving saving technique were not only
cured, but were not incontinent or impotent. I know it must hurt you,
Ken, to know that the US of A could have such doctors, but they do and
did 13 years ago when I needed them. If I had been in Canada, my
"lethally aggressive tumor" would have left with with diapers (best
situation), or killed me (worst situation). I KNOW THAT from talking
to Canadian men AT THE TIME.

On 2009-09-18 08:42:43 -0400, Giles said:

On Sep 18, 6:47*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. *Time was very important in my case. *It had to b
e
done NOW and was. *I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.

So......um.....Bixby should have stayed here, huh?

Moron.

g.

Bixby died a year before I had my surgery. Could he have been saved?
I don't know - his cancer obviously spread; they didn't catch it it
time. But, chew on this Wolfgoat: I LIVED. d;op

On 2009-09-18 10:02:02 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:

Correction

Afghanistan is third worst.

Worst is Angola (180), then Sierra Leone, 154, Afghanistan, 152,
Liberia, 138, and Niger, 117.

I was remembering out-dated statistics.

Lazarus

You memorize such statistics? You need a life, Lazarus. Go fishing -
may help.

On Sep 18, 1:13*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 08:42:43 -0400, Giles said:





On Sep 18, 6:47*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. *Time was very important in my case. *It had to b
e
done NOW and was. *I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.

So......um.....Bixby should have stayed here, huh?

Moron.

g.

Bixby died a year before I had my surgery. *Could he have been saved? *
I don't know - his cancer obviously spread; *they didn't catch it it
time.

So, you think he should have stayed here in Murrica with good old
Merkin doctors and all health care and ****, huh?

But, chew on this Wolfgoat: *I LIVED.

You'll get over that. Your nephew won't.

g.

On Sep 18, 9:20*am, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:02:02 +0100, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:
Correction

Afghanistan is third worst.

Worst is Angola (180), then Sierra Leone, 154, Afghanistan, 152,
Liberia, 138, and Niger, 117.

I was remembering out-dated statistics.

Um, remembering the IMR of _every_ country on earth...? *I don't care what you
do for a vocation, avocation, or just ****s and grins, you REALLY need to check
into the UK's payment scheme for psychiatric assistance...or see if they'll at
least pay for a bender or two...

HTH,
R
...but, I suppose, it's probably best that you made such a correction - all we
need is Fred, Louie, goatgang, and Steve to get into a 1754 post pillowfight on
whether Angola or Afghanistan sucks the most...by normally-accepted rules of
thumb, anyhoo...

Nothing at all to say? NOTHING??!! Then why not say just that?

g.

On 2009-09-18 10:43:54 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be
done NOW and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.


You don't know that either.

Oh yes I do - at least 13 years ago for a man with prostate cancer.
Sometimes "immediate" means "right now". There were man examples of
Canadian men not getting proper care for their cancerous tumors. Many
had GS less than mine but were left incontinent and impotent, while
still others weren't even cured.

One of the things that bothers me about the health care debate in the
US is the misrepresentaiton that is made about helath care in other
countries. There is a lot of misrepresentation made. I have heard the
one about picking doctors for years, and the one about waiting times.

There are no waits for urgent care. I had chest pains a few years ago,
and was admitted and treated immediately. My friend was diagnoses with
prostate cancer, and was admitted and treated immediately.

There are waits for elective surgery.

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?