It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cancer breakthrough!

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus

Originally posted by bsl4doc
1) Can you provide me with any sources as to why a socialized health care system would benefit more from cancer treatments instead of a cure?

2) Do you even understand how our healthcare systems work over here? People pay higher taxes, this extra money goes into health care, and everyone has basic medical health care.

3) This means that everytime someone goes to the hospital, the government must pay for whatever they need as far as treatment.

4) Now, why would it be MORe beneficial to my government in Italy to pay for years of chemo for someone instead of one vaccine?

~MFP


1) Because the powerful stay in power by saying that the cure is coming soon and the government is doing all it can on behalf of the people of such n such nation

2) Yup, you get the snot taxed out of you and get meat processing quality medical treatment, we have the same thing in the US military. And I also have a great many friends in others countries that back me when I say this, here is one now




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
1) As to your first item: please think outside of the United States borders. The government here in Italy changes about every 4 years, new political parties, new members, everything. The only people to ever really consolidate power in this country for more than 5 years were Caesar and Mussolini.

2) As to your second item: Italy and many other European countries have incredibly better health than America. We aren't as obese (rates are going up, but not anywhere near USA), we live longer, and have fewer cases of chronic disease. This is because we learn to live healthier, eat healthier, and thus don't need as much medical treatment. I'm sure Excitable would agree with me that if you take your vitamins, drink good water, and exercise, you may be able to go a few years without have to go to a doctor for anything other than a regular physical. Unlike America, we here in Europe don't go to the doctor when we have a running nose or a slight headache. This is why American's see social healthcare as so poor. They think "Oh my god, you might go to the doctor for the flu and have to wait three weeks to even get treatment!" Oddly enough, if you have the flu, rest for a week or so, get lots of fluids and vitamin C and zinc, it will usually go away on it's own. If it is an emergency case. you are treated immediately. If it's something that can wait, it waits.

Again, please think outside your borders.

~MFP


1) I thought I was doing that. Just because you government seats change it doesn't mean that the people fall out of power. I mean look att the way back to Gorbechev. He's like 900 years old yet retains a measure of status and power in Europe and he was from the eastern block. The people who retain power are not always the goobers who get the spotlight for ten seconds. Look closer to the measures they vote and follow the people who vote for big business and specifically medical big business.

2) Now here is a principle that follows. If you have more people going to the doctor does it mean you have less quality health care or does it mean that you have better health care? If it was bad people would go to Canada for more that pills. They have a EU tyope healthcare and no one is flocking over there. And just because we are fat (myself included) does not mean the health care system stinks. It does mean we are lazy and eat poorly. This is no reflection of the system itself, only that the system must find better ways of dealing with us obese monstrosities...lol.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   


Unlike America, we here in Europe don't go to the doctor when we have a running nose or a slight headache.


You don't have a clue. We don't go to the doctor for runny noses or headaches either. Although doctors would like us to so they could write more prescriptions = $$$$$

Like anywhere else bsl, we go to the doctor when we need to. We would just like good treatment when we need it and to be able to trust the doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies with our care...instead of worrying that they have hidden agendas and are only out to make money.

Your talking about colds and flu...we're talking about CANCER on this thread. Big difference wouldn't you agree? You should go into politics.....your ability to turn cancer into a cold would suit you well in politics!!



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Like anywhere else bsl, we go to the doctor when we need to. We would just like good treatment when we need it and to be able to trust the doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies with our care...instead of worrying that they have hidden agendas and are only out to make money.


Excitable, considering the sheer volume of patients in and out of American hospitals every year, I highly doubt everyone is there for a direly needed treatment.


Your talking about colds and flu...we're talking about CANCER on this thread. Big difference wouldn't you agree? You should go into politics.....your ability to turn cancer into a cold would suit you well in politics!!


Again with the word twisting. I wasn't referring to the disease in the topic, Excitable. I was referring to the inane reasons people go to the doctor's office. I think my little niece has better reading comprehension than you.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
This thread is about a potential CANCER breakthrough, not a pissing match for you two to have.

I guess it serves you better to argue than discuss logic 'doc'.


Enhoy that school, remember they are teaching you just enough to make you feel like you know everything in the world,
but not nearly enough for you to realize that we are all stupid.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Sigh, again, you ignore the original aggressor, deride my sarcasm, and then insult me with what you said yourself is a lack of knowledge. How intelligent. Also, I used plenty of logic trying to show how a system which is based on LOSING money would benefit from a cure, but you and excitable can't seem to unwrap the American flag from around yourselves and take your tinfoil hats off long enough to even read anyone else's posts. Well, at least it's comforting to know your actions won't effect anyone else in the world.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
ditto !

Are you finished prancing?

Other than your 'logic' and bad attitude ... you have contributed nothing to this thread.

Translational Therapeutics
Broccoli, Cabbage, Soy Found to Cut Cancer Risk



Good Job !



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I would have to chip in to support bsl here. You guys from the US really should look at how health systems all over the world before you start up with your "medical establishment/drs/big pharm suppress cures" type conspiracy. Although there might conceivably be some incentive for bumping up the price of healthcare in the US system - through providing more expensive treatments when cheap ones are available - we have the opposite incentive here in the UK.

The National Health Service (NHS) is completely funded through tax revenue, and will cost us about £80 billion this year alone. It is not a social insurance system and all the money comes directly from the Department of Health to the healthcare providers. That is a closed pot of money. The more that is spent on treatments (for example expensive cancer drugs) the less there would be left to spend on the wages of clinicians. We simply don't get that "they are not telling us about a cure to save their jobs" attitude here, as it makes no sense at all. Despite the massive funding we are very short of Drs and nurses, as well as all the supporting clinicians. Areas of the NHS runs out of money all the time, including lots of cancer departments. The accusations of conspiricy we get in the UK are that the NHS is suppressing (often very expensive) treatments for various diseases, not that it is encouraging the use of the them.

The great majority of clinicians and research scientists round the world don't work in a US style system, but for "not for profit" type organisations, such as the NHS or charities (yes of course the charities are suppressing miracle cancer "cures" as well
)



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
So, submersible, you now have an Italiane and a Briton telling you that outside fo the United States, your FDA has no control, the pharmaceutical companies work for the government, not the other way around, and that withholding a cure would adversely affect government cash flow, and yet you come back with "Nuh-uh" and no substance. Fantastic! I love your argument, especially considering you have not even been to the countries we're talking about, most likely. The difference is, I HAVE been to America. I spent two years of secondary school there and "job shadowed" a physician in a hospital. I got to see first hand how money drives the American medical practice, which is in stark contrast to most of the world. So, until you come visit my institution here in Firenze, please provide research or documentation for your claims.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Here's a real gem from my old files. Does anyone know the status of this lawsuit?



Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure. A worldwide disinformation campaign undertaken by these companies is said to have caused the death of millions of people. Their role in getting both Bush and Blair into power and in determining the policies of their respective administrations with respect to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is cited as evidence for a case made for violation of Human Rights.

This complaint is submitted to the International Criminal Court by Matthias Rath MD and others on behalf of the people of the world. The Hague, June 14, 2003.

Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide in the Hague





Originally posted by bsl4doc
So, submersible, you now have an Italiane and a Briton telling you that outside fo the United States, your FDA has no control, the pharmaceutical companies work for the government, not the other way around, and that withholding a cure would adversely affect government cash flow, and yet you come back with "Nuh-uh" and no substance. Fantastic! I love your argument, especially considering you have not even been to the countries we're talking about, most likely.





BSdoc once again issues opinion as factual decree, with insult, narrow visioned arrogance, and sublime ignorance. Please BSdoc, step down from your ivory tower for just a moment, and take a look at the world from the street: a perspective shared by the majority regardless of country of origin.

FYI - the rising costs of medical treatments are breaking budgets around the world, particularly in nations with socialized medicine. The preferred solution is to withhold new treatments, and also, to withhold the information that those treatments do, in fact, exist. You will note that most of the researchers quoted recommend early diagnosis and intervention to prevent disease progression and the inevitable array of costs associated with severe disease - these pleas remain unheard.




As a result of rapidly rising health care costs, employers, insurers, governmental entities, and other purchasers of health care services have continued to seek effective ways of measuring the quality, utilization, and cost of services provided to patients. One approach commonly used to analyze patterns of care is profiling. Profiling is defined as a measurement of the quality, utilization, and cost of medical resources provided by physicians that is made by employers, third-party payors, governmental entities, and other purchasers of health care.1 Clinical profiling measures a physician's style of practice using treatment modality, utilization of services, and outcomes of care. Economic profiling examines the financial dimensions of a physician's practice style, case mix, and demographic factors.2 Profiling has been identified as having three primary "appropriate" applications: quality improvement, utilization review, and assessment of provider performance.3 Use of profiling to restrict provider participation based solely on economic considerations is an unfortunate use of these data in many markets, especially when third-party payers control a large share.

Pediat ric Physician Profiling: Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine and Committee on Medical Liability

***

Elimination of fatal diseases--such as coronary heart disease, cancer, or chronic obstructive lung disease--increases healthcare costs. Major savings will be achieved only by elimination of non-fatal disease--such as musculoskeletal diseases and mental disorders. ...In countries with low mortality, elimination of fatal diseases by successful prevention increases healthcare spending because of the medical expenses during added life years.

Key messages
* In countries with low mortality prevention of fatal diseases adds life years predominantly to old age, when disabling conditions are prevalent
* If fatal diseases are eliminated, the medical costs of life extension at old age will generally be higher than the costs prevented. Prevention of disabling conditions, particularly mental disorders and musculoskeletal conditions, might both lower healthcare costs and improve public health
* The aim of prevention is to save people from preventable morbidity and mortality not to save money
* For the time being, prevention of disability should have the highest priority for future research

Preventing fatal diseases increases healthcare costs BMJ 1998;316:26-29 (3 January) Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands. PMID: 9451262

***

* There have been dire predictions that population ageing will result in skyrocketing health costs. However, numerous studies have shown that the effect of population ageing on health expenditure is likely to be small and manageable.
* Pessimism about population ageing is popular in policy debates because it fits with ideological positions that favour growth in the private sector and seek to contain health expenditure in the public sector. It might also distract attention from the need to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of current patterns of care.
* Pessimistic scenarios have stifled debate and limited the number of policy options considered. Policy making in Australia would be improved if we took a more realistic view of the effect of population ageing on health expenditure.

Ageing and healthcare costs in Australia: a case of policy-based evidence?


***

The increasing costs of health care, including new technologies and pharmaceuticals, pose challenges for all countries both in the developed and the developing world. ...The need for a greater understanding and transparency of the processes is essential in order for a well-informed public debate to occur about the challenges to the system and its sustainability.

The subsidy of pharmaceuticals in Australia: processes and challenges. Aust Health Rev. 2004 Nov 8;28(2):194-205. PMID: 15527399

Also see:
Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions
Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Jan;1(1):54-67. PMID: 10147039

***

Recognition is growing worldwide that chronic, non-communicable disorders (often, but not exclusively, associated with ageing) and hidden disability are acting in concert with burgeoning technologies to make healthcare more expensive. As communicable diseases are controlled, and social and economic conditions develop to support longer life expectancy, the challenge of preventing and managing chronic disease grows greater. A recent report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare confirms that Australia is facing an increasing economic and social burden because of chronic diseases and their associated risk factors.1 Twelve chronic diseases and conditions accounted for an estimated 42% of the total disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost in Australia in 1996, and all such diseases and conditions accounted for about 80% of DALYs.2

Australia confronts the challenge of chronic disease

***

Growth in prescription drug costs since 1996 has set a new record. Not since World War II has drug spending escalated so rapidly for such a prolonged period. The latest figures published by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) show that prescription-only medicines cost $18 billion in 2004. Growing at a pace of over $1.5 billion per year, prescription costs have sailed well past the payments for all services provided by physicians ($16 billion). Given that the annual increase in prescription drug costs could finance the services of 3500 new physicians every year, patterns of drug utilization and spending deserve careful scrutiny.

May 10, 2005; Canadian prescription drug costs surpass $18 billion

***

Upwardly spiralling medical costs across Europe as well as the unique burden associated with managing diseases have sensitized health care decision-makers worldwide in both the private and the public sector to the problems of scarce resources and competing interventions. ...Three analyses were conducted considering the public, the private sectors and a mixture of them (currently representing the Italian situation).

Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod. 1999 Apr;14(4):953-8. PMID: 10221226

Also see: Economic and biological costs of cardiac imaging CNR, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, Italy. Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2005, 3:13

***

Significant amounts of scarce resources are devoted to medical research, but there have been few attempts to assess whether the benefits to society of these investments exceed the costs.

Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research Soc Sci Med. 1992 May;34(9):973-81.

***

Since 1 July 2002, a legal basis has existed for the drawing up of contracts between physicians and health insurance companies, allowing for the structured treatment of diseases [disease management programmes (DMPs)] for common and economically relevant diseases [1]. DMPs give structured directives to the physician on how to deal with defined medical situations and provide minimum standards for target parameters.

...The ultimate aim is to promote competition between healthcare providers and to make medicine more economical. The first two diseases selected for this purpose were type 2 diabetes mellitus and carcinoma of the breast, to be followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease and others.

These medical problems are prevalent in all European countries and apart from healthcare considerations, there are other factors, i.e. demographic developments and medical innovation, that cause progressive increases in healthcare costs.

We come to the conclusion that improved treatment of common chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease, are necessary, not only from the perspective of patient care, but also because of constraints imposed by national economics. DMPs, in principle, could be a suitable instrument to reach this goal. Physicians in Europe, not only in Germany, must be aware of the fact that DMPs will lead to fundamental changes in medical practice. Editor’s note: With progressive harmonization of European health policies, developments in one country are of interest to physicians in all European countries. It was with this in mind that the editorial office felt it useful to keep clinical nephrologists in Europe informed about recent developments in Germany.

Disease management programmes: reorganization of healthcare delivery in Germany.

***

These cost data are essential to create models of diabetes that are able to accurately simulate the cumulative costs associated with the progression of the disease and its complications.

Review of the Cost of Diabetes Complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain

***

GOALS: To estimate the costs associated with the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and its sequelae in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom from the perspective of the healthcare payer. RESULTS: The average cost by disease state for each European country was found to increase across the identified disease states reflecting disease progression. CONCLUSION: ...The association of disease progression with increased cost of disease management suggests that measures to prevent or delay its progression would be economically beneficial.

Hepatitis B management costs in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004 Nov-Dec;38(10 Suppl):S169-74. PMID: 15602166

***

Metastatic, or advanced, breast cancer is a chronic disease ...it increases the awareness of the economic costs...

Treatment of advanced breast cancer Ann Oncol. 2005 Aug;16(8):1219-21. Epub 2005 May 13. PMID: 15894547

***






The following study was conducted in the USA, but the same results are equally likely to be found in socialized systems.





AP - WASHINGTON, July 8 - Nearly one in three doctors reports withholding information from patients about useful medical services that aren’t covered by their health insurance companies, and the number may be on the rise, a study reports. Study authors say their work offers the first empirical evidence for what many have long suspected: that coverage limitations imposed by managed care are infiltrating doctor-patient communications.

The results harken back to several years ago, when some managed care companies barred doctors from discussing medical options not covered by the health plan. Public outcry persuaded most companies to drop those rules, known as “gag clauses,” and many states banned them from contracts. ...The study found that doctors whose own salaries are closely tied to controlling costs were more likely than other doctors to report withholding information. ...In addition, those who serve a large number of Medicaid patients were more likely to stay silent, as were those who believed patients might want them to deceive their insurance companies to get services covered.

Study: 1 in 3 doctors hides options; Said to hold information from patients on treatment choices





The simple fact is, poor people cannot access the same health care options and medical treatments rich people can afford - with or without socialized medicine. This British study outlines some of the long term implications of these economic inequities:



The chronic illnesses of old age strike manual workers up to two decades before their better-paid managers, say University College London researchers. The finding reinforces the link between income and long-term health.

The English Longitudinal Study on Ageing, found a third of manual workers aged 50 to 59 reported a long-standing illness. …Bosses only started suffering similar illnesses in the same numbers after the age of 75. …Leading the study was Professor Sir Michael Marmot, head of the International Centre for Health and Society at UCL, and focused on a group of more than 12,000 people. …The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Centre for Social Research also contributed to the project. …It monitored the health of the group over a period of more than two decades.

Professor Hilary Graham, an expert in social policy from the University of Lancaster, told BBC News Online that there was hope that this health gap could be narrowed. …She said: "A lot of people think there is nothing that can be done about these inequalities. "However, we know what can be achieved because of the high levels of health of the bosses, who are working in the same industry - we can look at what advantages they have got and make them more widely available. One of these could be better working conditions.” …She said that the move from manufacturing towards service industry jobs would not necessarily mean better health, as some research suggested that workers who had less control over their working lives were more prone to chronic illness.

Ageing hits workers before bosses





submersible - I just found this filed in an old folder. No link or notes, sorry - but it may be worth a follow up.



Another fact worthy of considering is that today the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Merck Fund, whose parent companies were previous partners with Hitler, are leading funding sources for world 'depopulation.' A gift wrapped form of genocide, and a continuation of their early eugenics efforts, today their work is positively heralded and allegedly needed for 'population control.'

It is well known that the Rockefeller family also established a virtual monopoly over the American medical and pharmaceutical industries as early as the 1920s. ...The Rockefeller led eugenics effort began the study of human genetics. Rockefeller funded research focused on the genetic predispositions for cancer and other diseases between various races of people. In 1928, the Rockefeller family fortune then built the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity in pre-Nazi Germany. This institute gave rise to the majority of Hitler's top racial hygienists, including Ernst Rudin. Rudin later directed Hitler's 'Racial Hygiene Society.'

Rockefeller family was heavily invested in a partnership with Hitler's Third Reich. Germany's leading industrial organization during World War II was IG Farben.With the help of the Dulles brothers, and their Wall Street law firm- Sullivan and Cromwell- John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company secured the patent rights over the synthetic oil and rubber the holocaust victims were about to produce. ...Merck pharmaceutical company. Astonishingly, this company received a major share of the Nazi war chest near the close of WWII. At that time, the company's president, George W. Merck, was America's biological weapons industry director. He had been personally appointed by President Roosevelt and Secretary of War Stimson




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

FYI - the rising costs of medical treatments are breaking budgets around the world, particularly in nations with socialized medicine. The preferred solution is to withhold new treatments, and also, to withhold the information that those treatments do, in fact, exist. You will note that most of the researchers quoted recommend early diagnosis and intervention to prevent disease progression and the inevitable array of costs associated with severe disease - these pleas remain unheard.


Soficrow, I am tremendously sorry you cannot grasp the fact that we were discussing the with holding of a CURE, not a TREATMENT. We were debating whether a government, presumably the USA government, would keep this cure secret so pharma companies can make money off of repetitive treatment instead of one shot cure, which would cost less. Now, I'm assuming you know the difference between a social health care system and a private health care system, so can you explain to me how I, as a doctor, would make more money in a socialized system by having someone get many many chemo treatments instead of one vaccine? Or how would the government reap benefits from this? Thanks in advance for any ridicule, jeers, or sheer ignorance you will spew in the ensuing post.

~MFP

[edit on 2/27/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

FYI - the rising costs of medical treatments are breaking budgets around the world, particularly in nations with socialized medicine. The preferred solution is to withhold new treatments, and also, to withhold the information that those treatments do, in fact, exist. You will note that most of the researchers quoted recommend early diagnosis and intervention to prevent disease progression and the inevitable array of costs associated with severe disease - these pleas remain unheard.


Soficrow, I am tremendously sorry you cannot grasp the fact that we were discussing the with holding of a CURE, not a TREATMENT.




Please review the references BSdoc - the picture is valid. Especially note the ones that refer to cures, ie.:




Elimination of fatal diseases--such as coronary heart disease, cancer, or chronic obstructive lung disease--increases healthcare costs. ...elimination of fatal diseases by successful prevention increases healthcare spending because of the medical expenses during added life years.

Preventing fatal diseases increases healthcare costs BMJ 1998;316:26-29 (3 January) Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands. PMID: 9451262






... Thanks in advance for any ridicule, jeers, or sheer ignorance you will spew in the ensuing post.




I do not indulge in juvenile behaviour, or even spend much time stoking or stroking my own ego. You are the one here who consistently breaks the T&C's in this regard, and "ridicules, jeers and spews" in "sheer ignorance."

I am sorry that your life is so unsatisfactory that you find it necessary to treat others with such disrespect - but I certainly recommend your seeking professional help over dumping your pain into message boards, and onto innocent bystanders.

Also, considering your ambitions to become a doctor, PLEASE take care of your anger before you have authority over sick and vulnerable people. I find the potential for abuse truly frightening.




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   


Also, considering your ambitions to become a doctor, PLEASE take care of your anger before you have authority over sick and vulnerable people. I find the potential for abuse truly frightening.


I find your ethnocentricity and paranoia truly frightening, as well.

The reason I've been hostile is because it KILLS me when you people, especially submersible, act like "well, if it applies in America, it MUST apply everywhere else." Despite the fact that two citizens of European nations attempted to explain OUR OWN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, we were told we were wrong, had no idea how our own nation's medical systems worked, and were being duped. Now, given the fact that you and submersible most likely have little to no experience in the Italian or British medical systems either as employees or patients, how does that give you, as Americans, authority to tell me and the other poster that we don't understand our own medical systems? All you and submerisible have done is reinforce the idea that your nation is full of imperialist ethnocentrists who feel the need to impose their opinions, faiths, values, and habits on all other people despite what those other people say. I mean, mio dio, you people are even selling your own PORTS to the countries who helped strike New York City!

Ugh! It just kills me to see people act like this, and I apologize for the massively off topic post.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc


Also, considering your ambitions to become a doctor, PLEASE take care of your anger before you have authority over sick and vulnerable people. I find the potential for abuse truly frightening.


I find your ethnocentricity and paranoia truly frightening, as well.

The reason I've been hostile is because it KILLS me when you people, ...act like "well, if it applies in America, it MUST apply everywhere else."

...Now, given the fact that you and submersible most likely have little to no experience in the Italian or British medical systems either as employees or patients, how does that give you, as Americans, authority to tell me and the other poster that we don't understand our own medical systems?

Ugh! It just kills me to see people act like this,




I have a dual Canadian-American citizenship. I live in Canada, and am very familiar with Canada's socialized healthcare system. In addition, I communicate with people around the world about their healthcare and medical systems. I also do a great deal of research on health care systems, health policies and medical practices around the world.

Again, I strongly recommend that you deal with your anger and tendencies to make greatly erroneous assumptions. These inclinations will interfere with your ability to become a good doctor.


.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

In addition, I communicate with people around the world about their healthcare and medical systems. I also do a great deal of research on health care systems, health policies and medical practices around the world.


Riiiight. And I would hope you realize, then, that Canada's system is vastly different than the other European systems. You still have yet to explain how a truly socialized system would benefit more from multiple expensive chemo treatments instead of a single, cheap cure. Explain, please, since you know OH so much about my medical system.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
BSdoc - Please feel free to post references to support your claims. Most everyone here substantiates their work - yet you, the purported professional, do not. You fall back to insult and spurious attack.

Please, stop hijacking good threads to push your opinions and feed your ego. Let's see some links.


BTW - Canada is not in Europe.


last line

[edit on 27-2-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

BSdoc - Please feel free to post references to support your claims. Most everyone here substantiates their work - yet you, the purported professional, do not. You fall back to insult and spurious attack.

Please, stop hijacking good threads to push your opinions and feed your ego. Let's see some links.


BTW - Canada is not in Europe.


yes, I realize Canada is not in Europe. You jumped on this thread AFTER we began disussing why this conspiracy theory would not work due to the type of health care in Europe. You then presented frivolous studies dealing with USA and Canada. If you would look back a page or two, I DID present studies, which everyone seemed to ignore.
~MFP



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

BSdoc - Please feel free to post references to support your claims. Most everyone here substantiates their work - yet you, the purported professional, do not. You fall back to insult and spurious attack.

Please, stop hijacking good threads to push your opinions and feed your ego. Let's see some links.

BTW - Canada is not in Europe.


You jumped on this thread AFTER we began disussing why this conspiracy theory would not work due to the type of health care in Europe.




Excuse me?

I monitored this thread from the beginning - jumped in when you pulled your standard hijack and abuse'em act - and I have posts on nearly every page.




You then presented frivolous studies dealing with USA and Canada.




Excuse me? You clearly did not read the posts. Several nations including Italy are represented. For example:




Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure. A worldwide disinformation campaign undertaken by these companies is said to have caused the death of millions of people.

This complaint is submitted to the International Criminal Court by Matthias Rath MD and others on behalf of the people of the world. The Hague, June 14, 2003.

Pharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide in the Hague

***

Elimination of fatal diseases--such as coronary heart disease, cancer, or chronic obstructive lung disease--increases healthcare costs. ...In countries with low mortality, elimination of fatal diseases by successful prevention increases healthcare spending because of the medical expenses during added life years.

Preventing fatal diseases increases healthcare costs BMJ 1998;316:26-29 (3 January) Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands. PMID: 9451262

***

* There have been dire predictions that population ageing will result in skyrocketing health costs. However, numerous studies have shown that the effect of population ageing on health expenditure is likely to be small and manageable.
* Pessimism about population ageing is popular in policy debates because it fits with ideological positions that favour growth in the private sector and seek to contain health expenditure in the public sector. It might also distract attention from the need to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of current patterns of care.
* Pessimistic scenarios have stifled debate and limited the number of policy options considered. Policy making in Australia would be improved if we took a more realistic view of the effect of population ageing on health expenditure.

Ageing and healthcare costs in Australia: a case of policy-based evidence?

***


Upwardly spiralling medical costs across Europe as well as the unique burden associated with managing diseases have sensitized health care decision-makers worldwide in both the private and the public sector to the problems of scarce resources and competing interventions. ...Three analyses were conducted considering the public, the private sectors and a mixture of them (currently representing the Italian situation).

Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod. 1999 Apr;14(4):953-8. PMID: 10221226

Also see: Economic and biological costs of cardiac imaging CNR, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, Italy. Cardiovascular Ultrasound 2005, 3:13

***


Since 1 July 2002, a legal basis has existed for the drawing up of contracts between physicians and health insurance companies, allowing for the structured treatment of diseases [disease management programmes (DMPs)] for common and economically relevant diseases [1]. DMPs give structured directives to the physician on how to deal with defined medical situations and provide minimum standards for target parameters.

...The ultimate aim is to promote competition between healthcare providers and to make medicine more economical. The first two diseases selected for this purpose were type 2 diabetes mellitus and carcinoma of the breast, to be followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease and others.

These medical problems are prevalent in all European countries and apart from healthcare considerations, there are other factors, i.e. demographic developments and medical innovation, that cause progressive increases in healthcare costs.

We come to the conclusion that improved treatment of common chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease, are necessary, not only from the perspective of patient care, but also because of constraints imposed by national economics. DMPs, in principle, could be a suitable instrument to reach this goal. Physicians in Europe, not only in Germany, must be aware of the fact that DMPs will lead to fundamental changes in medical practice. Editor’s note: With progressive harmonization of European health policies, developments in one country are of interest to physicians in all European countries. It was with this in mind that the editorial office felt it useful to keep clinical nephrologists in Europe informed about recent developments in Germany.

Disease management programmes: reorganization of healthcare delivery in Germany.

***

These cost data are essential to create models of diabetes that are able to accurately simulate the cumulative costs associated with the progression of the disease and its complications.

Review of the Cost of Diabetes Complications in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain

***

GOALS: To estimate the costs associated with the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and its sequelae in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom from the perspective of the healthcare payer. RESULTS: The average cost by disease state for each European country was found to increase across the identified disease states reflecting disease progression. CONCLUSION: ...The association of disease progression with increased cost of disease management suggests that measures to prevent or delay its progression would be economically beneficial.

Hepatitis B management costs in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2004 Nov-Dec;38(10 Suppl):S169-74. PMID: 15602166

***

The chronic illnesses of old age strike manual workers up to two decades before their better-paid managers, say University College London researchers. The finding reinforces the link between income and long-term health.

The English Longitudinal Study on Ageing, found a third of manual workers aged 50 to 59 reported a long-standing illness. …Bosses only started suffering similar illnesses in the same numbers after the age of 75. …Leading the study was Professor Sir Michael Marmot, head of the International Centre for Health and Society at UCL, and focused on a group of more than 12,000 people. …The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Centre for Social Research also contributed to the project. …It monitored the health of the group over a period of more than two decades.

Professor Hilary Graham, an expert in social policy from the University of Lancaster, told BBC News Online that there was hope that this health gap could be narrowed. …She said: "A lot of people think there is nothing that can be done about these inequalities. "However, we know what can be achieved because of the high levels of health of the bosses, who are working in the same industry - we can look at what advantages they have got and make them more widely available. One of these could be better working conditions.” …She said that the move from manufacturing towards service industry jobs would not necessarily mean better health, as some research suggested that workers who had less control over their working lives were more prone to chronic illness.

Ageing hits workers before bosses







If you would look back a page or two, I DID present studies, which everyone seemed to ignore.
~MFP


You posted links to 4 vaccine promotions from pharmaceutical giants doing "studies" in Italy.

You insult, berate, sling mounds of bull puckey and do not EVER substantiate your claims - on this or other threads. Yet you call yourself a student? Of medicine?

Puhleeze.






after thoughts

[edit on 27-2-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
soficrow - you have pasted some interesting links but little in the way of coherent argument. What is your point exactly?? Have you got any specific conspiracy you are trying to point out?

I've worked as a manager in the UK's National Health Service for over 8 years now and I can tell you that the system has no incentives built into it for Drs to bump up health costs; quite the opposite in fact. Departments have set budgets with which they need to see as many patients as possible as they also have government set waiting list target which they are under constant pressure to hit.

We are in the process of setting up a, in my opinion, flawed Payment by Results system which will mean healthcare providers get paid for each patient they see, and for what treatments they carry out. This will undoubtedly mean there will be a certain amount of "gaming" as departments as they try to maximise their income. However Drs and managers are still paid a salary at nationally agreed set rates and so will not be trying to personally enrich themselves.

The budget holders, Primary Care Trusts (not insurance companies!), will be encouraging hospitals to reduce their costs all the time - so if an easy one off treatment for a disease is available, rather than expensive long term care, the hospitals will be forced to use the one off treatment, or they simply won't get paid. The fact is that Drs here would in 99.9% of cases give the patient the best care they possibly could within the budget anyway, as that is all their decades of training is about.

I'm not saying that the NHS is perfect, it's a long way from it (mainly due to the interfering of our idiotic government). However it should be clear that the type of conspiracy people are alluding to here doesn't happen in our system.

Surely even in the US the insurance companies would force healthcare providers to provide the cheapest, quickest treatment for a condition? If an easy "cure" was available for a disease then surely the company would not pay up for long term treatment, even if the Drs tried to prescribe the long term treatment?




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join