What should be cut?

[Long Run]

Turning next to your misunderstanding as you claim about my FDA section. The US and the US alone has an agency on the scale of the FDA and the approvals process for medicines. IS the FDA or its requirements foolproof? No. Take for example the antidepresant nafazodone (trade name serzone) which you and the hen took for years. IT was discovered to cause liver damage even after its testing protocols and hence banned/withdrawn in the US in 2003. It took your country a YEAR to follow suit. A YEAR. Even friggin Canada got on board FIRST and they are pretty much idiots. Of course the fact that your govt allowed bristol meyers to sell it discounted to save money on the prescription benefit service or whatever you call it is irrelevant right?

Serzone is still legal in the U.S. The original manufacturer dropped it, but generics are available. The risk of liver damage is extremely small (1 in 250,000), but enough of a risk, given the jury system that regularly dismisses informed consent as a defense, that most doctors and pharmas don't want to touch it. Of course, some of the other drugs that are used for the same or similar symptoms have similar side effects (including possible liver damage). I agree with the general point that the FDA generally does a pretty good job for us though it can be too slow at times in allowing experimental drugs to come to market for certain types of cases (I don't have any opinion about how the FDA stacks up to other developed countries' regulatory bodies).

[Gob]

So having embarrassed himself by not realising that "productivity" when referring to medical research means "producing new drugs/treatments/procedures", and that Europe leads the US in it, Quadiot then tries to divert attention.

Lets see now?

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but people come here.

Can anyone decode that? Is the retarded fuckwit REALLY saying that there is no treatment for cancer, so people go to the US?

Funny that, I'm sure there are treatments, and cures for certain cancers. Quadiot probably hasn't heard of them as he has his head up his arse.

surgery to remove cancer cells
chemotherapy - using drugs to fight cancer cells
radiotherapy - using radiation to fight cancer cells
targeted therapy - a new treatment, which attacks just cancer cells
immunotherapy - helping the immune system fight cancer
hormone therapy - reducing cancer-growth-promoting hormones.

But lets move on. Could the higher incidence of cancer in the US be due to a lack of such global screening programs, free at the point of delivery, that all first world countries have, the US excluded?

Such as these in Australia or these in the UK early detection and treatment are the best ways of reducing the impact of cancer on a population.

WE have a gross excess of high tech medical diagnostic equipment in this nation. IF it costs a ton and that drives up the apparent cost of 'medicine' here, that is an entirely different argument. Suffice to say, we have it, we have a shitload of it, so much that we are able to load it into trucks and visit every small town no matter how far tucked away.

Having a gross excess of something is not a good thing, it distorts provision, and takes away from other services. Also, what is the point of having scanners if you do not have the insurance to get treatment?

The nations examined spend a median of $2,193 per capita on health care;

The United States spent $5,267 per capita for prescription drugs, hospital stays and physicians visits in 2002, compared with $3,446 per capita for Switzerland, the next highest spender;

Health care spending accounted for 14.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2002, a time when only two other nations -- Switzerland and Germany -- spent more than 10% of their GDP on health care;

The United States has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, compared with a median of 3.7 beds per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined;

The United States had 2.4 physicians per 1,000 residents in 2001, compared with a median of 3.1 physicians per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;

The United States had 7.9 nurses per 1,000 residents in the United States in 2001, compared with a median of 8.9 nurses per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;

The United States has 12.8 CT scanners per one million U.S. residents, compared with a median of 13.3 scanners per one million residents among the other nations examined;

The United States appears to have more magnetic resonance imaging machines per capita than many of the other nations examined, but the machines are used only 10 hours daily in the United States, compared with a median of 18 hours daily in other nations; and

The average medical malpractice payment, which included both settlements and judgments, was $265,103 in the United States in 2001, compared with $309,417 in Canada and $411,171 in Britain.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/27348.php

our life expectancy is not due to bad doctors hospitals or drugs, but rather "lack of" for our soon-not-to-be-a-minority immigrant population and our life choices: in the US we have firearm ownership, prolific automobile ownership (the top 2 causes of early death by far), recreational vehicle ownership such as boats, motorcylces (including very large displacement ones) aircraft, ultra light aircraft, as well as dangerous hobbies.

yadda yadda yadda, another one who shots his mouth off without checking his facts...

The 15 leading causes of death in 2007 were:
1.Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2.Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3.Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4.Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5.Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6.Alzheimer’s disease
7.Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8.Influenza and pneumonia
9.Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10.Septicemia
11.Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12.Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13.Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14.Parkinson’s disease
15.Assault (homicide)

MVA comes in around number 18. So wrong again. The leading causes of death in the US are all health related, odd?

If we dont live very long in the US it is because we make a conscious effort not to and the staff at rampart general has nothing to do with it

So, Americans are all fatalistic and do not want to live long? I'll await my American chums verdict on that.

Take for example the antidepresant nafazodone (trade name serzone) which you and the hen took for years.

LOL!! Suicidal Quaddy, the man who doesn't want to live long, thinks we take anti-depressants?

Two independent groups have recently examined adverse event databases (Health Canada and WHO). Of the seven serotonin reuptake inhibitors looked at in the WHO database and the nine looked at in the Canadian database, only Serzone was associated with an increased risk for serious hepatic injury. Based on this increased risk of hepatic injury, Canada has now joined Europe and Scandinavia in deciding to remove Serzone from the market.

"Once again, the United States is lagging behind other countries in drug safety. Any delay by the FDA in removing this drug from the market will cause more patients to be injured or killed," Wolfe said.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Barbehenn, Ph.D.
Research Analyst

Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H.
Deputy Director

Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D.
Director
Public Citizen’s Health Research Group

Australia withdrew Serzone (nefazodone, check the spelling on your packet Quaddy) while the FDA still had a "black box" warning on it.

Serzone is no longer sold in Europe or Canada. Bristol–Myers Squibb will withdraw the drug from Australia and New Zealand markets by the end of May. In the United States, an FDA black box on the package insert for Serzone warns about the risk of liver failure. The company literature ... admits that the rate of liver failure resulting in death or transplant in Serzone users is about three to four times the level of liver failure in those not taking the drug. Neither the black box warning or the company literature goes far enough to protect patients from Serzone, according to Public Citizen. “The FDA has a legal responsibility to protect the public from unsafe drugs, and it is shirking that duty,” said Michael Kirkpatrick, the author of the Public Citizen complaint.

So wrong wrong wrong again...

I could go on, but I'm feeling guilty over beating up on someone so stupid.

[quaddriver]

once again Gob posts gibberish.

first off, and I am shocked no one pointed this out: WTF does a leading cause of death have to do with life expectancy? I dont mind you arguing any side of an argument, but if you could leave the goal posts intact.

A life expectancy average, for the australians to understand is....an AVERAGE.

Did someone die? how old were they? add it up, divide. post the data.

A cause of death is only interesting if it fucks with the average, when the topic is in fact, life expectancy.

In the US:

In 2007 in the United States, injuries, including all causes of unintentional and violence-related injuries combined, accounted for 51% of all deaths among persons ages 1-44 years of age – that is more deaths than non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases combined

interesting, as I stated in my previous post and now this one, 'violence' or injury of some sort (I listed gunshot and MVA as being the leaders among our young) is the leading cause of death period, and by a large margin over diseases. I asked previously, how many people must live to 80, to balance out one person dying at 16.

If you had bothered to read the link I previously gave, you would find that gunshot deaths among those UNDER the average life expectancy, outweigh by over an order of magnitude the same in ALL of europe. Given that the US life expenctancy is lower but not THAT much lower, but at the same time the leading cause of death for the lower aged half of the us population is indeed such violence, it wont be hard to show that for a heart disease ONLY, or a cancer ONLY, the average US citizen lives LONGER. which of course was proven in my previous post. In order for 'scholars' from Australia to have an argument, they need to include car wrecks in order to make a 'life expectancy case' about the quality of healthcare in the US.

In 2000 well over a third of all deaths in the United States could be attributed to a limited number of largely preventable behaviors and exposures--smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity and alcohol consumption

1-4 years:

•Accidents
•Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
•Cancer
5-14 years:

•Accidents
•Cancer
•Homicide
15-24 years:

•Accidents
•Homicide
•Suicide
There are almost twice as many deaths in the first year of life than there are in the next 13 years total. Then, the death rate rises rapidly following puberty because of the large number of deadly accidents, homicides, and suicides in the 15-24 year age group. These three causes of death in teens should all be preventable.

Conclusion - you have lost the argument as your position could not be backed up. And note, not one of these factoids has any relationship to the medical facility, staff, equipment or drugs. Thereby destroying your entire premise.

WE spend the most, because we have the most.

WE have the best - period.

We and we alone cure and or fix things no other place on earth can.

Get used to it. AS proven earlier, no one on the planet travels to a single other country for treatment EXCEPT the USA for advanced treatment. we do not ration it - although you would like us to. We do not have death panels - although you would like us to

Furthermore this statement:

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but people come here.

Is clearly in error as I typed it, it should read:

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but here and therefore people come here.

My bad due to lack of proofreading. But if interpreting it as you did is the BEST you can do? No wonder you lag. But then again in another not so distant post you insisted and clung to the claim that most women suffer debilitating depression as the result of pregnancy.

[Gob]

So having embarrassed himself by not realising that "productivity" when referring to medical research means "producing new drugs/treatments/procedures", and that Europe leads the US in it, and further compounding this by stating that there is no cure for cancer, Quadiot again tries to divert attention.

Further embarrassing himself Quadiot stated;

our life expectancy is not due to bad doctors hospitals or drugs, but rather "lack of" for our soon-not-to-be-a-minority immigrant population and our life choices: in the US we have firearm ownership, prolific automobile ownership (the top 2 causes of early death by far), recreational vehicle ownership such as boats, motorcylces (including very large displacement ones) aircraft, ultra light aircraft, as well as dangerous hobbies.

Giving us the causes of death which he thinks make Americans die younger, then asks..

WTF does a leading cause of death have to do with life expectancy? I dont mind you arguing any side of an argument, but if you could leave the goal posts intact.

Can you believe that he would do that, give us reasons why he thinks Americans have lower life expectancy, then ask us what the hell that has to do with it?

Must be due to Americans wanting to die younger, as he states.

In 2000 well over a third of all deaths in the United States could be attributed to a limited number of largely preventable behaviors and exposures--smoking, poor diet and physical inactivity and alcohol consumption

Yep, that is why our having universal healthcare available in all first world countries, except the USA, is effective and better able to reduce these than the; "pay my insurance, and if I'm lucky, the insurance company will not deny me treatment," stupidity, you have. So thanks for yet again proving my point for me, dumbass.

Furthermore this statement:

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but people come here.

Is clearly in error as I typed it, it should read:

That being said, do you think that since there is essentially no treatment for cancer ANYWHERE on the planet for cancer but here and therefore people come here.

Quadiot still thinks that there is no cure for cancer anywhere in the world but for the US! Wow! Not surprisingly, he still cannot construct a sentence.

WE spend the most, because we have the most.

WE have the best - period.

We and we alone cure and or fix things no other place on earth can.

Get used to it. AS proven earlier, no one on the planet travels to a single other country for treatment EXCEPT the USA for advanced treatment. we do not ration it - although you would like us to. We do not have death panels - although you would like us to

Well not being a stupid child, or drunk, as you are, I would never deny, nor have I ever denied, that the US has some of the best and most advanced treatment available. However that is not what we were discussing, until you came along like a spoilt child and started your stupidity that is, it is a strawman of your making Quaddiot.

But what about treatment for the general populace?

The number of people heading abroad for "medical tourism" could jump tenfold in the next decade, to nearly 16 million Americans a year seeking cheaper knee and hip replacements, nose jobs, prostate and shoulder surgery, and even heart bypasses, according to a forecast by health care consultants at the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

Meanwhile, the number of retail clinics operating in pharmacies, big-box and discount stores and supermarkets has jumped from about 200 in 2006 to nearly 1,000 last month, according to a second report from the Deloitte center.

While growth is slowing and some early players funded by venture capitalists have folded or been bought out, major retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark Corp. and Walgreen Co. have announced plans to open hundreds more clinics in their stores in the next few years.

The two reports show potential big savings for U.S. consumers - and probably their health insurers - would come at the cost of American hospitals and doctors losing billions of dollars a year in revenue.

"Significant numbers of people are willing to vote with their feet to try something different, whether it's retail clinics or medical tourism," said Paul Keckley, the center's executive director. "U.S. providers are having to pay attention."

He cites patient dissatisfaction with high costs, long waits in the doctor's office or to get a procedure, and reports about errors and quality problems in U.S. health facilities as fueling both trends.

Surgery in some of the countries that have become hubs for medical tourism, from Thailand and Singapore to Mexico and Brazil, can cost less than half the U.S. price, even when including outlays for airfare, hotel and meals abroad. In a few cases, procedures overseas can cost one-tenth as much, Keckley said.

Many of these countries actively market their programs in wealthier nations and have new, 21st-century hospitals. Most of their physicians are trained in the United States and know all the latest techniques, according to Keckley and Michael Taylor, a global health consultant at Towers Perrin.

About 750,000 Americans headed abroad for major health care last year and an estimated 1.5 million will do so this year, according to the report.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1U1Rl4Qxd

[quaddriver]

So thats it? you realized your error in listing causes of death during a life expectency discussion that THAT is how you are going to cover your tracks?

And the thing about 'medical tourism' and US people going to 3rd world nations for elective surguries...that has what to do with advanced treatments?

Didnt think so.

[The Hen]

Take for example the antidepresant nafazodone (trade name serzone) which you and the hen took for years.

LOL!! Suicidal Quaddy, the man who doesn't want to live long, thinks we take anti-depressants?

Good grief. The 'man' is a moron who speaks through his arse. I am so glad I don't read his dribblings and spittle any more.

Though I must admit, I was probably taking those drugs for the same amount of time that quaddy was fiddling with the private parts of small children. I do hope he stops that sometime soon.

[Grim Reaper]

My bad due to lack of proofreading. But if interpreting it as you did is the BEST you can do? No wonder you lag. But then again in another not so distant post you insisted and clung to the claim that most women suffer debilitating depression as the result of pregnancy.

Considering the rest of the barely legible tripe you spew? Yes, that is a pretty good interpretation.

And good work bringing up something completely wrong and irrelevant in an blatant display of ad hominem attack. But rational discourse is beyond you as has been evidenced by the countless lies and xenophobic rants on display in this very thread.

You can't refute what I've said. You can't even begin to argue against what I've said. All you can do is babble irrelevant garbage and spew hatred and lies against other countries. You're a pathetic example of an American.

And your clarified response is still wrong as people don't come here for cancer treatment because of a lack of it elsewhere. Just pure garbage being spewed again.

Hmm, Steve Jobs traveled to Switzerland for his cancer treatment. When did we make the Swiss part of the US? I don't seem to remember adding a 51st state any time recently.

[Gob]

So thats[sic] it? you realized your error in listing causes of death during a life expectency[sic] discussion that THAT is how you are going to cover your tracks?

You erroneously introduced causes of death into life expectancy, when the debate was on the relative expense and efficacy of your government of health services. Please, don't blame me for making you look foolish, yet again.

And the thing about 'medical tourism' and US people going to 3rd world nations for elective surguries[sic]...that has what to do with advanced treatments?

Didnt[sic] think so.

What good is an advance treatment if it is denied to you? Can anyone in the US access these advance treatments?

If you had stuck to the topic, instead of introducing the strawmen which you have, you wouldn't be sat there with egg on your face, and it would have saved you from posting your incomprehensible gibberish.

Here is the point again. The US government is is deep financial shit, one way of cutting costs (and increasing the productivity of the workforce by giving them access to free at the point of delivery health care,) would be to initiate a first world country style health service.

Discuss.


PS. [sic] normally indicates "as in the original text", though in this case it could equal stand for "quaddy's at the bottle again."

[Scooter]

From Grim's link:

“York told me about the treatment, which was not available in the U.S., in the context of our discussions about Jobs, his health and Apple’s future.

I guess if you're not as rich as Steve Jobs, and you get this kind of cancer, you die.

But, hey, best health care in the world, right?

[Liberty1]

The death rate/life expectancy in the US has much more to do with lifestyle than healthcare.

[Scooter]

And why do Americans have such crappy lifestyles? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with a lack of access to preventative health care to give them the awareness and the means to correct it. Or could it...

[Long Run]

People choose to lead unhealthy lifestyles, mainly eat too much, smoke, drink too much, don't exercise. That's about it. Everyone knows those are not good for you, but for whatever cultural reason, we have too many people in our country who make those bad choices. It is not a lack of preventative healthcare since everyone knows those things are bad for a human being.

[Scooter]

People who have regular access to health care can be made aware of the effect their "unhealthy choices" is having on them. People who have regular access to health care can be equipped with tools to help them make different choices and/or manage their health in spite of those choices. It would allow problems to be detected earlier and dealt with before they become life threatening.

To believe was you are saying would mean that preventive health care doesn't prevent anything, is therefore a complete waste of money, and that all disease should be dealt with reactively.

[Liberty1]

People know they are "unhealthy choices", but it's still a choice they make.

My father in law had to have 2 neck arteries cleaned out in the early 90s, he was told to be on a specific diet. His response, he'd rather die than not eat what he wants. He wasn't really overweight, just bad diet and hard livin.

It's unbelievable in what you see in certain parts of the coutry how big the human ass can get.

[Long Run]

To believe was you are saying would mean that preventive health care doesn't prevent anything, is therefore a complete waste of money, and that all disease should be dealt with reactively.

I agree that having more people have access to preventative care, and a practice of actually using the preventative care available, would lower health costs. It will catch conditions in the early stages and prevent more costly care later. However, with respect to lifestyle created illness, I am not convinced that seeing a doctor who advises someone to stop smoking, eat right and get regular exercise will make much of a dent in the choices people make in that regard. They may get some medicines to help relieve the conditions, but few will actually follow the advice to do the things within their control to eliminate such conditions by avoiding bad choices.

[Scooter]

My father in law had to have 2 neck arteries cleaned out in the early 90s, he was told to be on a specific diet. His response, he'd rather die than not eat what he wants.

And you believe that in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. where life expectancies are higher, that such attitudes are less common?

[Liberty1]

And you believe that in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. where life expectancies are higher, that such attitudes are less common?

Dunno, it's human nature so probably not. But it all depends on the lifestyle in the first place, if your starting from a better place, the same attitude makes has less affect.

[Scooter]

So then lifestyle choices don't explain the difference in life expectancy between the U.S. and most of the rest of the developed world.

So we're back to, what other explanation can there be other than they haven't received the appropriate health care?

[Liberty1]

No I think that's exactly the opposite of what I said.

[Scooter]

You said such attitudes about lifestyle (such as your uncle's) were "probably not" less common in Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.

Now that the implications of that have been made clear (that lifestyle cannot then explain the difference in life expectancy between the U.S. and those places), you are changing your mind. Sorry, doesn't work that way.