Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 17:52, in article
1ga8k4r.m2yiva1x7558mN%this_address_is_for_spam@ya hoo.co.uk, "David Horne"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> If you know of a British poll it might be interesting to see
    >
    > I don't know of any polls off-hand, but I'm pretty sure that the NHS
    > frequently tops the list of 'best loved' UK institutions.
    >
    > David


I just published the American figures (poor) and the French (good).

I have seen the British figure around, and the Canadian.

But clearly the Americans are more unhappy with foreign systems that
the foreigners are!

Earl

Go Fig

In article <BC6FB7A8.28EF6%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 5/03/04 19:50, in article [email protected],
    > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:26:06 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> Much of what is legal in the US is illegal in France. Like huge
    > >> special interest donations to parties. I think I read that Halliburton
    > >> favors the Republicans by 10 to 1 in donations.
    > >
    > > So what? Labor unions routinely do the same for the Democrats. See
    > > NEA.
    >
    > The Republicans are tied into big money, really big money. The relative
    > contributions of the unions are zilch in comparison with the Plutocrats.

The NEAs contributions are zilch ? The truth is they spend more,
considerably, then your reference and the break is about 95:5 for
Democrats. Far worse, until recently the 40% minority Republican
membership were forced to donate to the Dems from their fees.

jay
Sat Mar 06, 2004
mailto:[email protected]



    >
    > For instance the oil/energy industry split. in the 2002 elections was
    >
    > 2002
    >
    > 19% Demos
    > 80% Republic
    >
    > 2000 (30,000,000 total)
    >
    > 20%
    > 78%
    >
    > s. My original posting is an example, facts.
    >

Lennart Petersen

<[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > >Effectively one pays more in the US. Since the global GNP % is
    > >15% in the US and averages around 10% Europe (lower in Britain)
    > >the "copay" in the US is 50% higher than in Europe.
    > Sure and we get a lot better care for sophisticated procedures
    > developed here too.
So how do you explain the differences in life expectancy ?
Iceland fem: 82,22 male: 77,54 total: 79,09
France fem.: 83,11 male: 75,63 total:79,28
Sweden fem 82,78 male: 77,31 total 79,97
U.K fem:80,7 male : 75,74 total:78,16
U.S fem: 80,05 male 74,37 total:77,14

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Lennart Petersen
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > >Effectively one pays more in the US. Since the global GNP % is
    > > >15% in the US and averages around 10% Europe (lower in Britain)
    > > >the "copay" in the US is 50% higher than in Europe.
    > >
    > > Sure and we get a lot better care for sophisticated procedures
    > > developed here too.
    > So how do you explain the differences in life expectancy ?
    > Iceland fem: 82,22 male: 77,54 total: 79,09
    > France fem.: 83,11 male: 75,63 total:79,28
    > Sweden fem 82,78 male: 77,31 total 79,97
    > U.K fem:80,7 male : 75,74 total:78,16
    > U.S fem: 80,05 male 74,37 total:77,14
    >
Do you really think that life expectancy is solely a direct function of
medical care ?

Sweden does seem to contribute a considerable amount to the medical
database for its size, whereas I rarely hear any medical news out of
France.

jay
Sat Mar 06, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


jay
Sat Mar 06, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Tom Bellhouse

"Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]...
    > > >Effectively one pays more in the US. Since
the global GNP % is
    > > >15% in the US and averages around 10% Europe
(lower in Britain)
    > > >the "copay" in the US is 50% higher than in
Europe.
    > >
    > > Sure and we get a lot better care for
sophisticated procedures
    > > developed here too.
    > So how do you explain the differences in life
expectancy ?
    > Iceland fem: 82,22 male: 77,54 total: 79,09
    > France fem.: 83,11 male: 75,63 total:79,28
    > Sweden fem 82,78 male: 77,31 total 79,97
    > U.K fem:80,7 male : 75,74 total:78,16
    > U.S fem: 80,05 male 74,37 total:77,14

It's obvious that the Commie socialist liberals in
the US die young in order to bring the average
down and make the country's medical system look
bad.

Tom

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 18:59, in article 060320040959403771%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The NEAs contributions are zilch ? The truth is they spend more,
    > considerably, then your reference and the break is about 95:5 for
    > Democrats. Far worse, until recently the 40% minority Republican
    > membership were forced to donate to the Dems from their fees.

The facts escape you once again!

If we take PAC money historically the Corporat donations far exceed the
union.

This data is taken from the Statistical Astracts of the United States, year
2000


for 1997-94 'PAC activity

Corporate
and profession
organizations = 260 millions

Unions = 111 millions


for the total expenditures in the 96 elections by party

Democrats took in 189.0 millions and the Republicans 320 millions.

So roughly one can expect a 2 to 1 contribution superiority to
keep the Plutocats in power, special interests, corporations the NRA,
the farmers, you name it.

Gotcha again Go Fig, give up the fight, you are a steady loser.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 19:11, in article [email protected],
"Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:[email protected]...
    >>> Effectively one pays more in the US. Since the global GNP % is
    >>> 15% in the US and averages around 10% Europe (lower in Britain)
    >>> the "copay" in the US is 50% higher than in Europe.
    >>
    >> Sure and we get a lot better care for sophisticated procedures
    >> developed here too.
    > So how do you explain the differences in life expectancy ?
    > Iceland fem: 82,22 male: 77,54 total: 79,09
    > France fem.: 83,11 male: 75,63 total:79,28
    > Sweden fem 82,78 male: 77,31 total 79,97
    > U.K fem:80,7 male : 75,74 total:78,16
    > U.S fem: 80,05 male 74,37 total:77,14


American conservatives will usually site its black population and how
they don`t take care of themselves.

This also shows up in the infant mortality figures in which black children
do not do well.

Earl

Keith Willshaw

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:13:01 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"

    > I didn't say that that wasn't the case here. I said this silly
    > assertion that healthcare in Europe is free is complete nonsense. And
    > it is. They simply endlessly prepay for it. Hardly free.

Nobody in the UK can have any illusion that its free.
There's an item on my paycheck every month that
states National Insurance Deduction

Whats different is that if I lose my job , retire or have
to stop working due to sickness I am still entitled to
full cover.

Keith

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 19:23, in article 060320041023017834%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Sweden does seem to contribute a considerable amount to the medical
    > database for its size, whereas I rarely hear any medical news out of
    > France.

One does not "hear" on the web aw well as read.

The big question is whether you will understand anything you read!

You can try www.google.fr for a French language view of things.

However, in order to get a comprehensive look at health
try www.who.org.

It is pretty standardly known the Europe generally out performs
the US in longevities.

I have never seen a statistic when indicated otherwise in recent
years.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 19:25, in article [email protected], "Tom
Bellhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > It's obvious that the Commie socialist liberals in
    > the US die young in order to bring the average
    > down and make the country's medical system look
    > bad.


More seriously, it is the underclass population anywhere
which lowers the statistics. The underclass in the US
is less well cared for and the effect is seen in the
overall stats.

Earl

Go Fig

In article <BC6FD762.28F1C%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 6/03/04 18:59, in article 060320040959403771%[email protected], "Go Fig"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > The NEAs contributions are zilch ? The truth is they spend more,
    > > considerably, then your reference and the break is about 95:5 for
    > > Democrats. Far worse, until recently the 40% minority Republican
    > > membership were forced to donate to the Dems from their fees.
    >
    > The facts escape you once again!

Your creative cuts again, shameful.

Is $40+ million "zilch" or not... that was your assertion !

    >
    > If we take PAC money historically the Corporat donations far exceed the
    > union.
    >
    > This data is taken from the Statistical Astracts of the United States, year
    > 2000
    >
    >
    > for 1997-94 'PAC activity
    >
    > Corporate
    > and profession
    > organizations = 260 millions
    >
    > Unions = 111 millions
    >
    >
    > for the total expenditures in the 96 elections by party
    >
    > Democrats took in 189.0 millions and the Republicans 320 millions.
    >
    > So roughly one can expect a 2 to 1 contribution superiority to
    > keep the Plutocats in power, special interests, corporations the NRA,
    > the farmers, you name it.
    >
    > Gotcha again Go Fig, give up the fight, you are a steady loser.

So "zilch" = $111mil, boy, and you 'call' yourself a scientist... no
wonder you are where you are....

jay
Sat Mar 06, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


    >
    > Earl
    >
    >

Go Fig

In article <BC6FDAE1.28F28%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 6/03/04 19:23, in article 060320041023017834%[email protected], "Go Fig"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Sweden does seem to contribute a considerable amount to the medical
    > > database for its size, whereas I rarely hear any medical news out of
    > > France.
    >
    > One does not "hear" on the web aw well as read.
    >
    > The big question is whether you will understand anything you read!
    >
    > You can try www.google.fr for a French language view of things.
    >
    > However, in order to get a comprehensive look at health
    > try www.who.org.
    >
    > It is pretty standardly known the Europe generally out performs
    > the US in longevities.

Which is not a sole function of health care.

Has France ever developed an antibiotic ?

jay
Sat Mar 06, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


    >
    > I have never seen a statistic when indicated otherwise in recent
    > years.
    >
    > Earl
    >
    >

Scott

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 18:11:12 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> >Effectively one pays more in the US. Since the global GNP % is
    >> >15% in the US and averages around 10% Europe (lower in Britain)
    >> >the "copay" in the US is 50% higher than in Europe.
    >> Sure and we get a lot better care for sophisticated procedures
    >> developed here too.
    >So how do you explain the differences in life expectancy ?
    >Iceland fem: 82,22 male: 77,54 total: 79,09
    >France fem.: 83,11 male: 75,63 total:79,28
    >Sweden fem 82,78 male: 77,31 total 79,97
    >U.K fem:80,7 male : 75,74 total:78,16
    >U.S fem: 80,05 male 74,37 total:77,14

Less than 2 years difference. The way some here talk, you would think
it's 10 years.

Keith Willshaw

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > >> Just like your husband, you can't read. I said sometimes and I said
    > >> Europe. Go talk to people waiting for heart transplants in England
    > >> for starters.
    > >>
    > >
    > >The wait is for donors , just as in the USA
    > >
    > >Keith
    > >
    > Baloney. That is only part of it. Go watch BBC documentaries in
    > England like I did and see all the shortages that have been created
    > there in facilities, etc. due to this system. THAT's a major cause of
    > this not transplants.

In the case of transplants the problem is donors, most of my
family works in healthcare including a sister at Papworth
Hospital which does transplants. Patients are put on a waiting
list until a suitable organ turns up and priorities are assigned according
to need not ability to pay.

see
http://www.talktransplant.co.uk/Waiting_Lists.aspx

    >And all kinds of other services like hip
    > replacements, etc.

Yes there is a wating list for hip and knee replacements and
other othopaedic operations. This is indeed budget related
but that does NOT apply to acute treatment. These waits are indeed
unfortunate BUT you ought to realise that the type of procedure
involved, typically cataract surgery, hip and knee replacements,
tonsillectomies, reoair of chronic hernias are non life threatening
and if you dont have medical insurance in the US you wouldnt
get them.

In the last survey the average wait for such procedures in
England was between 3 and 4 months and the longest
was a year. Private health cover can be taken out ar relatively
modest cost to provide faster treatment. This is a lot cheaper
than private medical care in the US since the bulk of the
care and drugs still come through the NHS

One thing that doest happen here is having to ask permission
from an HMO before carrying out a CAT scan or other procedure.
The pysician decides on treatment not a clerk in an insurance
company. The NHS is flawed to be sure but any political party
that tried to dismantle it would lose the next election by a landslide
which is why it has never been threatened.

Keith

Miguel Cruz

<[email protected]> wrote:
    > Keith Willshaw wrote:
    >>> Just like your husband, you can't read. I said sometimes and I said
    >>> Europe. Go talk to people waiting for heart transplants in England
    >>> for starters.
    >> The wait is for donors , just as in the USA
    > Baloney. That is only part of it. Go watch BBC documentaries in
    > England like I did and see all the shortages that have been created
    > there in facilities, etc. due to this system. THAT's a major cause of
    > this not transplants.

You are contending that there are hearts available and going bad because the
UK medical system doesn't have the doctors and facilities to transplant
them? If not, the wait is for donors.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/