Charlie Gard has passed

[PredFan]

Trying to one-up your stupid statement with a childish statement? Interesting strategy but it fell short I'm afraid.

actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and, in fact, a recipient of the president's Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?

Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.

actually----you are wrong and he is right. -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them

Wrong.

I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.

sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-? how do you IMAGINE "normal" Na levels
are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a STAT

Dude stop, you are saying one stupid thing after another. Sodium levels and the levels of all of the rest of the electrolytes, are not based in statistics. They are based on chemistry. We know the range of electrolytes in which the human body's organs need to function. There is a slight variance from person to person but it's an actual range, not a mathematical calculation, which you may not know is what statistics are.

Slips from the lab are actual measurements. They are not statistics at all.

Time for you to man up and admit you are wrong. If you chose not to then we have nothing more to discuss. Your ignorant statements are boring me.

 

[irosie91]

actually there was nothing stupid about my statement-----it is something I learned from my older brother--LONG AGO-----he is a Professor of astrophysics-----much acclaimed and, in fact, a recipient of the president's Freedom award for his contributions to the field of Astrophysics and NASA------and you?

Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.

actually----you are wrong and he is right. -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them

Wrong.

I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.

sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-? how do you IMAGINE "normal" Na levels
are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a STAT

Dude stop, you are saying one stupid thing after another. Sodium levels and the levels of all of the rest of the electrolytes, are not based in statistics. They are based on chemistry. We know the range of electrolytes in which the human body's organs need to function. There is a slight variance from person to person but it's an actual range, not a mathematical calculation, which you may not know is what statistics are.

Slips from the lab are actual measurements. They are not statistics at all.

Time for you to man up and admit you are wrong. If you chose not to then we have nothing more to discuss. Your ignorant statements are boring me.

wrong again you JERK-----the actual NORMS used in the practice of medicine are based on the
measurements of a SAMPLING OF HEALTHY SUBJECTS---------NOT---as you imagine in your
idiot deluded mind-------"well ---"we" always knew the optimum levels of various substances that
ARE IDEAL for OPTIMUM function in DA HUMAN BEAN" gee you are stupid. -------it is ok----
you just do not know. I will help you------do you know what "STANDARD DEVIATION" means?

the reality is that "normal" of the various substances in the body are determined by that being
WITHIN two standard deviations ----from the STATISTICAL NORM (got that ?? "statistical" norm)
You should learn this fact BEFORE attempting to apply to medical school

 

[PredFan]

Well, either you are a liar, or your brother is an idiot. Statistics is part of science but it isn't all of science. That's just stupid. I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that fact.

actually----you are wrong and he is right. -----statistical analysis rules every branch of science-----and CERTAINLY ASTROPHYSICS------and psychiatrists are stuck with it----not easy for them

Wrong.

I imagine it plays a larger part in some sciences than it does in others, but it doesn't play a large part in medicine, which is what we are talking about. Oh sure, there are statistics but that isn't medicine. We treat patients as individuals. That's why we are better than socialized medicine.

sheeeeehs------stats are not important in medicine-? how do you IMAGINE "normal" Na levels
are determined?---------every time you check a slip from the lab--------you are looking at a STAT

Dude stop, you are saying one stupid thing after another. Sodium levels and the levels of all of the rest of the electrolytes, are not based in statistics. They are based on chemistry. We know the range of electrolytes in which the human body's organs need to function. There is a slight variance from person to person but it's an actual range, not a mathematical calculation, which you may not know is what statistics are.

Slips from the lab are actual measurements. They are not statistics at all.

Time for you to man up and admit you are wrong. If you chose not to then we have nothing more to discuss. Your ignorant statements are boring me.

wrong again you JERK-----the actual NORMS used in the practice of medicine are based on the
measurements of a SAMPLING OF HEALTHY SUBJECTS---------NOT---as you imagine in your
idiot deluded mind-------"well ---"we" always knew the optimum levels of various substances that
ARE IDEAL for OPTIMUM function in DA HUMAN BEAN" gee you are stupid. -------it is ok----
you just do not know. I will help you------do you know what "STANDARD DEVIATION" means?

the reality is that "normal" of the various substances in the body are determined by that being
WITHIN two standard deviations ----from the STATISTICAL NORM (got that ?? "statistical" norm)
You should learn this fact BEFORE attempting to apply to medical school

Stupid and wrong, your ignorant bull shit is boring me to death. Dismissed.

 

[flacaltenn]

EVIDENTLY children are property of the STATE in the UK. That's one Clinton "Village" I would FLEE from. Not only were Charlies parents not in the Guardian position with regards to his health care, but STATE APPARENTLY takes the Guardian position in any LEGAL trials.

Is THAT the "Village" -- you leftists want to create here? Good damn luck with that.

Uh, dude, that's the village most of us want. We certainly don't want parents who put their children in danger or prolong their suffering, like Jehovah's Witlesses not wanting their kids to get blood transfusions or snake handlers exposing their kids to poisonous snakes.

The question here was were they prolonging Charlie's suffering to have a hope of recovery (there was none) or were they prolonging it so the parents could feel better. Obviously the latter.

Again- in the "AMerican" village, a big insurance company would have cut off treatment and all you nutters wouldn't be sending money to the parents.

So you usurp EVERY parents guardianship rights and NEVER WORRY that the term "child abuse" will be expanded beyond "snake handling" and Jehovah's Witnesses. That's pretty dumb. And not acceptable to GIVE that much power to State that can barely govern anymore and is subject to cataclysmic oscillations of power.

I don't want Schumer and McConnell being the oversight on my personal decisions. You didnt even think thru your assertion about Private Insurance under Single Payer. It does not say MULTIPLE payer. And in order to AFFORD anything close to that -- you're gonna have to rip greater than 15% MORE in FICA out of EVERY workers wallets. So --- How many folks you think would be EXEMPT from the "Single Payer" tax? And who GETS those exemptions? It's another "trust us" UNIVERSAL program that will be pilfered and robbed, neglected and mismanaged by Congress and the Exec. After watching them steal from the SS Trust Fund for 30 years and DO NOTHING about the Baby Boomers -- this Village of yours with the "WISE ELDERS" just is gonna stay in the Fantasy section of the Book Listings.

 

[JoeB131]

So you usurp EVERY parents guardianship rights and NEVER WORRY that the term "child abuse" will be expanded beyond "snake handling" and Jehovah's Witnesses. That's pretty dumb. And not acceptable to GIVE that much power to State that can barely govern anymore and is subject to cataclysmic oscillations of power.

I think the standard we have now is pretty good. The state can step in if the parent's actions are reckless or causing harm.

In this case, the parents were acting emotionally, not logically. Therefore, it was appropriate for the state to step in.

I don't want Schumer and McConnell being the oversight on my personal decisions.

Neither do I, and no one suggested that.

You didnt even think thru your assertion about Private Insurance under Single Payer. It does not say MULTIPLE payer. And in order to AFFORD anything close to that -- you're gonna have to rip greater than 15% MORE in FICA out of EVERY workers wallets. So --- How many folks you think would be EXEMPT from the "Single Payer" tax?

Here's the real question, what would a single payer cost us? Well, what is Multi-payer costing us? Right now, Medical Spending in the US is about 17% of GDP. Most of us don't see that because the cost is hidden in various ways. For instance, since our employers pay for our health insurance, which usually costs $5000-10,000 a year, that's already 10%+ of our earnings, depending on how much you make. We pay about 2% of our income on Medicare. Plus a large chunk of the taxes we already pay go to Medicaid, SCHIP, the VA, and so on.

Easily making your 15%.

The difference is, with single payer, with government setting costs, without the middle men not adding value like dividends to shareholders and Ed Hanaway's NINE FIGURE retirement package, the cost goes down...

WHich is why the UK spends only about 9.1% of GDP on health care compared to the US, which spends 17.1%. True, the UK doesn't have fancy marble floors in their hospitals, but everyone is covered and they get better results than we do.

And who GETS those exemptions? It's another "trust us" UNIVERSAL program that will be pilfered and robbed, neglected and mismanaged by Congress and the Exec. After watching them steal from the SS Trust Fund for 30 years and DO NOTHING about the Baby Boomers -- this Village of yours with the "WISE ELDERS" just is gonna stay in the Fantasy section of the Book Listings.

Look, buddy, the Rich are always going to do better than the rest of us.

As for social security, the problem there is that we aren't putting enough replacement workers into the system. Also, people are living longer, which was never taken into account. While the whole notion of converting the SS Trust funds into bonds was dubious, that's not the real problem here.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours? Their system is abysmal.

 

[Coyote]

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours? Their system is abysmal.

Yet they don't seem to want ours.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours? Their system is abysmal.

why would I think that.

United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.

Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.

In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.

Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.

 

[irosie91]

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours? Their system is abysmal.

why would I think that.

United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.

Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.

In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.

Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.

the US has a very diverse and somewhat STRESSED population----which is socially unstable. With
the increasing immigrant population, it is likely that some health issues in England will result in some
changes in the stats------most notably---infant mortality AND life expectancy. ---the factors that
contribute to both life expectancy and infant mortality are VERY COMPLEX which is why they
as so often cited as "quality of life" issues. I do not believe that they reflect functionality of
THE SYSTEM as much as general quality of life OVER ALL. "Overall" covers LOTS OF
VERY DIFFERENT groups in countries like the US-----more than in countries like England, or
Sweden, or Holland or Germany---------the more VERY DIFFERENT groups around----the more
complex are the issues and---the stats

 

[JoeB131]

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours? Their system is abysmal.

why would I think that.

United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.

Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.

In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.

Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.

the US has a very diverse and somewhat STRESSED population----which is socially unstable. With
the increasing immigrant population, it is likely that some health issues in England will result in some
changes in the stats------most notably---infant mortality AND life expectancy. ---the factors that
contribute to both life expectancy and infant mortality are VERY COMPLEX which is why they
as so often cited as "quality of life" issues. I do not believe that they reflect functionality of
THE SYSTEM as much as general quality of life OVER ALL. "Overall" covers LOTS OF
VERY DIFFERENT groups in countries like the US-----more than in countries like England, or
Sweden, or Holland or Germany---------the more VERY DIFFERENT groups around----the more
complex are the issues and---the stats

Someone should have introduced you to the concept of Occam's Razor at an early age.

The difference between the US and all those other countries is that the US considers health coverage to be a product available to your ability to afford it and those other countries consider it an entitlement all citizens are entitled to.

So, yes, when you can get in to see a doctor when you are sick and not having to worry about being so sick that you don't care how much it's going to cost you to fix it and hope you can tough it out, you are more likely to get problems fixed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine. It's like the VA. You are put on an appointment list. You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.

 

[irosie91]

Why would anyone think that Britian's health care system has better results than ours? Their system is abysmal.

why would I think that.

United Kingdom vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

well, life expectency in the UK is 80 years vs. 78 in the US.

Infant mortality is 3.88 compared to 6.06 in the US.

In fact, the UK beats us in almost every major statistic on the list.

Now, their hospitals aren't as fancy... but a fancy hospital you can't access because your insurance won't cover it doesn't do you a shitload of good.

the US has a very diverse and somewhat STRESSED population----which is socially unstable. With
the increasing immigrant population, it is likely that some health issues in England will result in some
changes in the stats------most notably---infant mortality AND life expectancy. ---the factors that
contribute to both life expectancy and infant mortality are VERY COMPLEX which is why they
as so often cited as "quality of life" issues. I do not believe that they reflect functionality of
THE SYSTEM as much as general quality of life OVER ALL. "Overall" covers LOTS OF
VERY DIFFERENT groups in countries like the US-----more than in countries like England, or
Sweden, or Holland or Germany---------the more VERY DIFFERENT groups around----the more
complex are the issues and---the stats

Someone should have introduced you to the concept of Occam's Razor at an early age.

The difference between the US and all those other countries is that the US considers health coverage to be a product available to your ability to afford it and those other countries consider it an entitlement all citizens are entitled to.

So, yes, when you can get in to see a doctor when you are sick and not having to worry about being so sick that you don't care how much it's going to cost you to fix it and hope you can tough it out, you are more likely to get problems fixed.

sorry bubele------I know all about it------I even know as in family relationships people
who are the patients of those systems and know as in colleagues ---persons who work
within those systems. All the systems got their ups and downs----most people who
do KNOW----admit that the USA system is NOT INFERIOR to them socialized systems regarding
access and availability for the general population----with the possible exception of some of the northern countries---those countries which are NOW facing demographic horrors-------with which England has been
grappling for more than 50 years. For the record-----emergency rooms cannot LEGALLY throw you
into the gutter to die--------in the USA

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine. It's like the VA. You are put on an appointment list. You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.

I never have a problem seeing my Dr. Maybe I am just lucky. What is your experience ?

 

[irosie91]

You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine. It's like the VA. You are put on an appointment list. You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.

I never have a problem seeing my Dr. Maybe I am just lucky. What is your experience ?

just SEEING A DOCTOR----the issue in the socialized systems are SPECIALIZED PROCEDURES------it can take months for simple but NEEDED 'elective surgeries" in the UK. Just hang out and suffer

 

[JoeB131]

You can't get in to see a doctor when you are sick in these countries with socialized medicine. It's like the VA. You are put on an appointment list. You see the doctor when your appointment gets scheduled.

again, how is that different from corporate medicine. I had to wait two weeks to get an appointment for my blood pressure.

I agree, the VA has a problem is that when the warmongers started another war for the Jews and Oil Companies, they didn't take into account how much more care the VA would have to provide in some locations.