<rja.carne
...@excite.com> wrote:
> cryptoguy wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 11:00 am, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
> > orig
...@moderators.isc.org <rja.carne
...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 3:11 pm, Walter Bushell <pr
...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <c73aea8c-0a42-44e9-8523-b4e85fae7...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org
> > > > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > > > > > Brett Paul Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > For a cite try any case where you have claimed that state health
> > > > > > > care systems would routinely refuse treatment, this is not
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > so as there is a high political cost to refusing treatment on
> > > > > > > financial grounds so it rarely happens.
> > > > > > I'm sorry if this response violates afu's BOP, but I feel I am
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > attacked here, and that I ought to be allowed to defend myself in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > same venue. I will keep it very brief.
> > > > > > I have pointed out that no health care system, whether private or
> > > > > > government-run, can provide all possible useful treatment to all
> > > > > > patients, as there isn't enough money in the world. So the issue
> > > > > > isn't whether denial of treatment will happen, but who gets to
> > > > > > decide
> > > > > > when and how it will happen.
> > > > > E.g., medical insurance company shareholders.
> > > > > > I understand that many people disagree
> > > > > > with me and believe the government should decide. But my *facts*
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > correct, even if, in your judgement, my opinions about what ought
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be done are not.
> > > > > Can you prove that there isn't enough money in the world (or in the
> > > > > country) to provide all possible useful medical treatment, when
> > > > > apparently appropriate, to all potential patients? I'd just like to
> > > > > see your working. Obviously, for instance, providing all treatment
> > > > > in
> > > > > or adjacent to the patient's home, including surgery and intensive
> > > > > care, would be nice, but very expensive. And privately invented
> > > > > treatments, notably patented drugs, also are very expensive. But you
> > > > > could socialise scientific research in medicine as well. Say if the
> > > > > President declared a "War on Cancer" and used public funds for a lot
> > > > > of research. Hmm. Apparently he did.
> > > > Cancer is holding it's own and perhaps winning.
> > > Well, /this/ President isn't through yet.
> > There's *still* faithful out there who think BHO is so god-like that
> > he can cure cancer? How touching.
> All that it needs is money. If the Democrats are going to take all
> your money, they better do something useful with it.
> Nixon did it first - and cancer is a tough disease, given what's
> immediately making you sick is basically you (so surgical removal is
> tricky), and the older you get, the more liable you are¹to turn
> cancery. But it's already very treatable in many of its types, as
> long as you can afford the doctor's bill. There's a vaccine against
> most of cancer of the cervix, the penis, etc. (If I read some
> statistics right, there is quite a lot of cancer of the penis, but
> presumably surgery... is... very... successful. Even so.)
> This may be unpopular in rec.arts.sf.written, but it looks like if we
> kill the space programme, we get to kill cancer as well. Under Nixon
> and under Obama.
You can kill cancer, no doubt. But it keeps coming back, like the
proverbial cat.
|
