Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Especially when said oil companies like British Petroleum are owned by the British government.
So.....murdering Prime Minister Mossadeq....scruples or not?
Um, there is no Standard Oil.
There hasn't been a Standard Oil in decades.
British Petroleum bought SOHIO -- Standard Oil of Ohio.
Exxon bought Standard Oil of New Jersey.
And to help with your reading comprehension, her husband was the principal investor, not her.
British Petroleum has nothing to do with the EU?
Royal Dutch Shell has nothing to do with the EU?
Dear me, what are you going on about, Standard Oil was a US Company in 1918 when the Commonwealth Fund was founded as I rightly pointed out and both other companies (BP and Shell) that you mention do have significant connections with the UK, although nothing to do with this study. If you recall what I said was that oil companies don't have many scruples, I didn't make any definition between nationality and I never said I supported the actions of any oil company including BP or Shell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Yeah, papers like these....
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
The mere fact that waiting lists exists is proof your system is under-funded, and that healthcare does not cost less, but you do spend less.
Spending less and costing less are not the same thing.....
Mircea
Papers like what, you just link to some obscure website home pages. The NHS is investing a lot of money in regional cancer centres and treatments and Britain will see the rewards in coming years.
Accurately diagnosing cancer can take weeks or months. As cancer often develops slowly, over several years, waiting for a few weeks will not usually impact on the effectiveness of treatment.
Patients suspected of having cancer and urgently referred by their GP, should have no more than a two week wait to see a specialist.
In cases where cancer has been confirmed, patients should wait no more than 31 days from the decision to treat to the start of their treatment.
In 2010-11, 95.5% of patients who were urgently referred for suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within 14 days of referral.
In the same period, 98.4% of patients receiving their first treatment for cancer began their treatment within 31 days. For breast cancer, 99.1% of people began their treatment within 31 days of diagnosis.
Perhaps you misunderstood the context. The 9.5% is the maximum, not what everyone will actually be paying.
Under the 7.5% tax those making less than 50k will end up paying much more than under the ACA.
Since you have much people making less than 50k. That means more angry voters having to pay more.
And no 9.5% isn't the max under the ACA. There are so many holes in the ACA. Some people whose employers don't provide good non working spousal coverage or children may end up paying significantly more than 9.5% despite making less than 50k.
Same goes with those making more than 400% of poverty. Those families face more paying than 9.5% of their AGI as well. Considering a typical plan costs $1200 for a family with a $6000 deductible. Someone making $100k will end up paying more than 9.5% of AGI easily. Or they can wing it and try to pay $700 a month with a $12000 deductible.
Originally Posted by NHS Waiting times - NHS (Cancer)
Accurately diagnosing cancer can take weeks or months. As cancer often develops slowly, over several years, waiting for a few weeks will not usually impact on the effectiveness of treatment.
Patients suspected of having cancer and urgently referred by their GP, should have no more than a two week wait to see a specialist.
In cases where cancer has been confirmed, patients should wait no more than 31 days from the decision to treat to the start of their treatment.
In 2010-11, 95.5% of patients who were urgently referred for suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within 14 days of referral.
In the same period, 98.4% of patients receiving their first treatment for cancer began their treatment within 31 days. For breast cancer, 99.1% of people began their treatment within 31 days of diagnosis.
Dear me, what are you going on about, Standard Oil was a US Company in 1918 when the Commonwealth Fund was founded as I rightly pointed out and both other companies (BP and Shell) that you mention do have significant connections with the UK, although nothing to do with this study. If you recall what I said was that oil companies don't have many scruples, I didn't make any definition between nationality and I never said I supported the actions of any oil company including BP or Shell.
Papers like what, you just link to some obscure website home pages. The NHS is investing a lot of money in regional cancer centres and treatments and Britain will see the rewards in coming years.
Read the UK fine print please. "Urgent" is a relative term.
Look at this disclaimer,
"Note: Referrals for investigations of breast symptoms where cancer is not initially suspected are not urgent referrals for suspected cancer, therefore, they fall outside the scope of this right."
U see the distinction. Wait times. That's the big problem.
A "positive stool blood test" for colon cancer wouldn't be considered "urgent" by Uk standards as well. You are looking up to a 18 week max waiting time for what the UK considered "non urgent". You most likely won't get into seeing a GI doc let alone get colonoscopy within 2 weeks.
USA medicine works more "efficiently" in this matter. Once again I use a different terminology. Other countries use the word "efficiently differently". For them it means coordinated care but not fast referrals and timely care. Same words different meanings.
By efficient with USA standards. Private practice can often times get you not only to see a specialist for "non urgent" positive blood stool test within 2 weeks. You will be colonoscopy extremely quickly especially in those places where GI docs own their own facility.
USA medicine works more "efficiently" in this matter. Once again I use a different terminology. Other countries use the word "efficiently differently". For them it means coordinated care but not fast referrals and timely care. Same words different meanings.
By efficient with USA standards. Private practice can often times get you not only to see a specialist for "non urgent" positive blood stool test within 2 weeks. You will be colonoscopy extremely quickly especially in those places where GI docs own their own facility.
Nowhere in the US will you get an appointment as a new patient with a specialist and an OR booking within two weeks for a non-emergency procedure. A + guaiac is not particularly threatening (most are due to hemorrhoids).
Nowhere in the US will you get an appointment as a new patient with a specialist and an OR booking within two weeks for a non-emergency procedure. A + guaiac is not particularly threatening (most are due to hemorrhoids).
Try 4-6 weeks for your scenario.
You haven't worked in private practice medicine than. I do.
There are places all over the country that do anywhere between 60-80 GI scopes A DAY.
They will fit you into their schedule. And these aren't personal friends of docs either. These are school teachers, office workers regular folks.
How is this possible? It's called private practice medicine practices that own their own facilities. You should get referrals from primary care within 2-3weeks barring "peak" end of the year times.
As for scheduling the colonoscopy. Most should be able to fit you in a 2-3 week period. A lot of times within 1 week.
This is for non urgent cases.
Yes most positive stool cases are for hemorrhoids. But a few aren't. Google lawsuits when docs can used because patients we're referred fast enough. GI docs who own their facilities will scope you as soon as you want. It's not uncommon to see patient on a Monday and that same patient gets scoped by Thursday.
This is the beauty of American medicine. Non emergent cases. For those cases they find something wrong (it's not always cancer). You can get diagnosed with other problems like Crohns, AVMs etc).
Maybe we are less healthy because the general population feasts on junk food and sit on their couch too much?
I wouldn't consider our country "rich" either given we have a debt of ~17 trillion dollars....sounds pretty poor to me. We used to be rich, could be rich again with the right adjustments and some time, but we certainly are not rich at this given time and show no willingness to actually do anything meaningful about it.
Except when it comes to REAL HEALTH CARE. The USA still has better cancer survivor rates.
The whole thing is misleading. They ding the USA for "access" and "equity". Yet they don't determine what actual care is.
If you go by their measures than a Lexus or BMW are the worst cars in the world. You get the analogy. We pay for all this fluff and luxury. Yet most people are ok having a GM defective car that you can't sue because Obama let Motors Liquation absorb all the lawsuits.
So basically you're saying that we have terrific healthcare... for the wealthy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
