On August 30, 2001 the Wall Street Journal reported that the British National Health Service had nearly one million patients waiting for treatment (40,000 of these waiting for surgery for over a year) and they have officially announced that henceforth the NHS will start paying patients to travel across the English channel for treatment in the European Union countries.

http://www.burtonreport.com/InfHealthCare/BritNatHealthServ.htm

Among women with breast cancer, for example, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. "Britain has one of worst survival rates in the advanced world," writes Bartholomew, "and America has the best."

If you're a man diagnosed with prostate cancer, you have a 57 percent chance of it killing you in Britain. In the United States, the chance of dying drops to 19 percent.

Britain has only half as many CT scanners per million people as the United States, and half as many MRI scanners

Not only is the British equipment in short supply, but much of what's there should be loaded up and carted off to the nearest scrap dump. An audit by the World Health Organization, for instance, found that over half of Britain's x-ray machines were past their recommended safe time limit, and more than half the machines in anesthesiology required replacing.

Taken as a whole, Britain's universal healthcare system has evolved into a ramshackle structure where tests are underperformed, equipment is undersupplied, operations are underdone, and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and overly tied down in red tape. In other words, your chances of coming out of the American medical system alive are dramatically better than in Britain.

As a footnote on Canada, the average wait for a simple MRI is three months. In Manitoba, the median wait for neurosurgery is 15.2 months. For chemotherapy in Saskatchewan, patients can expect to be in line for 10 weeks. At last report, 10,000 breast cancer patients who waited an average of two months for post-operation radiation treatments have filed a class action lawsuit against Quebec's hospitals.

excerpts from http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4157

This is not to say that there aren't problems that ought to be addressed in the US system. But Britain's health care is NOT a model to follow.

(V): You're wong again Jules. The health of the citizens doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of health care providers. In fact, it doesn't. Americans are grossly overweight. This is NOT the fault of the doctors, but of the patients who stuff themselves with crap food. 1/3 of older Americans are overweight. Many obese. But the health care they can get is the best in the world. Some are just too stupid to get on a diet, get with an exercise program, and be responsible for their own health.

The US health care system is the best in the world. It's available to everyone and no one can be denied care.

I don't care how many people are without healthcare. I've said that the health care in the US is the best. Just because people don't have insurance doesn't mean a thing. Some people choose NOT to be insured. They can pay for it, but they opt out. But none of that matters to the main point. The available health care is the best. You don't have to wait for emergency care. Even if you don't have insurance, you can get care. A lot of people who don't have care are lazy do nothing slouches and they deserve what they get. I work hard. When my kids were young, I had to pay for my own medical costs. I didn't have insurance when my daughter was born. It's called personal responsibility. I worked overtime to pay the costs. And I worked hard to upgrade myself to jobs that provided health insurance. I worked two jobs and sometimes three. I didn't suck off the government or other people's taxes. That's what government health care is. It doesn't promote personal responsibility. It promotes laziness.

Even your own MPs are warning America NOT to go the socialized healthcare route. It will ruin the quality of care (which your country DOESN"T have). Canada's health care system is seriously broken. You can't get certain procedures in a timely way. In some cases, patients DIE waiting for proper care.

You can't spin your way out of it. Facts are facts. WHO stats are biased towards a government system. It in NO WAY accurately reflects the quality of care. The US is number one in quality of care. That's why people from ALL OVER THE WORLD come here to get care. It's simply the best in the world.

(V): More nonsense. WHO rankings are ten years old. They are no longer produced. And what is their ranking criterion? Sorry, people don't fly from the US to France to get major medical help. But they come from all over the world to get help from the top hospitals here. Our technology surpasses any other country. We're simply the best in the quality of health care.

Here's a fact for you: Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.

The WHO ranking doesn't measure quality of care but the overall health of the citizens. Then based on the health of it's citizens, they rank the countries. They measure "life expectancy" but don't take into account such factors as poverty, homicide rate, or use of tobacco.

In the US, you don't have to wait months for emergency MRIs. You do in Canada. And even in your country, you can't get timely care. You have to wait. That's the general rule in France too. But not in the US. I can get in same day if I don't want to see my regular doctor. If I want to see only him, I may have to wait a few days or so.

The WHO report doesn't measure the quality of health care delivery. It looks at other factors. The ranking system of the WHO is strongly biased towards a uniformly government directed health care system. In that case, I'm glad the US doesn't rank well.

One only need to look at the VA health care system in the US to see just how badly government run health care systems can get. The VA has outdated equipment, poorly trained doctors, and is in need of a complete overhaul. And in the VA, you can't sue your doc if he messes up. Recently, one guy lose both his legs when the doc messed up. The soldier who lost his legs cannot sue for damages. Because? The government set that rule.

Socialized medicine is a failure. It produces unskilled doctors and little incentive to improve. The current US system may need some tweaks, but Obama will ruin it if he continues on this destructive path.

(V): Nonsense. Canada's health care system is not a model to follow. People in Canada have to wait months for care. It's the Canadians that come to the US to get care. Not the other way around.

And health care in the US is already free. People get free care all the time. If you show up at the ER, you have to be treated regardless of your ability to pay. Most clinics have a sliding scale. Socialized medicine underserves. US health care is the best in the world.

As for Cuba, you watch too much Michael Moore. No one goes to Cuba for health care. That's simply a lie by the fat man.

And your Africa example is meaning less to the point. Many hundreds of medical teams from the US go to Africa to provide free medical care. So what.

Honest politicians all agree that socialized medicine will not improve care, but diminish the care. Government run health care has a proven track record of FAILURE. Period.

Czuch: Isn't it interesting that all countries of socialized medicine have citizens that come to the US for health care but you don't see US citizens rushing to those countries for health care needs. In the US, if I need to see my cardiologist I can get in within weeks. If it's an emergency, I see him right away. Any test I need can be done in short order. I don't have to wait months. When I went to see my cardiologist last week he determined I needed a stress test. In 10 minutes I was in the testing room. Within an hour I was talking to my doctor about the results. Then they sent me for a blood test and that took 15 mins.

People in socialized medicine countries can't get this kind of care. They get on waiting lists and in some cases they have lotteries. Obama is messing up everything. People will NOT like what he's planning if they would only listen to the warnings. Even MPs from Britain are warning the US NOT to go socialized medicine!

Hello. anyone home?

(V): The point is that now that his ideas are coming to light, they are falling out of favor with the American people. People that mattered in the election of Obama are now having second thoughts. If the trend keeps up, there will be a shake up in Washington in 2010. And in 2012 the Republicans will regain the White House. These ideas are too radical for the American people. Except those on the far left who love his ideas.

(V):  Not true.   The details were never fully known.  Like most presidents, he's already broken many promises. 

Ferris Bueller:  Glen Beck is one of few that is making sense of the mess that the democrats are shoving down the throats of people in the US.  Rush is far more radical than either Beck or O'Reilly.  O'Reilly shouts a bit but for the most part his views are sensible.

Ferris Bueller:   Its actually a tribute to the man that he had far left leanings but one never knew that based on his professional reporting.   He reported the news.   He was probably the last of an era of the kind of reporters that we need in this world.   Contrast him with Dan Rather.  Rather wore his politics on his sleeve.

But just read what WC said after his retirement and its clear that he was a far left leaning guy.   I think his ideas are dangerous for all of us.  People who think like him need to be defeated in the battle for ideas. 

One only needs to read the many things he said to discover that he leaned very far left.

gogul: Makes the French Revolution and understandable event.

gogul:   It's all about money and power and the rich.  Off with their heads.

The Terrible Truth About Walter Cronkite

You won't hear about this on the evening news.  Even Fox news screwed this up. 

Übergeek 바둑이: The missing WMDs never bothered me as there could be many reasons for that. But the following has caused me to lose a bit of heart over the matter.

"A lack of a proper exit strategy, together with a total lack of vision with regards to iraqs internal ethnic makeup, led to sectarian violence and insurgency.

Dubious business connections, conflicts of interest, corruption in reconstruction efforts and other questionable business connections have made a lot of people question the motivation behind the war."

clearly the US did not fully appreciate the dynamics of Muslims in that part of the world.

People in power should never have a voice in policies when there's even a hint of a conflict of interest. It seems that conflicts of interest are the norm in politics. Cap and Trade is a good example of this. Many in power will make a great deal of money with cap and trade and yet they are allowed to have a voice in policy. That's never a good thing.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's odd that there is so much talk about water boarding even though it's only been used on the hardest of terrorists and only when the situation was somewhat desperate. And only three times and none since 2003. It seems to me that a great deal of though and care went into the use of this technique. It wasn't used as a matter of routine.

As for Iraq: I am troubled at the loss of life. Whenever civilians die it's sad. To be fair, the US does not blindly bomb. The US does not target civilians and is not careless when going after military targets.

When mistakes happen, it does not reflect the totality of the US armed forces. Most positive stories are never told. Only those that will help get ratings make it to prime time.

In hind sight, going into Iraq does seem to have been a mistake. With the exception that Saddam was a murderer of his own people, he wasn't more of a threat than most. But the once the US entered Iraq and was involved in the think of it, chatting about shoulds and shouldn'ts seem moot. Where do we go from here.

The US gets demonized too often. Even the current president apologizes for the US. Never mind the years of money and blood that this noble country has offered the world since it's inception.

I think that the best that can come of any of this fight against terrorism is to ask what we have learned and where do we go from here.

Time will tell if Iraq was fully a mistake. But lets be fair: many positive things came about because the US stood up to a tyrant.

WalterCronkite 1916-2009. R.I.P.

gogul: Very intelligent post. I only have an issue with two points. One is that I am not against the killing of the offenders. On the contrary, I want them all killed.

As for Bush being a global threat, I don't agree. His job was not to placate the countries of the world but to keep America safe. He brought the war to the terrorists. They wanna blow up buildings and strap on bombs and blow up kids. The US only help rid the world of such as these.

I'd never vote for Bush again but he's better than that lying snake 'Al Gore. And anyone is better than Obama. Obama is giving the US away and dismantling all its powers. Even Bush is better than an Obama.

Übergeek 바둑이: lobodan Milosevic was tried for crimes against humanity, and all he did is in essence the same that American troops have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Such as? "Milosevic tortured and killed islamic fundamentalists" ?

Which is why one must hold every story of theirs to a powerful microscope. 

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326

gogul:  Ok, now that I've finished that first article I can say that if true, it needs to be exposed because that goes too far.  I'd like to know the truth but I doubt we'll ever know.   There's always another side.  One thing that strikes me is that for a secretive operation there certainly are a great deal of known facts.  That's very odd for something that is supposed to be top secret.   

Just an aside but I'll bet if given the choice, those dudes would have preferred water boarding. 

gogul:  I'd heard about this but to be honest I'm not fully caught up on the ins and outs.  That the ACLU is behind the suit troubles me.  They sue anyone - even the boy scouts.  But I'll look into it and decide.

One thing off the top of my head:  If the US had detained nuns or a couple of pre-school teachers, well then that is something.  But I'm less sympathetic when it comes to terrorists. 

gogul:
overwhelming indices would be a place to start.  But it must be backed with some facts etc in order to be accepted.  

gogul:  I know nothing of such black holes or people dying while being interrogated.  Some evidence please. 

gogul:  When people speak about actions that qualify as torture, I need to know what specific actions you are talking about because torture to some is listening to loud music over and over.  My neighbors do that and it's lawful here up to 10pm.  So if you speak of torture, you gotta be specific.

(V):  nope and nope and nope.   And I won't waste any more time with you on it. 

Übergeek 바둑이:   water boarding has worked every time.   It's not nuns that are captured on the battle field.  It's enemy combatants.  And in all the thousands that have been captured, only three have been water boarded.  And in those cases,  information that was vital to the safety of others was obtained. 

We can create any scenario we want to discredit water boarding.  But the reality is this:  it hasn't been used since 2003 and when used, it was used only on those well-known for their terrorists activities.   In all seriousness, I don't want water boarding to be used as a routine tactic against the enemy.  But I don't want it completely removed from the tool box either.

Notice that beheadings is not being discussed amongst the terrorists with some on one side saying it's a useful tool and others saying it's too cruel.  No, they video tape it and post it on the web. 

I also wouldn't want law enforcement to use this technique without serious parameters.  There are too many loose cannons out there.  But if I had a guy in my custody and I knew that he had info on where one of my grand kids were, the police better hurry.   I may go to jail for it, but I won't stand by and do nothing.   What if I'm wrong about this guy?   I don't act recklessly.   But I will err on the side of my family's welfare.  Every time.

Czuch:  Exactly.  I want the military to have all the tools they need to keep me safe.  But if Obama keeps it up, we'll have to Mirandize the enemy on the battle field. 

Here's me:  "You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford on, one will be appointed to you.  Please remember that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.  Do you understand these rights as I've explained them?  Oh and one more thing:  Would you like fries with that?"

Übergeek 바둑이:

Case 1:
The police have caught a thief suspected of a string of
robberies at convenience stores. Since he has refused to confess to his
crimes during interrogation, the police decide to waterboard him to
elicit a confession. He confesses to his crimes and goes to jail.

Waterboarding should not be used to obtain confessions to a crime.  No lives are at stake here.

Case 2:
A
suspected serial killer has refused to confess to his crimes during
normal police interrogation. The police decide to use waterboarding to
make the serial killer confess and disclose the location of dead
victims that have not been found by the police. He confesses and is
sentenced to death.

Same as above

Case 3:
A child serial rapist has
abducted a child. If the police do not find the child it could die. The
police caught the suspect and decide to waterboard him. The suspect
discloses the location of the child and is sent to jail.

Yes, water board the pervert and then let the crowd beat the living crap out of him (after you accidently leave his cell door open).  Some jerk knows the whereabouts of my granddaughter I'm going to start taking off fingers. 

Case 4:
A
communist agitator has been organizing workers to join unions. He is
also suspected of organizing demostrations against the government. The
military capture this man and waterboard him to make him disclose the
location of his associates. The man confesses and he and all his
associates are sent to prison.

Same as number one.  No to waterboarding.

Case 5:
A man is supected of
being a member of the communist party and organizing guerrilla
operations against the government. He is captured and waterboarded to
make him disclose the location of the guerrilla command and all of his
revolutionary comrades. He confesses and is sent to prison. His
comrades were never found.

It depends on whether or not there is an immediate dangers to innocent people.  If you join a guerrilla organization intent on harming the US, and you get caught, don't expect tea and crumpets. 

Case 6:
An radical anarchist is
suspected of carrying out bombings against banks. This has disrupted
the businesses of banks and cost millions in property damage. He
confesses to his crimes during waterboarding and is sent to prison.

No.  Same as case 1

Case 7:
A
man is suspected of being a member of Al Qaida and of having
information in a bombing that could leave hundreds of people dead. He
is subjected to waterboarding, but refuses to confess claiming that he
is innocent. During the course of investigation it is found that he is
indeed innocent and he is set free.

Yes to water boarding.  It's not like they just would randomly pull some guy out of a crowd.  There was good reason to suspect him.  You can't know he's innocent until after a full investigation.   But when lives are at stake, you do what you have to do.  Waterboarding is simply unpleasant.  For some, a trip to the dentist is worse.

I divided my cases as follows:

Case 1: a common criminal
Case 2: a dangerous criminal with no victims in imminent danger
Case 3: a dangerous criminal with a victim in imminent danger
Case 4: a political prisoner not implicated in acts of terrorism
Case 5: a political prisoner suspected of acts against the government
Case 6: a political prisoner commiting acts of terrorism
Case 7: a suspected terrorist who is later found innocent

So my questions are:

If
waterboarding is not torture, why are the police and other law
enforcement agencies not allowed to use it when interrogating prisoners
(cases 1, 2 and 3)?

Because one of the arguments for water boarding is that it is to be used only as a last resort and only when there is good reason to believe that lives are at stake.  I have no sympathy for people who want to kills us.  A bank robber, once caught, poses no more threat.

Why is waterboarding not used to put extremely dangerous criminals away (case 2)?

See the previous answer.

Is waterboarding acceptable to save a human life (see case 3)?

Of course it is.  So is removing some dudes fingers.   Maybe a few other parts too. 

Is waterboarding acceptable for undesirable political views or political prisoners (case 4)?

No

Is waterboarding acceptable for any military action involving guerrilla warfare or insurgents (case 5)?

If lives are at stake -- yes

Are all forms of terrorism (including mere economic terrorism) a good reason to use waterboarding (case 6)?

If lives are at stake, yes. 

What do we do is somebody is subjected to waterboarding and is later found innocent (case 7)?

Buy him ice cream.  Let's face it, they don't pull nuns out of the convent and water board them.  If you join a terrorists organization, and then are suspected of doing something that jeopardizes the lives of others, don't complain when given a bath upside down.  Here's a concept:  get a good job, don't join a terrorist group bent on hurting others. 

I
find that waterboarding is one of those areas that some people see as
black and white, and other see as grey. I am curious to see some
opinions.

(V): no, you didn't answer the question posed. You ducked again. I already know the answer anyway. So it doesn't matter.

Übergeek 바둑이: If waterboarding fails it is likely that either nothing else would or the subject has no real information.

(V):  You're avoiding the question.   If other methods failed to yield any information, and you had very strong reason to believe that your family/friends/fellow soldiers very lives were at stake and that the terrorist had information that could save lives, would you let other die, or water board?

You have two choices and only two. 

A-Water board to get the intel

B-No waterboarding under any circumstances even if it means loved ones may die.

A or B?

Please answer.   What are you going to do?

(V):  Or a convenient way to avoid the question.  BTW, I figured you'd fail this little test.  The correct answer to my question would have pointed out that water boarding is a last course of interrogation and used only when other methods (such as your "secret" method) have failed.  That said, your answer to my question has to assume that those "secret" methods of yours would failed.  Because Jules, in point of fact, if those secret methods did actually work, then there would be no need to water board anyone.  It's only when other measures fail that water boarding is used. 

Now to the crux of the matter:  If all else fails you, and your family, friends, comrades' lives are at stake, and IF you have nothing left but to try the drastic step of water boarding, do you put other lives at risk for some nonsense such as higher ground or do you do the right thing and water board?

Me?  I'm a Jack Bower fan.  Some dude knows some intel that could bring harm to my family etc, I'm going right to well placed electrodes and gonna turn up the juice. 

SL-Mark:  pretty please 

(V):  And those other ways are?

(V):  You'd use it if it was the only way to protect your family.  We all would.  We're not dealing with nuns here.   Terrorists.  they play hardball. 

(V):  Oh well 

(V):  We are talking the science of life.  period.  What we KNOW.  Not various interpretations of ancient texts. 

Yours is a subjective view and mine is objective.  Yours based on suppositions and theory and mine on solid and  provable facts.  

(V):  Pure rubbish.  Total metaphysical nonsense.   You're a biological life form.  Sperm is alive.  For that matter, there is no such thing as a beginning of life as much as a continuation of life.  Life begets life.  This spiritual nonsense is not scientific.  It's a life.  It's a being.  It's a scientific accepted FACT.   Remember, you're the one that insists on facts.  It's a fact and stated over and over by the world's leading scientists and embryologists.  It's a settled matter.   A new human being comes into existence at the MOMENT of conception.   Not AFTER some metaphysical phenomenon occurs.  Science isn't on your side and the witch doctor isn't a trusted expert in this case. 

(V): You equivocate. 

Czuch:  good point  ;)

gogul:  I'm not so sure it's idle.  It's fundamental to the question.  What is the unborn? 

I remember one radio host said that the debate is over and the pro-life side has lost.  he said that in the 70's.  lol.   Here we are and the debate is still strong>   It will continue to be a debate long after I'm gone as long as it's legal.  

Isn't it odd that Obama supports abortion at any time for any reason and yet wants to reduce the number?  Why?  If it's not morally wrong, and it's a personal decision, then why does reducing abortions matter? 

I also find it odd that people can be so venomously against waterboarding and yet in the same breath favor the dismemberment of the unborn.  Sure, they say let the woman decide but who gives the unborn a voice in the matter?  The two views are inconsistent. 

gogul:even the morning after pill goes too far for me.  But that's because of my underlying belief and to be consistent in my view, the morning after pill does the same thing as any abortion only at the very earliest of stages. 

And some companies will make billions off Cap and Trade.  Goldman Sachs for one.  And they made two billion and paid NO TAXES.

Oh and Al Gore will profit big time if cap and trade goes through.

But other countries will NOT limit emmsions.   And who will get burnt by Cap and Trade?  

The little guy.

Thanks to Obama. 

gogul: It's murder to kill the same human being once it is born.  (so far it's murder...who knows where it will be in years).  What's the difference? 

Übergeek 바둑이:"cause severe pain and suffering."  is subjective  and certainly less painful and causes less suffering than say having one's toes and fingers removed.  It's not meant to be pleasant.  It's meant to be used only as a last resort and NEVER to be used as general policy.  But it's one tool that should  be in the tool box should the need arise.

Meanwhile, who will be blamed when we have a terrorist captured who could provide intel on an attack that will certainly kill hundreds of lives and we offer tea and crumpets instead of waterboarding?  The terrorist act goes through, 700 are killed, their bodies ripped apart by bombs.  And the terrorist sips his tea and the US powers say, well, there was nothing we could do.  We knew he had information on a pending attack but we could only ask him nicely to tell us.  We did ask please.

And BTW, the "enemy" is already employing harsh techniques.  Um, they cut off parts of the body and mostly they kill whom they capture and drag their bodies through the streets.

I prefer to be waterboarded over decapatation.

Übergeek 바둑이:  I don't think it's complex at all.  I think the question is rather simple; it's the explanations and obfuscations that get complex.  That there is a life of some kind involved is beyond question.  The kind of life that "it" is, is human.  Therefore it's a human life.  This is a solid scientific fact.  So that question really has to do with the human life that is ended in an abortion. 

If you argue it's not a human life, and if you were correct, then there should be no debate.  If it's not a human life, kill it.   If it is, then it's not a complex question at all.  It's not right to take the life of a human being (and it is a human being from a scientific point of view) without just cause.