The horrors of socialized medicine.

[Cassiopeia]

He does not want people living in the street.....lets get them all a free home

I do not agree with your comment

I think that's taking their post to an extreme. However, I do know that in some countries if you can't provide a place to live, the government has housing for you. And while it's not a luxurious place, it's a roof and warmth.

I don't see a problem with having compassion for those who, for one reason or another can't provide for themselves. After all, isn't that the spirit of the Law of Consecration?

[Dravin]

I think that's taking their post to an extreme. However, I do know that in some countries if you can't provide a place to live, the government has housing for you. And while it's not a luxurious place, it's a roof and warmth.

I don't see a problem with having compassion for those who, for one reason or another can't provide for themselves. After all, isn't that the spirit of the Law of Consecration?

The Spirit of the Law of consecration is voluntary though, taxation is not.

Actually I would agree that Christ wants us to look after our fellow man (how of course is up to debate), but Moksha's constant insinuation that if you don't feel it is the government's job (personally I have no problem with the idea of health care, it's an implementation issue for me) or if you don't support what ever particular bill/system/idea is under consideration at the moment that one is unchristian gets tiring, so he tends to get a more curt response than one might first expect.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Dravin

[Palerider]

I think that's taking their post to an extreme. However, I do know that in some countries if you can't provide a place to live, the government has housing for you. And while it's not a luxurious place, it's a roof and warmth.

I don't see a problem with having compassion for those who, for one reason or another can't provide for themselves. After all, isn't that the spirit of the Law of Consecration?

Totally different.....gov't and law of consecration......

[Cassiopeia]

The Spirit of the Law of consecration is voluntary though, taxation is not.

Actually I would agree that Christ wants us to look after our fellow man (how of course is up to debate), but Moksha's constant insinuation that if you don't feel it is the government's job (personally I have no problem with the idea of health care, it's an implementation issue for me) or if you don't support what ever particular bill/system/idea is under consideration at the moment that one is unchristian gets tiring, so he tends to get a more curt response then one might first expect.

Ah...it's all in the context. :)

[Guest]

If we lived in America, I seriously believe he would be dead now.

This statement makes me gnash my teeth. I have spent so much time and money volunteering/donating to the Make a Wish Foundation, Nemours Children's Hospital, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, Ronald McDonald House, even the Mayo Clinic - all private CHARITABLE institutions involved in giving the BEST care to children and their families with critical illnesses. I can give you a book of all the children that has received care from these places - heck you can easily find them on their respective web sites. Do you know how many children have been saved by these institutions?

Here's one of the thousands of children that received life-saving care from St. Jude's:

Ryan Smith, 6 years old, lymphoblastic leukemia

Yes, this is in America. No, Ryan Smith's family does not have the money to pay for his treatment. I'm one of the millions of American residents who donate time and money to St. Jude's. Carrie Underwood - a popular millionaire singer - is another one.

It makes me sad that even with all our efforts somebody could still believe this of America - why, because we don't rely on our government to do it?

We certainly have received far more from the NHS than we have ever paid into it via taxes.

This is not something to be proud of - as a matter of fact, this is a very selfish statement... The NHS does not make money - it doesn't make a profit. Therefore, for you to have received more care than what you paid into it, somebody else had to spend a lot of money for care they never received. Think about it. It would have been better if you made this statement with a tone of humility. Like, "I am very grateful to the British people for helping us with our medical care - we surely haven't paid enough into it to pay for our medical treatments. Hopefully we will all stay in good jobs so that we can eventually pay our share..."

I think the NHS is a good program. And I applaud it for the benefit it provided your cousin. The way you look at it is just plain wrong, though. This is one of the reasons I am not too excited about a US version of the NHS. There are just too many people who think like you do. Sorry if I sounded harsh.

Edited February 26, 2010 by anatess

[Mahone]

This is not something to be proud of - as a matter of fact, this is a very selfish statement... The NHS does not make money - it doesn't make a profit. Therefore, for you to have received more care than what you paid into it, somebody else had to spend a lot of money for care they never received. Think about it. It would have been better if you made this statement with a tone of humility. Like, "I am very grateful to the British people for helping us with our medical care - we surely haven't paid enough into it to pay for our medical treatments. Hopefully we will all stay in good jobs so that we can eventually pay our share..."

I think the NHS is a good program. And I applaud it for the benefit it provided your cousin. The way you look at it is just plain wrong, though. This is one of the reasons I am not too excited about a US version of the NHS. There are just too many people who think like you do. Sorry if I sounded harsh.

Excuse me? Do you think we wanted it to be this way? Do you think my cousin, or any of us as his family wanted him to have such a serious heart condition? Do you think we wanted to have to take more from the British public than we gave back? At what point did I ever say any of this? The medical care he has had has cost the NHS (and therefore the British public) hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is money that WE as a family cannot afford to pay - very few people in this world could afford to pay it. I have not once said I am glad it had to be this way, however I'm glad that option was available in order to save my cousins life - what sane person would not take it and be grateful for it when it is offered to them? Without social health care, that option would never have been available to us.

Ands FYI, every single member of my nuclear and extended family is working and paying their taxes accordingly. No-one is living off the state so to speak. We are paying as much money back as we have the ability to do.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Mahone

[FunkyTown]

Excuse me? Do you think we wanted it to be this way? Do you think my cousin, or any of us as his family wanted him to have such a serious heart condition? Do you think we wanted to have to take more from the British public than we gave back? At what point did I ever say any of this? The medical care he has had has cost the NHS (and therefore the British public) hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is money that WE as a family cannot afford to pay - very few people in this world could afford to pay it. I have not once said I am glad it had to be this way, however I'm glad that option was available in order to save my cousins life - what sane person would not take it and be grateful for it when it is offered to them? Without social health care, that option would never have been available to us.

Ands FYI, every single member of my nuclear and extended family is working and paying their taxes accordingly. No-one is living off the state so to speak. We are paying as much money back as we have the ability to do.

I would also like you to know I'm fairly certain there aren't very many Brits who begrudge paying taxes for worthy causes like that, Mahone. I don't.

I'm glad my taxes are going to help someone who needs help and hope your cousin gets better soon.

[Guest]

Excuse me? Do you think we wanted it to be this way? Do you think my cousin, or any of us as his family wanted him to have such a serious heart condition? .

Of course not. Neither does anybody else. Such is life. Everybody have their challenges, you just happen to have health as one of yours. Don't really know how this is relevant...

Do you think we wanted to have to take more from the British public than we gave back? At what point did I ever say any of this? The medical care he has had has cost the NHS (and therefore the British public) hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is money that WE as a family cannot afford to pay - very few people in this world could afford to pay it. I have not once said I am glad it had to be this way, however I'm glad that option was available in order to save my cousins life - what sane person would not take it and be grateful for it when it is offered to them? Without social health care, that option would never have been available to us.

Ands FYI, every single member of my nuclear and extended family is working and paying their taxes accordingly. No-one is living off the state so to speak. We are paying as much money back as we have the ability to do.

Now, you're saying this. But your first statement sounded like you think it was a good thing that you got more than you paid in. Like you wanted to tell the Americans that they should get nationalized healthcare because of it.

Some Americans think the government (powered by the entire American citizenry) should provide healthcare for those who can't afford it. Some Americans think we need to leave it as it is by having private institutions like St. Jude's maintain voluntary funding through charitable donations of private citizens. Some Americans think a combination of the two is the way to go. Either way, it is still wrong for you to think your cousin will die in the hands of Americans. That's really what got me going...

Edited February 26, 2010 by anatess

[Mahone]

Of course not. Neither does anybody else. Such is life. Everybody have their challenges, you just happen to have health as one of yours. Don't really know how this is relevant...

It's relevant because I was making a point that your assumption of this:

But your first statement sounded like you think it was a good thing that you got more than you paid in.

Is not true. Not in that context.

Now, you're saying this. But your first statement sounded like you think it was a good thing that you got more than you paid in. Like you wanted to tell the Americans that they should get nationalized healthcare because of it.

No, not us specifially. I was however making the point that it's a good thing that EVERYONE has the ability to do this if they need it. We needed it and we got it. That is a good thing. That is what the NHS is all about, and that is the point of my initial statement. So yes, I was saying it was a good thing, but just not in the way you assumed.

[Guest]

No, not us specifially. I was however making the point that it's a good thing that EVERYONE has the ability to do this if they need it. We needed it and we got it. That is a good thing. That is what the NHS is all about, and that is the point of my initial statement. So yes, I was saying it was a good thing, but just not in the way you assumed.

Okay, I understand you now. I apologize for my misunderstanding of your initial statement.

But, you haven't addressed your claim that your cousin would have died in America. I presented to you the fallacy of that viewpoint.

[Elphaba]

This statement makes me gnash my teeth.>snip<Do you know how many children have been saved by these institutions?

. . . .

It makes me sad that even with all our efforts somebody could still believe this of America - why, because we don't rely on our government to do it?

I know many Americans who give of their time, money, and heart to organizations that help children who are seriously ill. When I was working and making a good wage, I did the same, so I don’t dismiss your contributions.

However, the fact is, in America, uninsured children die where insured children do not. The following article from The New York Times describes the study that demonstrates this:

Hospitalized Children Without Insurance Are More Likely to Die, a Study Finds

Uninsured children who wind up in the hospital are much more likely to die than children covered by either private or government insurance plans, according to one of the first studies to assess the impact of insurance coverage on hospitalized children.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed.

“If you take two kids from the same demographic background — the same race, same gender, same neighborhood income level and same number of co-morbidities or other illnesses — the kid without insurance is 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than the kid in the bed right next to him or her who is insured,” said David C. Chang, co-director of the pediatric surgery outcomes group at the children’s center and an author of the study, which appeared today in The Journal of Public Health.

. . . .

I do agree with you that Mahone’s cousin would probably have been eligible for the care offered by at least one of the charities you mentioned, as his medical condition was dire.

However, no matter how much Americans contribute to the charities that help children, it will never be enough to cover all of the medical needs of all of them, much less of all Americans, and children will continue to die because of it.

Elphaba

[Mahone]

Okay, I understand you now. I apologize for my misunderstanding of your initial statement.

But, you haven't addressed your claim that your cousin would have died in America. I presented to you the fallacy of that viewpoint.

I don't think there is a fallacy to it. Lets say I was given two choices of where he could have been treated:

- A well meaning charity, may have a good track record, however as it is still a charity it will still have fluctuations in the donations and other sources of funds that it uses to treat its patients. There is no legal obligation for them to provide treatment, the treatment comes simply from the goodness of the hearts of the American population, which is a big variable.

- A government organisation (the NHS) which is legally obliged to provide necessary and feasible professional medical treatment to British citizens, as that is what British citizens pay for. The NHS is also monitored by third party organisations which have some degree of power over the NHS, and they will ensure that they comply with this legal requirement.

I know which one I'd prefer to go to if I had a choice and my life was at stake.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Mahone

[boyando]

I know many Americans who give of their time, money, and heart to organizations that help children who are seriously ill. When I was working and making a good wage, I did the same, so I don’t dismiss your contributions.

However, the fact is, in America, uninsured children die where insured children do not. The following article from The New York Times describes the study that demonstrates this:

Elphaba

Hi Sis

About the first of the year, I decided that I was going to develop a nothing is going to make me angry, attitude. With some on this post, this change in my character has made it very difficult to respond. Not so with you, because I know that much of what you write, is because you are no longer are able to give of your time and money.

I would like to point out, though, a couple of things from this article. First, it stated that so few children die, that they had to greatly expand their study, to gather enough info, to make a study out of it.

Second, the study pointed out that they tried to match neighborhoods, economics of the family's, ect.., this to me states that the uninsured, as an average, had just as much access to insurance as those who took advantage. Dr. Fizan Abdullah came to the conclusion that if more children were insured, less would die.

I know I am not a doctor and I don't even play one on TV, but I drew a very different conclusion from the study. I think parental involvement plays a much bigger role in the health of a child and that insurance is a byproduct of the parents concern for there children.

An exaggeration, to prove my point would be something like saying, if your son Brian's, father, was put in charge of his health care, then because of Brian's health problems, as a child, the chances are that Brian would have had 60% less chance of survival, because Brian's father was just not really concerned with Brian's health.

As described in the article, this study was about as useful as studying how many colds children get on a farm and compare it to how many colds children get in urban settings and concluding that all children need to move to the farm, to avoid catching a cold.

I had a third and forth point, but I started to get angry. Not at you, but the writer of this article and those who did the study. So I stopped, found my quiet spot and decided to go file papers, so I can get a government grant, to study why kids on farms don't get a cold as often as kids in New York City.

Love yah, bro.

[Moksha]

He does not want people living in the street.....lets get them all a free home

I do not agree with your comment

Free homes? I was talking about health care to keep people like Mahone's cousin alive.

BTW, are you against homeless shelters? What about mangers?

Edited February 26, 2010 by Moksha
too make sense

[Moksha]

- A well meaning charity, may have a good track record, however as it is still a charity it will still have fluctuations in the donations and other sources of funds that it uses to treat its patients. There is no legal obligation for them to provide treatment, the treatment comes simply from the goodness of the hearts of the American population, which is a big variable.

So you are saying that health care should not be left to the vagaries of chance? That sounds too much like common sense.

[Palerider]

Free homes? I was talking about health care to keep people like Mahone's cousin alive.

BTW, are you against homeless shelters? What about mangers?

if you were at a homeless shelter....you probally would not be impressed with them....I should say at least the ones here in the st louis area....

[Moksha]

You are right, I would not be too impressed but I would thank God for a sandwich, soup and a cot on a cold winters night. God bless the children that they too can find such a roof over their head and a meal in their belly when they are in such need.

The question has never been addressed as to whether even this minimal living condition of having a homeless shelter over their head is a right for citizens, but for now we can think of how they can be cared for when they are sick. Can our values be allowed to encompass this? I say yes.

[Palerider]

You are right, I would not be too impressed but I would thank God for a sandwich, soup and a cot on a cold winters night. God bless the children that they too can find such a roof over their head and a meal in their belly when they are in such need.

The question has never been addressed as to whether even this minimal living condition of having a homeless shelter over their head is a right for citizens, but for now we can think of how they can be cared for when they are sick. Can our values be allowed to encompass this? I say yes.

the health plan that they are trying to ram thru is the worst thing that could happen.....I have relatives and friends in the medical field and I am unaware of kids passing away because of lack of healthcare...again I am only talking about this area I live in. Nancy Pelosi claims this bill would create 400,000 jobs....she is crazy

[confuzzled]

I work in health care and I by no means I'm a fan of this bill.

Do we need health care reform in this country? Absolutely!

But IMO it has to start with 1. the insurance companies 2. the drug companies 3. the lawyers (one has to agree that one reason for such high medical cost is the high cost of malpractice insurance).

Just my measly 2 cent opinion.

[Palerider]

I work in health care and I by no means I'm a fan of this bill.

Do we need health care reform in this country? Absolutely!

But IMO it has to start with 1. the insurance companies 2. the drug companies 3. the lawyers (one has to agree that one reason for such high medical cost is the high cost of malpractice insurance).

Just my measly 2 cent opinion.

we can start be getting rid of the trial lawyers....:)

[Elphaba]

About the first of the year, I decided that I was going to develop a nothing is going to make me angry, attitude. With some on this post, this change in my character has made it very difficult to respond.

I’m sorry to hear that, though frankly, I don’t understand exactly what it is about the study makes you angry.

I would like to point out, though, a couple of things from this article. First, it stated that so few children die, that they had to greatly expand their study, to gather enough info, to make a study out of it.

You misunderstand the article’s reference to an “expansion.” The expansion is to the government-provided CHIP program, a health insurance program for children. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Johns Hopkins Children's Center's study and/or its sampling size. They are two completely separate things.

　

So, no, the researchers did not expand the study. However, they did recognize from the beginning that the sampling would have to be very large, and at 23 million hospitalizations, spanning 17 years, I think they achieved that sampling.

Second, the study pointed out that they tried to match neighborhoods, economics of the family's, ect.., this to me states that the uninsured, as an average, had just as much access to insurance as those who took advantage.

How so? Millions of uninsured Americans live on the same block as millions of insured Americans. This is because health insurance is inextricably connected with employment, and while all the people on a given block share the same demographics, including wages earned, their access to health insurance is dissimilar. A few examples:

　

1) The company one breadwinner works for is large and can afford to offer health insurance as part of its benefits package, while the company the other breadwinner works for is small and cannot afford to offer any benefits package at all. Yet both breadwinners earn the same wages.

　

2) The breadwinner makes the family’s living via a home business, and cannot afford the cost of private health insurance for the family, yet s/he brings in the same amount of money other members of the block earn as wages.

　

3) The family needs the salaries of both parents to earn the equivalent of the block’s similar wage, and has health insurance through one of those jobs. However, if one of them is laid off or fired, the family not only loses that employer-provided health insurance, but the financial means to purchase private insurance to make up for the loss. It’s true that at this point, the family’s demographics would differ from that of other members of the block, but it previously would have been the same.

Additionally, in this market, the laid-off parent may find new employment, but not necessarily a job that provides health insurance; thus, the family may have lost its health insurance permanently although it once again matches the demographics of the other members of the block.

　

These are just three scenarios where some people are able to afford insurance while others cannot, even though they all share the same demographics, and, of course, there are many others, including the families negatively affected by corporate restructuring, outsourcing, divorce, family crises, and chronic illness, to name a few.

Dr. Fizan Abdullah came to the conclusion that if more children were insured, less would die.

Yes, that is what the data showed. I think you agree with him, but I’m not sure. I admit I don’t understand why the study makes you angry, so I’m not really sure where you stand on the results.

I know I am not a doctor and I don't even play one on TV, but I drew a very different conclusion from the study. I think parental involvement plays a much bigger role in the health of a child and that insurance is a byproduct of the parents concern for there children.

First, how is this a different conclusion than the study’s, given the reason children are uninsured is not addressed by the study whatsoever, nor was it intended to?

　

Second, I think it’s obvious parental concern plays a role in whether children are insured or not. However, the evidence does not conclude that 8 million children are uninsured because their parents can afford health insurance but refuse to purchase it. I’m sure that happens, but not in statistically significant numbers. In fact, I have no doubt whatsoever the vast majority of the parents of the almost 17,000 dead children identified in the study would have purchased health insurance for their children if they could have.

　

This is especially true given one of the common reasons a child died was because the parent(s) could not afford to take her to the doctor when she initially became ill. Thus, her condition worsened until it was critical, at which point her parent(s) felt there was no choice but to take her to the ER. Tragically, by then it was too late, and even though the ER doctor admitted the child, she died anyway.

　

If the parents had known the child had a potentially life-threatening condition that required ongoing medical treatment, and if they could have afforded health insurance that would have paid for this treatment, of course most of them would have purchased it.

　

Additionally, I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of parents of the eight million uninsured children in America would purchase health insurance for their children if they could afford it as well. But the fact is, the primary reason parents do not provide health insurance for their children is they cannot afford it.

　

If your argument is that this is not true, I’d be glad to see evidence of such.

An exaggeration, to prove my point would be something like saying, if your son Brian's, father, was put in charge of his health care, then because of Brian's health problems, as a child, the chances are that Brian would have had 60% less chance of survival, because Brian's father was just not really concerned with Brian's health.

Actually, B would not have survived as the invasive growth of his tumor would have been fatal without medical treatment.

　

However, as you said, your example is an exaggeration, and the vast majority of parents are not like B‘s father. In fact, the parents of most uninsured children are not lazy or negligent; rather, they are the working poor. They have at least one full-time wage earner who works one or more jobs, albeit at minimum wage. They have no access to affordable health insurance either because it’s not offered by their employer(s) or because the share they're asked to pay is more than they can afford.

As described in the article, this study was about as useful as studying how many colds children get on a farm and compare it to how many colds children get in urban settings and concluding that all children need to move to the farm, to avoid catching a cold.

Frankly, I’m baffled by this.

　

You’ll have to explain exactly what about the study makes you angry, because I don’t understand. If I am reading you correctly, you think the study should have gone on to identify why these children were uninsured, but that is not what the study was designed to do. It was designed to determine the effect being uninsured has on children‘s health outcomes, and it did that. It was conducted by one of the most reputable medical facilities in the world, and I can’t see how it could have been any more comprehensive.

　

If that is not what makes you angry, then is it the study’s conclusions you object to? If so, why? Or is it the sampling itself?

I had a third and forth point, but I started to get angry.

I’d like to heard your other points.

Not at you, but the writer of this article and those who did the study.

Why not at me? I agree with the study’s findings, and I see nothing in the reporter’s story that deserves your criticism. She reported the story accurately, and the study is credible.

　

The data from this study, that spanned seventeen years and 23 million hospitalizations, proved that children need to be insured, regardless of why they’re not. That is critical information, and dismissing it by comparing it to children catching colds strikes me as petty. Therefore, I think I must be missing a crucial point in your argument, and would really appreciate you explaining it further so I can understand.

　

By the way, H goes in for surgery on Tuesday, to remove pre-cancerous cells, which are one stage away from cancer. I honestly don't care about anything else right now. As long as her surgery makes her healthy, absolutely nothing else matters. She has no insurance, but we will work that out.

So, you're right, getting angry is a waste of time. If our children are healthy, what more can we ask for?

Love ya back,

Sis　

[boyando]

I’m sorry to hear that, though frankly, I don’t understand exactly what it is about the study makes you angry.

You misunderstand the article’s reference to an “expansion.” The expansion is to the government-provided CHIP program, a health insurance program for children. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Johns Hopkins Children's Center's study and/or its sampling size. They are two completely separate things.

　

I'm sorry I confused you. My point was and still is that so few Children die, in America. But that is not what the image of what our health care system looks like, when some one has an agenda.

　

　

You’ll have to explain exactly what about the study makes you angry, because I don’t understand. If I am reading you correctly, you think the study should have gone on to identify why these children were uninsured, but that is not what the study was designed to do. It was designed to determine the effect being uninsured has on children‘s health outcomes, and it did that. It was conducted by one of the most reputable medical facilities in the world, and I can’t see how it could have been any more comprehensive.

　

If that is not what makes you angry, then is it the study’s conclusions you object to? If so, why? Or is it the sampling itself?

I’d like to heard your other points. Why not at me? I agree with the study’s findings, and I see nothing in the reporter’s story that deserves your criticism. She reported the story accurately, and the study is credible.

　

The data from this study, that spanned seventeen years and 23 million hospitalizations, proved that children need to be insured, regardless of why they’re not. That is critical information, and dismissing it by comparing it to children catching colds strikes me as petty. Therefore, I think I must be missing a crucial point in your argument, and would really appreciate you explaining it further so I can understand.

　

I'm in my happy place, I am in my happy place, I am in my happy place, lol.

Because of the very small role I play in the politics of my community, I have seen first hand what a political joke these studies are. In one such study, my little township was called "the fattest town in Utah".

Not looking for a fight, with a "very reputable group" here in Utah, but in one such study, I found their study very self serving and full of facts, with little information. I wish I could say it was different in other studies, that have been handed to me, but it doesn't seem to matter if it is a study on transportation or fire redistricting or how many children brush their teeth every night, the group doing the study, has an agenda.

By it's very nature, a study to discover if our children have a better survival rate with insurance, than with out, has to have the one conclusion or the study is a waist. You don't get grants to do studies, if there is no action that needs to happen because of the study.

So you put in the facts, and leave out a lot of information, if you want your study to "prove" something. Information like, how a first generation immigrant, from a small Polynesian island, may not fully understand the importance of health insurance, or when to take their child to the doctor (something that was pointed out to me by a dear friend who is a second generation Polynesian islander).

My farm analogy, was in no way to put the importance of trying to save children lives on the same level as cold prevention. But rather to point out that facts, without information, is useless. Here is another analogy, that may ex-plain what I am trying to say.

Many a study has been done, that shows the facts, that because of the word of wisdom and other intangible reasons, Mormons of all age groups, live a longer and healthier lives, than non-Mormons. Should the conclusion be that everyone should be forced to be a Mormon? (IF you are a Mormon and you answered yes to the previous question, you may want to make an appointment with any Church leader, so they can help you can figure out why you are wrong).

By the way, H goes in for surgery on Tuesday, to remove pre-cancerous cells, which are one stage away from cancer. I honestly don't care about anything else right now. As long as her surgery makes her healthy, absolutely nothing else matters. She has no insurance, but we will work that out.

So, you're right, getting angry is a waste of time. If our children are healthy, what more can we ask for?

Love ya back,

Sis　

I don't think you know how important H is to my family. She is one very special, sweetheart of a little girl.To bad I gave up being angry, I would have enjoyed beating the snot out of P.

As always, you, B and H are in our thoughts and prayers.

bro

[Guest]

I don't think there is a fallacy to it. Lets say I was given two choices of where he could have been treated:

- A well meaning charity, may have a good track record, however as it is still a charity it will still have fluctuations in the donations and other sources of funds that it uses to treat its patients. There is no legal obligation for them to provide treatment, the treatment comes simply from the goodness of the hearts of the American population, which is a big variable.

- A government organisation (the NHS) which is legally obliged to provide necessary and feasible professional medical treatment to British citizens, as that is what British citizens pay for. The NHS is also monitored by third party organisations which have some degree of power over the NHS, and they will ensure that they comply with this legal requirement.

I know which one I'd prefer to go to if I had a choice and my life was at stake.

But that's only because you only presented two narrow options. That is so far from the reality of what it means to be American.

You've seen the movie Pursuit of Happyness? The one with Will Smith in it? It's based on a true story. You think Chris Gardner sat on his buns while he couldn't afford a roof over his son's head, let alone basic medical care waiting for some charity or some government to bail him out? Nope. That's the stuff that Americans are made of. The thing that makes this country great.

And that's what the government can provide - a country with opportunities wide open again. We don't have that right now.

[MarginOfError]

I would like to point out, though, a couple of things from this article. First, it stated that so few children die, that they had to greatly expand their study, to gather enough info, to make a study out of it.

It doesn't say that actually. The only reference to expansion is with regard to policy debates about expanding SCHIP. The study was defined to include data from two major databases.

Second, the study pointed out that they tried to match neighborhoods, economics of the family's, ect.., this to me states that the uninsured, as an average, had just as much access to insurance as those who took advantage. Dr. Fizan Abdullah came to the conclusion that if more children were insured, less would die.

What you're taking out of the matching is incorrect. The matching process is done to make the residual distribution of the model more normal, which is crucial to the modeling assumptions. It is common statistical practice and widely accepted. What's more, it shows some very good statistical properties and, in retrospective studies, often provides more efficient and consistent (read: better) results than unmatched designs

* in the above paragraph, matching, residual, normal, efficient, and consistent are all statistical terms.

I know I am not a doctor and I don't even play one on TV, but I drew a very different conclusion from the study. I think parental involvement plays a much bigger role in the health of a child and that insurance is a byproduct of the parents concern for there children.

An exaggeration, to prove my point would be something like saying, if your son Brian's, father, was put in charge of his health care, then because of Brian's health problems, as a child, the chances are that Brian would have had 60% less chance of survival, because Brian's father was just not really concerned with Brian's health.

Perhaps you should leave the interpretation of statistical data to people who understand statistics then. Your interpretation is a wild extrapolation with very little basis in the original study.

As described in the article, this study was about as useful as studying how many colds children get on a farm and compare it to how many colds children get in urban settings and concluding that all children need to move to the farm, to avoid catching a cold.

Coincidentally, children who live on farms do get fewer colds than children in urban areas, most likely because they are exposed to fewer children. The corollary to that is that if all children lived on farms, ie, had less exposure to other children, then they would get fewer colds. But that has nothing to do with this article, which is sound in it's statistical design and execution.

I had a third and forth point, but I started to get angry. Not at you, but the writer of this article and those who did the study. So I stopped, found my quiet spot and decided to go file papers, so I can get a government grant, to study why kids on farms don't get a cold as often as kids in New York City.

You should get angry at the educational institution who failed to teach you how to intelligibly interpret research. That's who really failed you here. There's nothing wrong with this article and it is consistent with everything we've known in medicine for a long time. Uninsured children die more often in hospitals than insured children because uninsured patients wait longer to come to the hospital than insured patients.

The conclusion is actually pretty accurate. People who are insured are more likely to seek medical attention earlier in their illnesses because they don't have to worry about paying for it.

Also, I might add, before you go knocking articles that appear in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, you might want to consider what it means to be peer-reviewed. It usually means that it's been through a gauntlet of criticism from multiple people that know more about the subject than you do.

[Mahone]

But that's only because you only presented two narrow options. That is so far from the reality of what it means to be American.

You've seen the movie Pursuit of Happyness? The one with Will Smith in it? It's based on a true story. You think Chris Gardner sat on his buns while he couldn't afford a roof over his son's head, let alone basic medical care waiting for some charity or some government to bail him out? Nope. That's the stuff that Americans are made of. The thing that makes this country great.

And that's what the government can provide - a country with opportunities wide open again. We don't have that right now.

Can't say I have I'm afraid.