And liberals want us to have that stuff here, get a grip. In a desperate bid to save their son's life, two Scotland Yard detectives have moved their family from London to New York to take advantage of the city's pioneering cancer treatments.
Jack Brown, 5, was given a 20% chance of survival by doctors in England after being diagnosed in 2004 with neuroblastoma, a cancer that attacks specialized nerve cells.
2007-01-20 12:12:44 · 5 answers · asked by zombiefighter1988 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sloppy, it's not cleaner, just cheaper. And many of those going to india and china comeback worse than when they left.
2007-01-21 01:27:50 · update #1
if you look at the figures on this site you will notice even though the US health system is the best funded you are pretty far down the list for the overall health and mortality rates and the countries above you mostly have socialised health systems. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_lif_exp_at_bir_yea_tot_pop-expectancy-birth-years-total-population http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_hea_yea-health-life-expectancy-healthy-year
the medical treatment in the US is excellent for 70% of your population but for the 30% who cannot afford treatment and do not have insurance, it does little more than patch them up and let them die painlessly. if you wanted a heart transplant in the 1960s you would have to go to south africa for it, because they were doing the pioneering work. if you have a degenerative brain disease, like parkinsons or alzheimer's you would be better off coming to the UK as they are doing the cutting edge research on that in th UK. the family has gone to new york because the pioneering work on that specific condition is being done there, and they could afford the treatment. i'll bet there are many children in the US suffering from the same complaint but they will die because their families cannot pay for the treatment. the health system in the UK is free at the point of delivery and you will get the best treatment regardless of your ability to pay. that is why the UK has a better record for the population as a whole. whereas, medical excellence in the US is resticted to those who can afford it. it is worth reading this blog, the treatment this woman got for her child would have bankrupted many people in the US. http://www.gallaghertriplets.co.uk/lukes_pages/lukesdiary.htm
2007-01-20 13:06:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm guessing that about 0.2% of the human population has neuroblastoma. And I'm guessing that, for this reason, even at the U.S. hospital, the son is still going to have only a 20% chance of survival. It's just that the two detectives are going to pay about 700 grand more to drag out the kid's life for another two years.
Anyway, the U.S. does have some cutting-edge medical research going on, but so do many European universities. And it seems from the astronomical average lifespans of Japanese citizens that their health care isn't so bad, either.
2007-01-20 20:30:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The NHS is being run down by this, and previous governments, because of the huge financial costs, the politicians of this country all have private medical care, so they do not care about the likes of us, the ordinary tax payers.
2007-01-20 20:21:54 · answer #3 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If medical care is so great in the US, why are more and more Americans going to India and Asia for surgeries?
Could it be that the hospitals are better staffed, cleaner with less chance of infection, and much less expensive than in the US?
2007-01-20 20:19:01 · answer #4 · answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
maybe because the treatment (at the time )may only be available here in the states. (doctors location, also factor in .) I would move in a heartbeat If I only want the best possible care for my child.
Jack will be in my prayers.
2007-01-20 20:22:51 · answer #5 · answered by bleacherbrat34 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋