The EPA is Poisoning People while Fracking is making People’s lives Better

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

There have been a lot of movies showing how fracking is polluting our groundwater.  Giving people cancer.  Causing fire to blow out of people’s water faucets.  Makers of movies appear on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report talking about how horrible and dangerous fracking is.  So the evils of fracking are all around us.  But, strangely, these dangers are conspicuous by their absence in one area.  Actual news stories.

We hear about how global warming is getting worse.  We hear example after example of how Republicans hate the poor and women and want to take away health insurance from everyone.  We are bombarded with news about how the rich aren’t paying their fair share and how Republicans are trying to buy elections.  But we don’t see reporters filming fire shooting out of a water faucet.  And we don’t see the CDC in fracking areas responding to soaring cancer rates.  Or fracking fields being turned into superfund cleanup sites.

It’s odd because when Malaysian Airways Flight 370 went missing 4 weeks ago CNN covered the missing airplane 24/7.  Even though they had nothing to report.  They just brought in experts (and a physic) and theorized about what might have happened.  The other news channels covered the non-news with nearly the same fervor as CNN.  So you would think that if fracking was causing fire to shoot out of water faucets and was giving everyone cancer they would be covering that 24/7.  For most of these news channels are liberal.  And liberals hate fracking.  But they don’t go to North Dakota to report the abject misery fracking has brought them.  Probably because they don’t want to show the economic boom going on in North Dakota.  Where people are going to for jobs.  Where the unemployment rate there (2.6% as of February 2014) is the lowest in the nation.  Perhaps that’s why they don’t report the abject misery fracking is causing in North Dakota.  Because there is none.

So if the media isn’t in North Dakota is the government?  Is the EPA documenting the abject misery fracking is causing the good people of North Dakota?  No.  Instead, they’re purposely trying to give people cancer (see What’s more dangerous to your health than fracking? The EPA, apparently by Ashe Schow posted 4/2/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

An EPA inspector general’s report found that the agency did obtain approval to conduct five “human research studies” exposing “81 human study subjects to” toxic pollutants including diesel exhaust…

So the EPA asked people to expose themselves to dangerous pollutants — some at levels 50 times greater than what is safe — but didn’t tell them about the dangers.

Why would the EPA, which supposedly cares so much about the public’s health, do this, especially to people who already had health problems?

To justify more regulations and funding, of course.

They are desperately trying to kill people by exposing them to something they can later call a toxic pollutant.  So they can “justify more regulations and funding.”  And they will tell the people they kill, “Fear not, you shall not have died in vain.  Your horrible death will bring about the greatest kind of good there is.  It will enable us to expand the size of the federal government.  Allowing it to reach further into your lives.  Well, not yours per se because you’ll be dead.  Thanks to us.  But other people will know the joy of having the federal government intruding further into their private lives.  Until one day there are no more private lives.”

This is what the federal government thinks is good.  Not a 2.6% unemployment rate.  Like they have in North Dakota.  Thanks to fracking.  Which the people living there don’t seem to mind.  As the people moving there don’t seem to mind.  Interestingly, the blue states with higher concentrations of liberals aren’t enjoying such economic prosperity.   The unemployment rate in New York is 6.8%.  In Illinois it’s 8.7%.  And in California it’s 8%.  So they’re doing something right in North Dakota.  And something very wrong in New York, Illinois and California.  Perhaps committing too many resources on liberal policies.  Instead of creating an economic climate that will give people the thing they want most.  A job.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT196: “One life is important in gun control debate, 5 million lives are negligible if they lose their insurance because of Obamacare.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 15th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Some of the Richest People in the United States live in the Suburbs of Washington, D.C. 

Liberals say they care about the people.  While they say conservatives only care about their money.  Conservatives want to cut taxes and government spending so they can keep more of their money to spend on their families.  Liberals want to increase taxes and government spending.  To take more money from taxpayers to spend on other people.  People who are more deserving of that money than the people who earned it.

Liberals say they want to tax and spend because they care about people.  And not money.  Like conservatives.  Yet the more money a liberal government collects in taxes the more powerful that government grows.  And the richer those in government get.  Just look at the wealth surrounding Washington, D.C., which includes six of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S.  It used to be the military industrial complex.  Now it’s the government industrial complex.  For liberals do not like the military.  And gut defense spending to fund their welfare state.  Spending our money to reward their friends.  And buying votes by making people dependent on government.

Some of the richest people in the United States live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.  Who got rich on taxpayer money.  Where those connected to the liberal aristocracy enjoy obscene levels of wealth.  While the median family income falls.  Leaving families in the rest of the country to get by on less.  While those connected to government enjoy those obscene levels of wealth.  Yet liberals care about the people.  And not these obscene levels of wealth.

Liberals have grown Very Wealthy by Caring for the People ‘instead’ of Money

So it’s no secret the more money the government collects the better liberals in government live.  The bigger government grows the more government jobs that are available.  Allowing liberals to spread the wealth.  Other people’s wealth, that is.  So it’s good for those inside the government aristocracy.  Which is why liberals ‘care’ about the people.  So they can run a massive welfare state.  With them at the top.  Like Old World royalty.  Passing alms out to the people.  Where the people grovel.  And are obedient.  Grateful for what royalty gives them.  Thanking them politely.  And never forgetting their place.  The dirt beneath their feet (to borrow a line from the musical Les Misérables).

It is hard, then, to believe liberals when they say they care about the people.  As caring for the people has made them very wealthy.  Wealth they acquired by taking it away from other people.  Via taxes.  It is harder still to believe them when you look at their actions.  Whenever there is a high-profile gun crime, for example, they immediately use it to advance gun control legislation.  As if America is suffering from a plague of gun deaths.  And that only when the government takes away guns from law-abiding gun owners will the dying stop.  Of course, others throughout history have wanted to take away the people’s guns.  Including the British in 1775.  When the shot heard ’round the world was fired.  Kicking off the Revolutionary War. 

So Americans are very suspect whenever anyone comes after their guns.  Because that means only one thing.  Those trying to take away those guns want to make these gun owners weaker.  The question is, why?  Why do governments want to make their people weaker?  Probably for the same reason ruling elites everywhere do.  When you’re greatly outnumbered you don’t want the people you’re oppressing to be able to fight back.

For Every Person who ‘picked’ an Obamacare Policy 38 People lost the Insurance they Liked and Wanted to Keep

Listening to liberals you would think that the only way people are dying in America is from gun violence.  Is this true?  If not exactly how are people dying?  Well, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (see Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011) the total deaths in 2011 was 2,512,873.  Some of the leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases at 778,503 (31.0%).  Cancers (Malignant neoplasms) at 575,313 (22.9%).  Chronic lower respiratory diseases at 143,382 (5.7%).  Just with these three groups of diseases we’re at 59.6% of all 2011 deaths.  And that’s before we get to non-disease related deaths.  Such as Drug-induced deaths at 40,239 (1.6%).  Motor vehicle accidents at 34,677 (1.4%).  Falls at 26,631 (1.1%).  And one of the least causes of deaths.  Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms at 11,101 (0.4%).

Gun deaths account for less than one half of one percent of all deaths in 2011.  Yet they want to take guns away from law-abiding gun owners to stop an epidemic of gun deaths totaling 0.4% of all deaths in 2011.  That’s what liberals are focused on.  That.  And the decriminalization of drugs.  Because drugs are a victimless crime.  Something only responsible adults choose to do.  Despite drug-induced deaths being more than three and half times greater than gun deaths.  But liberals are hard on guns.  And soft on drugs.  Even though more people die from drugs than from guns.  Yet liberals care about people. 

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was to provide affordable health insurance to about 50 million of uninsured people.  With the rollout of Obamacare only 106,185 ‘picked’ an insurance policy in October (some may have bought a plan or simply placed one in their shopping cart).  While 4.02 million people in 28 states have lost their health insurance (see White House to Allow Insurers to Continue Canceled Health Plans by Carol E. Lee and Louise Radnofsky posted 11/14/2013 on The Wall Street Journal).  So for every person who ‘picked’ an insurance policy 38 people lost the insurance they liked and wanted to keep.  Considering 59.6% of all deaths in 2011 were from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases taking away health insurance from 4.02 million people could very well cause more people to die from these diseases.  For they are very common diseases.  And these policy cancellations are only from the individual market.  When the cancellations for the employer-provided plans start hitting next year we may be seeing hundreds of millions who will lose their health insurance.  Which is by design.  To force the people who already have insurance into costlier plans to pay for those who don’t.  And, of course, to make government bigger.  As well as making liberals in the government aristocracy wealthier.

Whenever there is a high-profile gun death the left renews their push for new gun control legislation.  Even if it saves only one child.  They say this despite guns being responsible for less than one half of one percent of all deaths.  Yet when they take away health insurance from 4.02 million people who may die from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases, these deaths are negligible.  Acceptable.  A small percentage of the population whose deaths won’t mean a thing in the grand scheme of things.  All that is important to them is protecting and growing the government aristocracy.  So they can continue to live in the wealthiest counties in the U.S.  While enjoying their regal lives paid for with other people’s money.  Yet it’s the liberals that care about people. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare forces Seniors to give up their Doctors and Medicare Advantage

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2013

Week in Review

During the 2012 campaign the Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney as a guy that didn’t care if people with cancer lost their health insurance.  In fact, the company he co-founded, Bain Capital, was accused of being so heartless that it wanted people to die from cancer. 

An employee of a steel plant lost his job and his health insurance after Bain took over the failing company and later closed the plant.  And because of this his wife died from cancer.  Even though she had lost her health insurance before the plant had closed.  Yet this one cancer death was very effective in demonizing Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign.  Ironically, President Obama will willingly let many people die from cancer to achieve a political end; national health care (see Elderly patients sick over losing doctors under ObamaCare by Carl Campanile posted 10/25/2013 on the New York Post).

Elderly New Yorkers are in a panic after getting notices that insurance companies are booting their doctors from the Medicare Advantage program as a result of the shifting medical landscape under ObamaCare.

That leaves patients with unenviable choices: keep the same insurance plan and find another doctor, pay out of pocket or look for another plan where their physician is a member…

The [sic] are 2.6 million elderly New Yorkers who receive Medicare, the public heath [sic]-insurance program for the elderly.

But one in three patients — nearly 900,000 — are enrolled in Advantage, Medicare HMOs run by private insurers…

Federal funding to Medicare Advantage is being pared back by billions of dollars in coming years under the national Affordable Care Act. Obama said spending on the program was higher than regular Medicare and unsustainable.

President Obama said if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.  And if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.  Unless, of course, he wants to gut Medicare Advantage to pay for Obamacare.

He screws his young supporters by forcing them under penalty of law to buy health insurance to pay for the old and sick.  And now he’s screwing the old and sick by taking away their doctors and health insurance.  If he’s willing to screw two large voting blocks that support him imagine what he’ll do to people he doesn’t like.  Like Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party members.  The same conservative group that got special IRS scrutiny during the 2012 campaign.  An election where the Republican base did not turn out like they did during the 2010 elections.  Now imagine how eager they’ll want to be politically active when in addition to special IRS scrutiny the government can take away their doctor.  And deny them treatment for their health problems.  If you want a glimpse into that world you can look here.

Or you can look here.

It can get a little scary when the state becomes all powerful.  Some people at the Founding wanted a more powerful government.  For they were all students of the Enlightenment.  And believed that only like-minded people would ascend to government.  But the Founding Fathers knew their history.  And knew better.  No person should be trusted with power.  For what Lord Acton wrote in 1887 is as true today as it was throughout history.  “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hugo Chavez returns to his Socialist Utopia (Venezuela) after Medical Treatment in Cuba

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

The American Left loves Hugo Chavez.  Because he is an anti-capitalist socialist.  In Venezuela they put people before profits.  And the Left loves that.  For it is only under socialism where there is true equality.  Where everyone is equal.  Rich and poor.  Government official and descamisado.  And everyone gets the best of everything.  Something the America Left is striving for in the United States.  So American can be as just and as fair as Venezuela (see Hugo Chavez Returns Home After Cancer Surgery posted 2/18/2013 on Sky News).

President Hugo Chavez has returned home to Venezuela after more than two months of medical treatment following cancer surgery.

Mr Chavez’s return from Cuba was announced in a series of messages on his Twitter account…

The 58-year-old, who has been in power for more than 14 years, was first diagnosed with cancer in 2011…

Mr Maduro said Mr Chavez will continue his treatment at the Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital in Caracas.

Of course, Hugo Chavez is more equal than everyone else.  When he gets cancer he goes to the finest health care available in the socialist world.  Cuba.  While the ordinary Venezuelan must suffer the Venezuelan health care system.  Which isn’t very good when it comes to treating cancer.  For Hugo Chavez didn’t get treated in Venezuela.

Note that Hugo Chavez has been making Venezuela a better place for 14 years.  A more just place.  And a more fair place.  Something the American Left applauds.  Because ordinary Venezuelans are better off than ordinary Americans.  For ordinary Venezuelans are pampered with cradle to the grave socialism.  Of course, for some, the grave comes a lot sooner than some would want.  Why?  Because after making Venezuela a better place for 14 years he still hasn’t built a decent hospital in the country.  And you know the Venezuelan health care system for the people is bad when he goes to a military hospital for his follow-up care.  For in the United States the better hospitals are not on military bases.  There in our cities.  Where they are available to everyone.  Unlike the ordinary Venezuelan pampered with cradle to the grave socialism.

The American Left can bad-mouth the American health care system all they want and laud Hugo Chavez till the cows come home but not one of them will leave the U.S. to get their health care needs in that Socialist utopia.  Venezuela.  Even if Hugo Chavez lets them use the military hospital in Caracas.  And given the choice the ordinary Venezuelan would probably choose the American health care system over their own.  And probably over the Cuban health care system as well.  For when it comes to socialist utopias they’re not very utopian.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Woman dying from Cystic Fibrosis gets New Life-Saving Lungs from Heavy Smoker and then dies from Lung Cancer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

There are often very restricting rules to receive a donor organ.  If you’re on the list for a liver you’ll probably get denied that liver if you had one drink in the past month or so.  They do this because a donated organ is a gift.  There are more people waiting for this gift than there are available organs.  So to make sure the organ goes to the most deserving patient they have some strict rules.  Apparently there are no such rules for donors (see Cystic fibrosis woman died with smoker’s donor lungs posted 12/18/2012 on BBC News Essex).

A 27-year-old woman with cystic fibrosis died of cancer after she was given the donor lungs of a smoker.

Jennifer Wederell, of Hawkwell, Essex, died at home in August – 16 months after the transplant at Harefield Hospital in London…

She had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 18 months when in April 2011, she was told there had been a match…

She married her fiance David Wederell in September last year, but by February 2012 a malignant mass was found in her lungs.

“The shock immediately turned to anger in so far as all the risks were explained in the hour before her transplant and not once was the fact smoker’s lungs would be used mentioned,” said Mr Grannell.

“Regrettably, the number of lungs available for transplantation would fall by 40% if there was a policy of refusing those which have come from a smoker; waiting lists would increase and many more patients would die without a transplant…”

“Recipients of transplants are immunosuppressed, to stop the body rejecting the organ – this may have encouraged the cancer to grow. But is no one really knows- these are just theories.”

New warnings on cigarette packages in the U.S. include a scary picture of a diseased lung.  To scare you into quitting smoking.  Because while you can improve your health by quitting some damage is irreversible.  Smoking is that bad.  Smokers have an elevated risk of heart disease.  And lung cancer.  Yet they will give a woman with a suppressed immune system a set of lungs from a heavy smoker.  They were clinically healthy.  But as it turns out they had cancer.  Which probably should not surprise anyone as they came from a heavy smoker.

She was not informed that the donor was a heavy smoker.  Had they told her imagine that horrible decision.  Take a chance with cancer.  Or refuse them and take a chance of dying before the next set of lungs become available.

Was this a failure of national health care?  Cold impersonal staff that didn’t bother to inform the patient about the risk of getting a diseased lung?  Did the NHS just make this decision for her?  Because consulting her would just waste time?  They had already wasted an hour explaining all the risks to her an hour before the surgery.  How much more time would they waste if they had to wait for her to make up her mind about taking a chance with lung cancer?

Time.  It’s something they don’t have a lot of in the NHS.  They’re struggling to make their limited resources cover ever more patients as baby boomers fill their hospitals.  All while having to deal with budget cuts due to deficits.  So they are dealing with longer wait times, rationing of services and service denials.  Things are so difficult that some hospitals have put some elderly patients on the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient without consulting their family.  Suspending food and liquids so they die.  Ostensibly to free up a bed and end a needless drain of hospital resources on someone who is just taking their sweet time to die.  It’s cold and callous but this is national health care.  And why they may not waste time waiting for patients to decide if they want to reject a potentially diseased lung.

A donated organ is a gift.  But a potentially cancerous organ?  Given to someone with a suppressed immune system?  Perhaps that’s more the product of a cold and calloused bureaucracy than a gift.  Something to look forward to under Obamacare.  Unless Obamacare just prescribes a pill to manage pain.  Sort of their own version of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient.  But with less to do with a patient’s end-of-life dignity and more to do with economic efficiency.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cancer Survival Rates differ in Britain based on Locality and trail European Survival Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Despite Britain’s national health care British patients don’t receive equal health care.  Or equal chances of survival.  For all hospitals in the NHS are not the same.  Despite that being one of the driving arguments for national health care.  So everyone has access to quality care.  Not just the rich.  Or the otherwise located (see Jeremy Hunt: cancer postcode lottery ‘cannot be right’ by Rowena Mason posted 12/10/2012 on The Telegraph).

Jeremy Hunt, who took over the role in September, said it “cannot be right” that some patients have a worse chance of surviving because they do not live near the best hospitals…

Last night, he expressed disbelief at the huge variation in survival rates for bowel cancer patients within five years of diagnosis based on their location.

“It cannot be right that the five-year survival rate for colorectal cancer varies between areas – 68 per cent in the highest and 40 per cent in the lowest,” Mr Hunt said last night…

Five-year survival rates for bowel cancer have more than doubled over the last 40 years, but British patients still have a higher chance of dying from the disease than in many parts of Europe…

For some cancer types, survival rates are 10 to 15 per cent lower in England than in comparable countries like Australia, Canada and Sweden.

Here’s why your chances are better of dying from colorectal cancer in the UK than in Australia, Canada and Sweden.  Costs.  National health care is very, very expensive.  And the more patients you have the greater these costs are.  But if the costs grow so great for, say, an aging population, nations with more patients may have to make budget cuts, increase wait times and ration services more than nations with fewer patients.  As the NHS is doing.

The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Sweden because the UK has over 6 times (6.52) the population Sweden has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Australia because the UK has almost 3 times (2.73) the population Australia has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Canada because the UK has almost twice (1.78) the population Canada has.  And the United States under Obamacare will not be able to fight cancer as well as the UK because the United States has 5 times (5.06) the population the UK has.

The smaller the population the easier national health care is.  Because fewer patients means less cost.  No one has ever tried national health care on the scale the United States is about to try under Obamacare.  Or what Obamacare will morph into once it drives the private health insurance companies out of the market.  And the worst thing is that unlike patients in the UK, Canada, Australia and Sweden who had the option of traveling to the United States for better health care, there will be no place for Americans to travel to once Obamacare reduces the quality of American health care.  Just a pill to take to manage our pain until we feel pain no more.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare caused Economic Uncertainty that Retarded Job Growth which may cause Heart Disease and Cancer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2012

Week in Review

President Obama got it wrong.  In trying to make Americans healthier he has made them sicker.  Because his policies have destroyed the economy.  Small business owners are so confused about what Obamacare will do to them that they won’t hire anyone unless they absolutely have to.  Jobs are scarce and people aren’t spending for fear that they, too, will lose their job.   It turns out making Obamacare a priority in his first two years was a big mistake.  Not only for the economy.  But for our own wellbeing.  For laughter may be the best medicine.  But a job appears to be the best preventative medicine there is (see Health Suffering In Austerity Britain by Thomas Moore posted 8/14/2012 on Sky News).

The economic downturn is having a significant impact on the nation’s health, according to a survey of GPs.

The research shows 17% of family doctors report more women are requesting abortions for financial reasons, while 77% have seen more patients seeking medical help for anxiety disorders.

Nearly two-thirds of the GPs said their patients are drinking more to cope. A total of 60% have given up sports activities because of financial hardship.

The survey of 300 GPs by the Insight Research Group found 76% said their patients were becoming unhealthier because of the economic climate…

“Heart disease and even cancer are linked to unemployment. So the more people we can keep in work – and keep in work healthily – means we will have a healthier nation in future.”

It is rather ironic.  To make Americans healthier he championed Obamacare into to law.  Which will provide health care for everyone.  Whether they want it or not.  But in the process the president tanked the economy.  Which will make people sicker.  Stressing the health care system.  Calling for cost savings and rationing of health care services at exactly the same time more people are getting sick.  Whereas if he didn’t champion Obamacare into law the recession may not have become the Great Recession.  And the recession may have already ended.  With unemployment falling.  And people finding jobs.  That either provide health insurance.  Or at least provide income for people so they don’t have to abort their babies, give up their sports activities, suffer anxiety, eat poorly or become drunks.  Thus avoiding the costly treatments of heart disease and cancer.

So president Obama’s policies are not only bad for the economy.  They may be bad for our health.  Further reason to repeal Obamacare.  Before it can do any more harm.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Canada may have National Health Care but they don’t Pay for all Life-Saving Drugs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2012

Week in Review

You ever go to a microbrewery?  Where they will have numerous homebrewed beers to try?  Brew masters can create new flavors and tweak them until they find special ones people love.  And then they sell them.  Pretty simple.  Unlike bringing new life saving drugs to market.

Making new drugs is a costly endeavor.  It takes a lot of research.  A lot of pouring through data.  Studying how disease develops in the body.  Looking for things.  Thinking about things.  Hypothesizing about things.  Resulting in a proposed new drug.  Then experimentation.  Figuring out dosages.  Looking for side effects.  Adjusting chemical formulas.  The few promising ideas advance forward.  While the majority become discarded dead-ends.  After a lot of time human trials begin.  Where more times than not a brilliant idea fails to show a positive result.  And the drug is abandoned.  The tiny few that do show promise make it to the next level.  And eventually to FDA approval.  For some usages.  A new cancer drug may be approved for one or two types of cancer.  Providing a very limited market to recoup all those sunk costs.  So these new drugs carry high price tags.  Some drugs may receive FDA approval for other uses.  Some uses may lose their FDA approval as the drug may not show enough benefit to justify the cost.  Or the side effects.  Making it very difficult to recover costs on some drugs.  As well as funding new research and development on other drugs.

Developing new drugs is costly.  It takes enormous amounts of capital.  And time.  That someone has to pay for.  Even in countries with national health care systems.  Even in America under Obamacare.  For they may tax everyone to pay for health care.  But they must rely on others to make everything that’s good in those health care systems.  Especially those life-saving drugs (see Saint John man struggles to pay for cancer drug posted 8/13/2012 on CBC News).

A Saint John man and his family are struggling to figure out how they will pay for an expensive cancer drug that could prolong his life…

But the drug will cost $10,600 a month and it is not covered by the provincial government…

The couple appealed to the Department of Health for financial help to pay for the drug. But the provincial government also refused…

The New Brunswick government announced in 2009 that it would cover Avastin under the provincial drug program for people with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The Saint John man has a brain tumor.  While New Brunswick will authorize payment for Avastin for metastatic colorectal cancer it will not authorize payment for its use to treat brain tumors.  Because so far Avastin has not shown the same positive results in treating brain tumors that it has in treating metastatic colorectal cancer.  Provincial budgets are limited.  As they are at health insurance companies.  If they spend enormous amounts of money on treatments that offer a minimal chance of success they can’t spend that money on treatments that show far greater chances of success.  Meaning that overall more people will go without treatment.  And overall survival rates will fall.

There really is nothing more heart wrenching to know that there is a drug out there that may help but its cost puts it out of reach.  But it is important to understand what it took to get that drug to this level.  A drug company may have spent money developing it for 10 years or more before seeing a dime in revenue.  Contrary to popular belief, these drug companies aren’t evil corporations.  People work at these drug companies.  And as noble as it may be they can’t work without pay for 10 years.  Especially when a lot of their employees have PhDs with enormous student loan debt.  So the drug companies borrow a lot of money and take a lot of risks.  Even the successful ones that show fantastic profits can lose everything in one class-action lawsuit.

So there are great profits because there are great costs.  And great risks.  Which no one would take if there wasn’t a chance for great profits.  Which is why there is so much research and development at these drug companies.  Because we will reward the one that finds a cure for cancer with great profits.  Which is what we want.  Because we want their drugs.  The more they bring to market the better our treatment options.  And the more treatment options there are the quicker we’ll find those life saving-drugs.  That are so successful in treating patients that everyone will authorize payment for them.  Without worrying that doing so will cause other people to die.

Canada may have a national health care system but that doesn’t change this fact.  Nothing is free.  And taxpayers’ pockets just aren’t deep enough to provide the Utopian health care system people think of when they think of national health care.  It’s often not what people living outside these systems think they are.  They have real budgets.  Long waiting times.  Rationing of services.  And treatments.  As the Avastin drug clearly shows in Saint John.  And the more people a national system covers the worst it will be.  Because on top of everything else there will be a great health care bureaucracy pulling even more limited funds out of the health care system.  Where Obamacare will be the worst of them all.  Because of the advanced nations America has the greatest population of them all.  And will have the greatest number patients of them all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scientists in Singapore have found the Wip1 Gene may be Responsible for Obesity, Heart Disease and Cancer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2012

Week in Review

Businesses aren’t hiring in the U.S. because they have no idea what their labor will cost them under Obamacare.  They were hoping for a Supreme Court reprieve but their ruling went against them.  The Constitution.  And common sense.  They now look to the November elections as their last hope to remove this hiring obstacle.  But perhaps there is another way.  We can just stop being sick (see Singapore scientists discover control mechanism for obesity, cancer by Julia Ng posted 7/3/2012 on Channel News Asia).

A*STAR scientists in Singapore have made what is believed to be groundbreaking discovery of the mechanism that controls obesity, atherosclerosis and, potentially, cancer.

Scientists from the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) and the Singapore Bioimaging Consortium (SBIC) said they have found a new signalling pathway that regulates both obesity and atherosclerosis.

The team showed, for the first time, that mice deficient in the Wip1 gene were resistant to weight gain and atherosclerosis via regulation of the Ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene (ATM) and its downstream signalling molecule mTor…

Obesity and atherosclerosis are accompanied by the accumulation of lipid droplets in fat cells and in foam cells respectively.

Foam cells can subsequently rupture, damaging blood vessels, and contributing to further progression of atherosclerosis.

The scientists discovered that Wip1 deficient mice, even when fed a high-fat diet, were resistant to obesity and atherosclerosis by preventing the accumulation of lipid droplets…

Together, these three pathological conditions — obesity, atherosclerosis and cancer — account for more than 70 per cent of mortality worldwide, making ATM-related pathways very attractive therapeutic targets.

Our friends in Singapore may have solved the Obamacare problem.  They may have found a way to prevent 70% of all illnesses.  Making a national health care system moot.  Imagine that.  Perhaps they and the pharmaceuticals can develop a pill therapy to remove the Wip1 gene from our bodies.  Allowing us to eat whatever we want to eat without any weight gain, heart disease or cancer.  Good for us.  Good for the over-burdened health care system.  But bad for the vegetable farmers that supply the salad industry.  Yes, salads can be yummy.  But so can a half-pound bacon cheeseburger.  And if both are just as good for you guess what people will be eating.

With such a pill there would be no reason NOT to repeal Obamacare.  Because with 70% of the stuff that kills us gone we’ll be able to afford the other 30%.  Cash out of pocket for the small stuff, perhaps via a medical savings account.  And a real insurance policy for the unexpected.  Like catching an infectious disease that requires hospitalization.  Health care problem solved.  And for far less that the trillion or so dollars Obamacare will cost us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Elderly Cancer Patients are not Worth the Cost of Health Care they Consume so the Policy of the NHS is to Let them Die

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Proponents of Obamacare attack the profit-oriented private health insurers, medical device and drug manufacturers and hospitals.  Putting profits before people is wrong and shameful they say.  And just plain wrong.  No, the better way is to do like the Canadians.  And the British.  Adopt a health care system that puts people before profits.  Where everyone can smile and enjoy life.  Content in a perfect world where everyone gets whatever health care they need.  Not just the rich who can afford it.  So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at that health care utopia in the United Kingdom.  And see how wonderfully just, kind and generous their health care truly is (see Elderly dying due to ‘despicable age discrimination in NHS’ by Rebecca Smith posted 3/25/2012 on The Telegraph).

A lack of treatment or insufficient treatment is contributing to 14,000 deaths a year in people over the age of 75, Macmillan Cancer Support has found, in what it called an ‘unacceptable act of discrimination’.

Deaths from cancer are reducing in most age groups but at a slower rate in those aged 74 to 84 and are increasing in people aged 85 and over, the report said.

The report, The Age Old Excuse: the under treatment of older cancer patients, said treatment options are too often recommended on the basis of age rather than how fit the patient is…

Few clinical trials involve older people so clinicians are lacking evidence of how effective drugs may be in elderly people and few cancer specialists have had training in care of older people, the report said.

A survey found six in ten trainee oncologists had not received training in the additional care needs of the elderly such as preventing falls and incontinence management. This is despite half of all cancers occuring in the elderly, the report found…

“The NHS and social care providers must wake up to the specific issues older people face and ensure treatment decisions are based on their overall health not just their date of birth. Writing people off as too old for treatment is utterly shameful.”

This is the future of Obamacare.  This is what happens when the government pays for health care.  The government decides.  They decide who lives.  And who dies.  Who gets treatment.  And who is not worthy of treatment and should consider themselves lucky if they get a pill to dull their pain until they die.  When they finally stop being such an inconvenient and inconsiderate burden to government.

Why is the NHS like this?  Are the British cruel?  No.  It’s just business.  Health care costs continue to rise despite the power of government to stop these costs from rising.  Their population is aging.  And they have a massive budget deficit.  Made up primarily from the budget deficit in the NHS.  Taxes are already high.  And the economy is not doing as well as it once did.  Which means you can’t raise taxes anymore.  Unless you want to crash the economy and reduce tax revenues even further.  And with a massive deficit you can’t borrow anymore.  So if you can’t tax and you can’t borrow and you have an aging population consuming an ever larger share of the health care budget what do you do?  Why, you do what the NHS is doing.  You ration health care.  By making life and death decisions.  And the NHS has made a decision.  Old people over a certain age shall die of cancer.  And they will take that health care and give it to someone else who is more worthy of it.

Bureaucrats making life and death decisions for cost reasons?  Kind of sounds like a death panel, doesn’t it?  Now Obamacare doesn’t include anything called a ‘death panel’ but there will be a death panel.  Because there always is when you ration health care.  Which is what will happen as the government tries to rein in health care costs.  Because that’s the only way they can control costs.  By cutting costs.  And how to you cut costs?  You spend less on life-saving health care services.  And ration these services.  Deciding who has enough value to save.  And who doesn’t and should die.  By authority of the death panel.  The secretary.  Or some other bureaucrat.  Who you hope their life and death decisions are based on costs alone.  And not your politics.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries