Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 20 Jul 2006 23:45 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > "Questionable"? My sister suffers from MS. The doctors told her that > > she would be dead a couple of decades ago. Her disease is under control > > thanks to some of those 3,000 "questionable" drugs you complain about. > > The evolution of MS is extremely variable and unpredictable. I > wouldn't assume that any type of medication alone is responsible for > holding off the disease. She went from a wheel-chair and nearly blind to a fairly normal life for about a decade after taking the drug. She's back in the wheel-chair now but she can still see. And there are hundreds and hundreds of other drugs that have helped millions of people that would never have been created had the Socialists had their way.
From: Go Fig on 20 Jul 2006 23:46 In article <erilarloFRY-8D6DE3.12524720072006(a)news.airstreamcomm.net>, erilar <erilarloFRY(a)SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote: > In article <rf5sb2tfcg7l3qobs7omp3vjh9vchtnnft(a)4ax.com>, > deepfreudmoors(a)eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu wrote: > > > On 19 Jul 2006 01:46:00 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Quality of life is not just about possessions. But it is also wrong to > > >ignore financial success when considering quality of life. I can afford > > >to eat as often as I want whenever I want. > > > > Obesity is a collosal problem in the US. Are you fat by any chance? > > 8-) I almost replied to that in a similar vein. If I ate as often as I > wanted whenever I wanted, I'd soon be too fat to enjoy anything the > least bit active, as is true for far too many of my countrymen. Did you happen to see the report on childhood obesity from an EU commission ? jay Thu Jul 20, 2006 mailto:gofig(a)mac.com
From: Tchiowa on 20 Jul 2006 23:49 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > > > And think about that for a minute. That much vacation for a new > > employee? That's a high cost. That is one of the reasons that > > unemployment is higher in the EU than it is in the US. So while new > > workers in the EU get more vacation than new workers in the US, more > > workers iin the EU can't get jobs, period. Enforced vacation. > > Vacation is really the last problem that the EU needs to worry about. > I know that Americans feel they have to rationalize their pitifully > short vacations, but nothing about long European vacations has any > influence on the various employment and economic problems that Europe > has. Of course it does. If you pay someone 12 months pay for 11 months work then your productivity suffers. This is particularly true for new employees. Most employees aren't very productive at the beginning. They become better with experience. So you're lucky if you get 10 months of productivity from him in 12 months. Now give him a full month off and you'll get 9 months productivity or less. And the economy suffers because of that. And that translates to unemployment. I will grant you that the vacation policy is only one small part of Europe's economic problems. There is enough socialism going on to hurt in lots of areas. But it is not a "non-issue".
From: Go Fig on 20 Jul 2006 23:51 In article <e9opco$eq8$1(a)dns3.cae.ca>, Richard <this(a)is.invalid> wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1153099807.233778.280220(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > I saw a very interesting "debate" on one of the news shows a couple of > > years ago (seems like it was Hard Talk but I'm not sure). The debate > > was about Socialized Medicine as it relates to drugs. Canada tightly > > controls drug prices to keep their Socialized Medicine system afloat. > > There was a Canadian government leader defending that. On the other > > side was a drug company exec. The drug exec said that the price > > controls in Canada had stopped innovation. No new drugs are being > > developed in Canada. The government official refuted that. He pointed > > out that in the last decade *3*(!!) new drugs had been developed in > > Canada. That's right. 3!!!!!! Proving what the drug exec said. In the > > same period of time probably 3,000 had been developed in the US. > > When the government runs things, the goal - as you said a could posts ago - > is public interest Is waiting up to NINE months to see an allergist in the public interest ? From today's news- NHS 'lets down allergy patients' People with allergies often feel let down by the NHS, and can wait months to see a specialist, a government review of services has found. The report said charities and other groups were often left to plug the gaps in NHS care. It said more should be done to help the third of people who are affected by allergies at some point in their life. But doctors said the government could not devolve responsibility for allergy care to local health groups. The report was compiled after submissions from groups and individuals with an interest in allergy care. It followed criticisms of NHS allergy services by the House of Commons health select committee. Quality of life About three million people visit their doctor or hospital suffering from conditions related to allergies every year in England - costing the NHS around 1 billion. Without funding, targets, and an increase in the number of doctors with expertise in allergy, we will be going backwards Dr Pamela Ewan, Royal College of Physicians Another, 2,400 people are admitted for eczema, most of whom are children. There are also more than 3,000 admissions every year for potentially dangerous allergies. Anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, causes 10 to 20 deaths every year - but it is often not recorded on the death certificate, the report added. However, the report found many people with allergy felt their GP did not understand their condition. In a foreword, care services minister Ivan Lewis said there was a need "to remedy the shortage of specialist allergists". He added: "The review has heard that people with allergies often feel let down by a poor and frequently unobtainable service. "For those living with an allergy severe enough to require specialist care, the lack of allergy services is a problem which can greatly affect their quality of life. "Not-for-profit organisations help, through helplines and other information services, to fulfil an important need that is yet to be addressed by the NHS, but this is not enough. "Some people can wait three to nine months for an appointment to see a consultant in secondary care." He said GPs should also be able to offer the information and guidance people needed to manage their allergies. But Dr Pamela Ewan of the Royal College of Physicians , who helped compile a 2003 report on allergy services, said: "The Department of Health review has tried to address the issues, but their recommendations will hardly scratch the surface of the problem. "This needs central direction and funding and cannot be left to devolved local systems. "That has been the situation for the last decade, and patient care has not improved." She added: "Without funding, targets, and an increase in the number of doctors with expertise in allergy, we will be going backwards." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/5199862.stm > rather than profit. > > The opposite tends to happen when you leave things in the hands of private > enterprise. > > I'd rather 3 good medications than 3000 questionable ones, out of which 500 > are probably hair loss treatments that cause dryness of mouth and difficulty > to control one's bowel movements. > > But hey, if you're impressed with big numbers.... > > Richard > >
From: Tchiowa on 21 Jul 2006 02:09
Go Fig wrote: > In article <e9opco$eq8$1(a)dns3.cae.ca>, Richard <this(a)is.invalid> wrote: > > > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1153099807.233778.280220(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > I saw a very interesting "debate" on one of the news shows a couple of > > > years ago (seems like it was Hard Talk but I'm not sure). The debate > > > was about Socialized Medicine as it relates to drugs. Canada tightly > > > controls drug prices to keep their Socialized Medicine system afloat. > > > There was a Canadian government leader defending that. On the other > > > side was a drug company exec. The drug exec said that the price > > > controls in Canada had stopped innovation. No new drugs are being > > > developed in Canada. The government official refuted that. He pointed > > > out that in the last decade *3*(!!) new drugs had been developed in > > > Canada. That's right. 3!!!!!! Proving what the drug exec said. In the > > > same period of time probably 3,000 had been developed in the US. > > > > When the government runs things, the goal - as you said a could posts ago - > > is public interest > > Is waiting up to NINE months to see an allergist in the public interest? Think about it for a second. Many allergies are seasonal. So if they make people wait 6 months the effects of the allergy have gone away. So they don't need to treat the patient. And they can claim they reduced medical costs. Medical care can be really, really cheap if you never provide it. Note that the article refers to "quality of life" which was one of the topics here. I agree that delayed medical care reduces quality of life. > From today's news- > > NHS 'lets down allergy patients' > > > People with allergies often feel let down by the NHS, and can wait > months to see a specialist, a government review of services has found. > The report said charities and other groups were often left to plug the > gaps in NHS care. > It said more should be done to help the third of people who are > affected by allergies at some point in their life. > But doctors said the government could not devolve responsibility for > allergy care to local health groups. > The report was compiled after submissions from groups and individuals > with an interest in allergy care. > It followed criticisms of NHS allergy services by the House of Commons > health select committee. > Quality of life > About three million people visit their doctor or hospital suffering > from conditions related to allergies every year in England - costing > the NHS around £1 billion. > > > Without funding, targets, and an increase in the number of doctors with > expertise in allergy, we will be going backwards > Dr Pamela Ewan, Royal College of Physicians > Another, 2,400 people are admitted for eczema, most of whom are > children. There are also more than 3,000 admissions every year for > potentially dangerous allergies. > Anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, causes 10 to 20 deaths every > year - but it is often not recorded on the death certificate, the > report added. > However, the report found many people with allergy felt their GP did > not understand their condition. > In a foreword, care services minister Ivan Lewis said there was a need > "to remedy the shortage of specialist allergists". > He added: "The review has heard that people with allergies often feel > let down by a poor and frequently unobtainable service. > "For those living with an allergy severe enough to require specialist > care, the lack of allergy services is a problem which can greatly > affect their quality of life. > "Not-for-profit organisations help, through helplines and other > information services, to fulfil an important need that is yet to be > addressed by the NHS, but this is not enough. > "Some people can wait three to nine months for an appointment to see a > consultant in secondary care." > He said GPs should also be able to offer the information and guidance > people needed to manage their allergies. > But Dr Pamela Ewan of the Royal College of Physicians , who helped > compile a 2003 report on allergy services, said: "The Department of > Health review has tried to address the issues, but their > recommendations will hardly scratch the surface of the problem. > "This needs central direction and funding and cannot be left to > devolved local systems. > "That has been the situation for the last decade, and patient care has > not improved." > She added: "Without funding, targets, and an increase in the number of > doctors with expertise in allergy, we will be going backwards." > > Story from BBC NEWS: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/5199862.stm |