Wars and Conflicts permalink
T4 Euthanasia Programme of the Nazis
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by adamlewishistory (U13942405) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
Channel 4's "T4" programme is watched by millions, but few understand the original useage of the phrase "T4"; the Naziprogramme of involuntary euthanasia established in 1939, whichmurdered over 70,000 mentally and physically ill, and generallyanyone considered unworthy of life. We beleive this is notonly disrespectful and unsuitable, but it seems increasinglyactions such as this and the holocaust are being forgotten byyounger generations. As the channel 4 show is aged at thoseaged 16-25, it is wrong that so many should associate thephrase "T4" imediatly with a televison programme, instead ofone of the most prominent parts of European History.
As a result I have started a petiton to channel 4 to change the name of the programme. My A-level class are always amazed at the complete lack of understanding....many students are looking foward to going to "T4 ON THE BEACH".. if only they Knew.
Please visit
to sign the petition. -
Message 2
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
The healthcare bureaucracy doesn't want us to remember that the Holocaust began with the medical profession using the power of the state to kill people in the name of public health and cost savings. Too close to some of the thinking that goes on today and might impede the rush to more government takeover of health.
-
Message 3
Posted by Northern_Andy (U2943874) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Good morning.
May I suggest (if you have not already done so) that you get your students to read "Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution" by Laurence Rees - a book that I have recently read for the first time. One of the conclusions of the book (and subsequent articles that I read) was that new generations should not only be told of Auschwitz and the Final Solution so that the horror should not be forgotten, but also that it reminds us of the unspeakable horrors that man can inflict upon his fellow man.
As a graduate of History myself, with a particularly keen interest in WW2 on the Eastern Front, I thought that I had a relatively good knowledge of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis, but I must say that there were many, many passages in this book that had me shaking my head in disbelief.
I shall sign your petition.
Regards.
Andy -
Message 4
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 1st May 2009
I have to say I only clicked on your post because I knew something of T4 project and was curious as to what you were going to say of it - I know a lot of people in the age range you state don't however and I can see what you say - however unless you launch "the mother of all campaigns" I don't think Channel 4 which has poured millions into it's T-4 show will change it - however I give you my best wishes in doing so - at least it's a campaign for something decent and reasonable as opposed to something crappy.
-
Message 5
Posted by adamlewishistory (U13942405) on Friday, 1st May 2009
In regards to Grand Falcon I actually agree with you, the petition is hopefully more to raise awareness, so people realise the true meaning.
Around a year ago for instance I visited Auschwitz Birkenau, and it was amnazing even there how little visitors knew about the details and extent of Nazi atrocities.
And you never know, maybe we could get something in The SUN, they seem to love horrific crimes and attacking anything to do with television. So lets just get as many signatures as we can. -
Message 6
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 1st May 2009
"Around a year ago for instance I visited Auschwitz Birkenau, and it was amnazing even there how little visitors knew about the details and extent of Nazi atrocities."
How many know little becuase their respective Governments keep it like that because they know how many of their own people (indeed for some people them themselves) actually fleeced those about to die (or killed them there themselves)....much easier just to blame the Germans. Unless of course like the USSR did and blame counter-revolutionaries like Ukranians for your own purposes. -
Message 7
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Another tv programme that could make your list is "Ideal" starring Johnny Vegas. In this programme they often make links to a local nightclub/bar called Zyclon B's. A lot less subtle than T4. I personally wouldn't sign the petition as I feel that the majority wouldn't have known the link until you made them aware and having been brought up with bands such as "New Order" and "The Joy Division" a channel called T4 will do no harm at all (apart from showing Hollyoaks - I'll sign that petition)
Peter -
Message 8
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
We beleive this is notonly disrespectful and unsuitable, but it seems increasinglyactions such as this and the holocaust are being forgotten byyounger generations.
Not sure what your gripe is here, Adam.
T4, in this context, was the abbreviation of an address in Berlin (4, Tiergatenstrasse). Will your campaign also try to police other uses of this acronym since T4 is also widely used among UK travelers to refer to Terminal 4, Heathrow airport?
I’m all for educating people about the evils of Nazi Germany but euthanasia is widely used in some form in many developed countries today (either by leaving people to die or by rationing scarce resources, see John Harris, ‘Intro to Medical Ethics’)
To call a club “Xyclon B” (JWB’s example) is obviously in poor taste but to campaign against a long-forgotten 70 year old acronym, which was almost certainly used by the TV company without intended malice, strikes me as a desperate attempt to find offence where none was intended.
To have any hope of success your campaign would have to demonstrate that BEFORE you drew attention to the site of the German euthanasia facility, the letters ‘T4’ were already associated with enforced euthanasia in the public mind. In a straw poll of people at my local last night, 9 out of twelve knew about the German euthanasia programme aimed at the mentally ill or those with profound learning difficulties but none knew that this was designated as the T4 programme. -
Message 9
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Pilot I’m all for educating people about the evils of Nazi Germany but euthanasia is widely used in some form in many developed countries today (either by leaving people to die or by rationing scarce resources, see John Harris, ‘Intro to Medical Ethics’) As I understand it, ultimately, the point is that the evils of Nazi Germany were rationalized precisely the way you rationalize 'rationing of scarce resources' by some nameless bureaucrats. All evils were committed for the greater good, sir. There's no reason to believe that the modus operandi will change in the future, just because John Harris published his long awaited salvation book.
-
Message 10
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Suv! Greetings my old friend.
My wife insists that I cut the lawn today , but before I start, I must respond to two of your comments:-
ultimately, the point is that the evils of Nazi Germany were rationalized precisely the way you rationalize 'rationing of scarce resources' by some nameless bureaucrats. All evils were committed for the greater good, sir.
But surely, such utilitarian approaches to public health issues pre-date Nazism by many years (they even pre-date Francis Galton) and are still used today?
I'm a big fan of the rational 'Oregon' approach to ending/saving lives, which is much like the method applied in the Netherlands. Do you take an absolutist view on this?
There's no reason to believe that the modus operandi will change in the future, just because John Harris published his long awaited salvation book.
That comment implies a knowledge of JH's publication record. Well well!
John certainly doesn't need a "salvation book" now, does he? -
Message 11
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Pilot But surely, such utilitarian approaches to public health issues pre-date Nazism by many years (they even pre-date Francis Galton) and are still used today? Of course, Nazis weren't the first in anything. In many repsects, they were the least effective, however the loudest advertised, in what they were doing.
I'm a big fan of the rational 'Oregon' approach to ending/saving lives, which is much like the method applied in the Netherlands. Do you take an absolutist view on this? Yes, I am completely opposed to putting unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of rationing anything, and least of all health care, and least of all administering death in the name of greater public good. It is a dreadful idea. I can't think of any other proverbial Trojan Horse worse than this that is being currently sold to the unsuspected public for their "own good." I have seen the result of rationed health care first hand. That is empirical evidence scienbtifically good enough for me, as far as I am concerned. -
Message 12
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Suv.
Nazi euthanasia was (in 1939) concentrated against those children and adults with mental illnesses, 'birth defects' such as inherited abnormalities influencing cognition or locomotion and types of cerebral palsy.
We still perform euthanasia on two of these groups, only difference is that we do it before birth rather than after, but the eugenic aim is substantially similar.
The Nazis killed with lethal injections (sometimes of petrol) or gassing, we now use drugs to expell the early foetus or vacuum pumps to suck it out after dissection (late-stage abortion). Perhaps we are now more humane?
I am completely opposed to putting unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of rationing anything
Health care is rationed in one way or another and it is usually doctors not bureaucrats who do the rationing. The doctor/surgeon will make a judgement about whether the 65 year old alcoholic should receive the liver transplant or whether the girl with liver cancer should get another chance. The Oregon protocols will steer him/her to operate on the patient with the greatest chance of the most years of 'wellness'.
But a billionaire alcoholic might well be able to secure multiple liver transplants by buying livers on the open market.
I have seen the result of rationed health care first hand.
So have I. In the US, where uninsured patients are left to die in the car park, to the UK where the demented elderly are refused 'Aricept' because it is "not cost effective".
My point is that we are all 'rationed' by money and this is why the Oregon team tried to intervene to help the poor.
In my view the success of the Oregon formula was not to ration health care, very little such rationing has actaully happened there, but to greatly increase the number of poor people who are medically insured in a culture with no NHS.
Oregon reduced the number of uninsured people from 17% to 11% while keeping costs stable. (see Oberlander 2001). -
Message 13
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Suv Health care is rationed in one way or another and it is usually doctors not bureaucrats who do the rationing Any government run system is administered by government bureaucrats. Your conspicuous use of the word "usually" does not obscure this fact. The only way to avoid rationing altogether is to allow market to regulate supply and demand. For, if demand is high, it will generate more supply, i.e., doctors. If Canadian doctors prefer to practice in the US - and they do - it will be a shortage of doctors in Canada.
But a billionaire alcoholic might well be able to secure multiple liver transplants by buying livers on the open market Which is exactly what is also going to happen - and happens - in the National Health type of system.
So have I. In the US, where uninsured patients are left to die in the car park, to the UK where the demented elderly are refused 'Aricept' because it is "not cost effective". It is unlawful in the US to refuse care for any reason - at least it used to be. Any destitute could request emergency care at any time. It's obviously not as good as what insured people are eligible for, but it's probably faster and better than your average National Health stint, which you are forced to pay taxes for at the ever increasing rate.
Oregon reduced the number of uninsured people from 17% to 11% while keeping costs stable. (see Oberlander 2001). And by killing an unspecified number of patients? I have to say that the name of your source sounds most appropriately. -
Message 14
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Oh, yea, a couple of additional points, Pilot We still perform euthanasia on two of these groups, only difference is that we do it before birth rather than after, but the eugenic aim is substantially similar 1. I don't have a part in this "we," at least I don't intend to.
2. My prediction is that Andrew is going to shut down this thread as soon as he is back. -
Message 15
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Suv (13 and 14).
Any government run system is administered by government bureaucrats.
No arguing with that. But all large systems, whether in command or free-market economies, are run by bureucrats. A bureaucrat is not a devil; he /she comes with any large-scale enterprise
The only way to avoid rationing altogether is to allow market to regulate supply and demand. For, if demand is high, it will generate more supply, i.e., doctors
If only life was so simple. Some of the best doctor patient ratios are found in the old command economies such as Russia and Cuba. Only problem is, the high output form medical schools lowers the prestige and pay of such doctors and the profession loses its attractiveness as a career. Nor does high demand automatically lead to high provision (see Phoenix Arizona for e.g.)
But a billionaire alcoholic might well be able to secure multiple liver transplants by buying livers on the open market(me).
Which is exactly what is also going to happen - and happens - in the National Health type of system.(you)
Not in the NHS in the UK it doesn't. NHS surgeons would place an alcoholic who had already had a transplant but who needed another, becasue of a return to drinking, at the very bottom of the waiting list. Are you living in the US by any chance?
It is unlawful in the US to refuse care for any reason
Well the law seems to be broken a great deal. I have been with my cousin in an ER unit in Maine (3 years ago). She is privately insured but had left her card at home as she was distracted by acute pain. She was turned away from the ER facility and we had to drive back to her house to get the proof of insurance. No cover, no entry. Nor is this a 'one off'. The film 'Kentucky Fried Medicine' actually shows a man dying of heart failure in a Texas hospital car park beacause he was refused admission for not being insured.
See also:
Fiona Godlee BMJ 2005.331 "Survival of the Richest"
and
Gary Schwitzer BMJ 331: 1089
"Revealed: Health stories the US did not want to cover".
Any destitute could request emergency care at any time.
And in the Bush years any CIA prisoner could ask for the water-boarding to stop. But even in the US a wish does not automatically become a reality.
I have seen such requests (by destitutes) denied.
I have to say that the name of your source sounds most appropriately.
Oberlander is Canadian. Lots of North Americans have German names. Doesn't make him suspect.
In 14 (re: abortion) you say:-
. I don't have a part in this "we," at least I don't intend to.
Well I'm sure that we would both dislike performing abortions but are you saying that women should not be allowed terminations?
My point is that in nations which permit abortion,this procedure is often carried out on eugenic grounds. The same grounds used by the Nazis in 1939. That does not makes us Nazis, it reveals a rational approach to public health.
Nations which refuse abortion do not stop abortion, they merely export the procedure, as in Eire, where women who don't want to stay pregnant get the early 'EsasyJet' flight to Luton or the 'Ryanair' flight to Gatwick. -
Message 16
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Pilot A bureaucrat is not a devil; he /she comes with any large-scale enterprise I'm sure there are very nice bureaucrats out there - and cute ones too. I know that for a fact. But bureaucratically run systems don't run very well; in fact, they're assured to run badly in the long-term, because of the lack of accountability.
If only life was so simple. Some of the best doctor patient ratios are found in the old command economies such as Russia and Cuba. Only problem is, the high output form medical schools lowers the prestige and pay of such doctors and the profession loses its attractiveness as a career. Nor does high demand automatically lead to high provision (see Phoenix Arizona for e.g.) Yes, Pilot, there were some problems in the USSR; and there were some problems in Cuba and Arizona. This is a mind boggling logic. So, by cherry picking some of the problems, you can argue your case with ease. But, since I saw both types of environments you're referring to first hand, I can tell you that it's like comparing Titanic sinking with a shark attack on the beach - the order of magnitude is slightly different. Of course, it's not so simple; and there's no system with pure market mechanism. And so, as shroud bureaucrats always do, they use deficiencies they themselves create to argue that the market system does not really work.
NHS surgeons would place an alcoholic who had already had a transplant but who needed another, becasue of a return to drinking, at the very bottom of the waiting list Please. No billionaire is going to be constrained by any rules, especially when it comes to his/her health. I would go a step further and suggest that very few billionaires will even use NHS services at all.
I have been with my cousin in an ER unit in Maine (3 years ago) Same as above; besides, having been insured, your cousin probably never thought of going to a community hospital, where emergency care is offered to anybody anytime. Your cousin wanted a better service. NHS? Naah.
And in the Bush years any CIA prisoner could ask for the water-boarding to stop. Ok. I suppose, this is an Orwellian Bush hate break. Feel much better now, so, back to the issues in question.
Oberlander is Canadian. Lots of North Americans have German names. Doesn't make him suspect. There's no Canadian language, pilot. But it's all good. Tongue in cheek.
Well I'm sure that we would both dislike performing abortions but are you saying that women should not be allowed terminations? Well, since you are for more administrative approach in these matters, wouldn't you agree that it will make a better sense to neuter people who want to engage in a lot of activities that result in unwanted by them reproduction, rather than to kill a lot of unborne babies? Especially now, when the procedure is relevantly painless - I mean neutering, of course. -
Message 17
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Suv.
Off to the cinema in a few minutes so this will be brief. Will reply more fully tomorrow.
You seem not to favour UK-type NHS health care systems. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, but if the free-market provision is so much better, why is life expectancy longer in England and Wales than in the USA? (USA and Scotland are roughly the same, but the Scots have a high-cholesterol diet and are more likely to smoke)
Why do Americans have to pay for blood when we get healthier blood, free of charge?
And if American health provision for the poor is so great, why are US Democrats trying to create something like a UK system for the US? -
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Pilot but if the free-market provision is so much better, why is life expectancy longer in England and Wales than in the USA? (USA and Scotland are roughly the same, but the Scots have a high-cholesterol diet and are more likely to smoke) First of all, American Health Care system is far from being market oriented at this point, with all kinds of bureaucratic terrain between the provider and the consumer - beginning with the horrible tort legislation - and hence the ever rising cost. Secondly, I suggest to take the stats you are quoting with the grain of sault. It's much like the claim that unemployment in Sweden averages 5% or so, when in fact almost the quarter of the eligible labor pool does not show for work permanently - it's just that 15% or so are listed on that permanent sick leave; and yet they are officially 'employed.'
And if American health provision for the poor is so great, why are US Democrats trying to create something like a UK system for the US? This is simple. US Democrats are traditionally the 'big government' and 'lawyers' party. Not that Republicans did not create huge bureaucracies, but Democrats, especially Woodrow Wilson and FDR, reached truly extra-celestial level in this science by inventing the War Industries Board, National Recovery Administration, War Production Board, Department of Education (courtesy Jimmy Carter), etc, etc. -
Message 19
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 4th May 2009
"why is life expectancy longer in England and Wales than in the USA?"
The answer to the question is well established and very simple, but not commonly publisiced because it does not further the agenda of most who spout statistics on the subject:
Accidents and Homicides
If you remove accidental death and homicides, and consider only natural deaths, the US has a higher life expectancy than Canada and every European nation.
The stats also reveal why. The rates of disease are mostly comparable, but for the most common specific fatal illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, the survival following diagnosis is much higher in the US. That comes at great financial expense, and for the egalitarian-minded at expense of their collectivist concept of "fairness" and "social justice". But overall, most do better with it and even those uninsured usually get access to quality emergency care. -
Message 20
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 4th May 2009
But back to the history aspect of this. The Nazi program has always been an embarassment to those who advocate collectivism over individualism in health care and therefore downplayed. Even many physicians don't know about it, which is frightening if you think about it.
I would rather die due to my inability to pay for care than be refused the right to decide between my doctor and I what care I get when I can pay for it. In the first case I am the "victim" of fate or my own lack of productivity--something I am comfortable with as a reasonably mature adult. In the latter I am the victim of tyranny and meddling by my fellows in what is purely a personal matter, something that I fell justified in being angry about. Personal limitations and eventual sickness and death are inevitable for all of us. Loss of liberty and individual autonomy need not be. -
Message 21
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
Accidents and Homicides
If you remove accidental death and homicides, and consider only natural deaths, the US has a higher life expectancy than Canada and every European nation.
Stastics don't work like that. You cannot compare whole European populations against cherry-picked elements of the healthy US population and say that is a valid comparison. You are merely removing the groups that make the US stats look bad. I can see why you might want to do that but it invalidates the exercise.
If I removed accidental deaths, black on black killings and Bangladeshi men with congenital heart disease from the England and Wales cohort I could make the UK stats look far better than those from the US.
One has to compare all groups for the purposes of international comparison. No doubt Salt Lake City Mormons live long, blameless and happy lives. But Mormons are only part of the population.
You have to include the boys from the 'hood' and recently uninsured, redundant, coke-addicted ex-Wall Street bankers too. -
Message 22
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 6th May 2009
I would rather die due to my inability to pay for care than be refused the right to decide between my doctor and I what care I get when I can pay for it.
Given that no doctor in either the UK or the US will force you to have treatment against your will (if mentally sound), unless you are a health risk to others, what you are really saying is that you would rather die than have to share a hospital with an uninsured patient.
Personal limitations and eventual sickness and death are inevitable for all of us.
I agree completely.
Loss of liberty and individual autonomy need not be.
In their final days, still privately insured dying American geriatrics look remarkably like NHS-provided British dying geriatrics.
Neither group has much 'autonomy'; feeding, drinking, washing and toileting being done by others. -
Message 23
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
No cherry picking there. Looking at the population. Including the Saturday night gun and knife club, drug addicts, chain smoking coal miners, morbidly corpulent welfare queens--the whole menagerie.
-
Message 24
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 8th May 2009
Kurt.
These are the latest US-audited, 'un-cherry-picked', figures. Which nation has the best figures of those listed below?
------------Infant mortality.-----Life expectancy
-----------(per 1k births)---------(years)
Russia-----------11.1----------------65.9
United Kingdom--5.0--------------78.7
United States----6.4---------------78.0
Venezuela-------20.9---------------74.8
Zimbabwe--------51.1---------------39.5
(Source: US census bureau) -
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) ** on Friday, 8th May 2009
Going back to the OP, I'm not unfamiliar with details of the Holocaust but the T4 moniker meant nothing to me in relation to the Holocaust, and I believe that most people are in the same boat.
That does not make them ignorant of what the Nazi regime did, it's just a small detail that is likely to be known well enough by serious students of the period (if anything, the Holocaust it taught in schools, and thanks to movies like Schindler's List and The Pianist and the recent The Boy in the Pyjamas, public awareness is as great as it ever has been).
I do not believe that naming a particular programming slot at the weekends T4 has any reference to the Holocaust whatsoever, and most of the people who are even aware of the Nazi T4 programme are unlikely to connect the two.
A quick google search on T4 brings up the following types of hits:
Channel 4 programme
T4 Sustainability - a Midlands (UK) company
T4 Design - a glass company
Overview of thyroxine (T4) blood test
Types of paraplegia (T1, T2, T3, T4)
Terminal 4 at Madrid Barajas Airport
T4 Media - ticket barrier advertising company
etc, etc, etc
In other words, there are lots of references to T4 that in all likelihood have no Holocaust connections at all. If you start a petition on Channel 4's naming protocols, then the other above examples must also be addressed.
Mention of Zyklon B in another post reminds me of the Palace Pier in Brighton a few years ago (or Brighton Pier as it's now called) - they opened up a roller coaster on the pier and called it that, but Brighton has a large Jewish community and there was uproar at the name. The owners of the pier very wisely changed the name very quickly! They did state however that they were unaware of the historic associations. -
Message 26
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 8th May 2009
Kurt.
Pilot These are the latest US-audited, 'un-cherry-picked', figures. Which nation has the best figures of those listed below?
------------Infant mortality.-----Life expectancy
-----------(per 1k births)---------(years)
Russia-----------11.1----------------65.9
United Kingdom--5.0--------------78.7
United States----6.4---------------78.0
Venezuela-------20.9---------------74.8
Zimbabwe--------51.1---------------39.5
(Source: US census bureau)
I don't understand: how did you figure out that these figures somehow exclude the impact of murders and accidents? -
Message 27
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 9th May 2009
The figures you cite for life expectancy include all deaths. If you exclude accidents and murders, the numbers are different and puts the US over the UK, Canada, etc.
We get shot, stabbed, run off the road, drown, and fall into canyons more than Europeans. We also get sick a lot, but the cure rate and survival rate for most common cancers and other fatal illnesses is a bit higher. So our life expectancy is lower if one includes all causes of death. Higher if one considers only natural causes of death. I don't know how to make it any plainer. -
Message 28
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 9th May 2009
The obvious point is that in life expectancy that is influenced by the quality of health care, the US is doing very well. The difference that pushes the total net life expectancy down is caused by lifestyle factors far removed from quality of health care.
Is the marginal incrementally higher quality worth the substantially higher cost? That is a value judgement. In a free society, it is one made by the aggregate decisions of millions of individuals making choices for themselves independently. In a collectivist society it is one made by the power holders for all.
What the Nazi Euthanasia program showed was one of the risks of the latter arrangement. -
Message 29
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
The figures you cite for life expectancy include all deaths
That's right. That is exactly what defines internationally comparable life-expectancy data.
The figures I cited in M24 were from the US census bureau. They follow internationally agreed norms of statistical scholarship.
These American figures show, all things considered, people in the UK live longer than in the USA and that the UK figures for infant mortality are also better.
If you exclude accidents and murders, the numbers are different and puts the US over the UK, Canada
This is merely tantamount to saying that you wish to change agreed international statistical procedures because your country does not 'win'. the 'League' if your bad figures are left in.
Changing stats in this way is called 'cherry-picking'. We've been over that already.
Both the US and the UK are way down the table by the way, I'm not saying that the UK is the best in this regard, far from it.
If we leave-out accidents and murders and the Scottish data from the UK figures (which is very similar to the USA data), our English and Welsh figures are far superior, but to do that fudges the issue, because such a subtraction of 'inconvenient truth' masks an important feature of a society.
The probability of accidental death and the frequency with which citizens kill one another, tells us a lot about a society. It is a measure of how fractured, violent or dysfunctional a society has become.
You are, in effect, saying:-
"If we Americans stopped killing one another with guns and cars, our nation would be nicer".
I would have to agree.
But until that happens the international comparators will tell their own story.
So our life expectancy is lower if one includes all causes of death. Higher if one considers only natural causes of death
I've shown you data in support of my argument, you seem to accept it as valid.
Please may we see data in support of your modified version of the international life-expectancy figures? -
Message 30
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Is the marginal incrementally higher quality worth the substantially higher cost? That is a value judgement. In a free society, it is one made by the aggregate decisions of millions of individuals making choices for themselves independently
Quite so. Your great nation of many millions has recently freely chosen to support an administration which is keen to pursue a programme of health care more akin to the British model.
In a collectivist society it is one made by the power holders for all
Thank goodness that neither of us lives in such a society.
Here in the UK we have a mixture of private and state provision. The major difference is that our state provision is truly universal and does not send private ambulances to collect only some of the injured after a road crash. (See the US 'Crown Heights riots' of 1991, after a Jewish driver was taken to hospital in a private Jewish ambulance, while his black victim, a boy named Cato, lay dying on the sidewalk, awaiting the state ambulance which turned up later, after the boy had died. We don't go in for ethnically separate emergency services over here) -
Message 31
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Pilot
"If we Americans stopped killing one another with guns and cars, our nation would be nicer".
I would have to agree.
But until that happens the international comparators will tell their own story. "Their own story" as you put it is a non-sequitur to the story in question, i.e., the effectivess of NHS in comparison to the Health Care system in the US. Murder rate and traffic accidents are irrelevant to the quality of that said care, and that's the argument that Kurt ia making. As one math professor pointed out once, although there is correlation between the number of light polls and the number of murders in various jurisdictions, it does not mean that causality of this correlation is established. -
Message 32
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
See the US 'Crown Heights riots' of 1991, after a Jewish driver was taken to hospital in a private Jewish ambulance, while his black victim, a boy named Cato, lay dying on the sidewalk, awaiting the state ambulance which turned up later, after the boy had died. We don't go in for ethnically separate emergency services over here Thoes jews again. Of course, it would be more moral and equitable if both victims died. No worries, though, since that is exactly what the mob judged to be as justice by fatally stabbing some Yeshiva student from Australia who happened to be wondering about in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
Message 33
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
I fail to understand the British concern of American Health, seems its a national pastime by of the number of times its referred to in posts and on the streets in Britain. On a return to Britain after an absence of 22 years, about the first thing I heard from an old friend on our first meeting was in America of a boy taken to the Doctor for treatment to a badly cut hand, the Doctor put 7 stitches in the hand, gave the father a bill and because the father was unable to pay the Doctor TORE the stitches out and sent them away. I firmly believe a story such as that would have made the Headlines in newspapers and TV. I never heard of it. Regarding a Hospital sending a person away, not all Hospitals are equipped to handle Emergency Services, plus said Hospital many have had a number already waiting attention. I find no details in any such posts, perhaps its the British, "No Names No Pack Drill". Why don't the British attend to their own needs and cut down waiting time for operations, plus forbidding their high ups in the medical field flying to Boston when they need medical attention to themselves? I asked that to a niece of my wife who is a Nurse in Britain, she said it was a specialty of that Boston Hospital, plus why in Britain if a child needs specialized medical treatment only available in the USA why Donations to a Charity on the child's behalf is necessary to get the child there?
-
Message 34
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Of course, it would be more moral and equitable if both victims died
No.
It would have been more morally equitable if the first ambulance to arrive took both the Jewish driver and the black victim to the same ER, in the same vehicle, at the same time. -
Message 35
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Pilot It would have been more morally equitable if the first ambulance to arrive took both the Jewish driver and the black victim to the same ER, in the same vehicle, at the same time. That is, if the black victim had not been dead by then and if the mob had not been attacking the ambulance. Which you are not in the position to refute in all likelihood. Just as the irrelevance of this ugly and unfortunate episode in NY, NY - one of the most left-leaning American cities, by the way - to the debate about the quality of care.
-
Message 36
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Petaluma.
I fail to understand the British concern of American Health, seems its a national pastime by of the number of times its referred to in posts and on the streets in Britain. On a return to Britain after an absence of 22 years, about the first thing I heard from an old friend on our first meeting was in America of a boy taken to the Doctor for treatment to a badly cut hand, the Doctor put 7 stitches in the hand, gave the father a bill and because the father was unable to pay the Doctor TORE the stitches out and sent them away. I firmly believe a story such as that would have made the Headlines in newspapers and TV.
Not sure what you are driving at here.
You invent an improbable scare story and then say its not true.
From which we are expected to deduce what, exactly?
If you check the posts on this thread so far, I'm the one offering peer-reviewed stats and genuine evidence, other contributors are merely shooting the breeze.
I await some actual counter-evidence with interest.
If US health care is so great, why are the Democrats trying to improve it and make it answerable to the 'will of the people'?
Why are US auto-giants collapsing under the huge costs of health care insurance for their workers?
Can you not envisage a better way of providing cover for illness? -
Message 37
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Suv.
Just as the irrelevance of this ugly and unfortunate episode in NY,...
Well, we at least agree that it was both ugly and unfortunate. I dispute the label "irrelevant".
It seems symptomatic of a division in society if each ethnic group has its own ambulance service.
Shades of apartheid South Africa in the bad old days.
By the way, and apropos of nothing really, I always assumed that you were a Russian enthusiast living in the UK, are you actually in the US, by any chance? -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 11th May 2009
Pilot I always assumed that you were a Russian enthusiast living in the UK, are you actually in the US, by any chance? I am more of a sceptic rather than an ethusiast, and I've been around on both sides of the pond. I am thinking about trying out the planet of Remulak. Naah, on second thought, as I recall, the Coneheads run it Bolshevik style. That brings me to your assertion that It seems symptomatic of a division in society if each ethnic group has its own ambulance service. Shades of apartheid South Africa in the bad old days. In my opinion, North America - and NY in particular - suffers much less from class and racial divisions than Europe - particularly UK - despite all the "progressive" rhetoric. Oh, and I got a horse story for you here, somewhere.
-
Message 39
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 11th May 2009
U32, what I'm driving at is why are so many British concerned regarding the health system in the USA? Seems to me to be the National Pastime, why is it a concern to you? Just a straight answer. I am not defending the American health system or have any complaints, just wondering why a foreigner worries about such things. Seems any discussion by British people have to include Americans in it. I've lived a number of years in both countries and traveled frequently.
I didn't invent the story my friend told me, you sure assume a lot, I didn't question my friend's account of what happened, and didn't say it was untrue. -
Message 40
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) ** on Monday, 11th May 2009
what I'm driving at is why are so many British concerned regarding the health system in the US
Are we? Can't say I give it much thought or discuss it beyond the need to get health insurance when going there. -
Message 41
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 11th May 2009
Stogger, Greetings, note I did not include all British, just by my personal experience many I met plus reading British material, seems America is the main yardstick for a great proportion for any reference regardless of any subject. (nice to feel we are not being ignored being so far away and all that). My health plan covers our family anywhere in the world plus med.-evac. if needed, so don't have to shop for medical insurance regarding travel.
-
Message 42
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 11th May 2009
U32, additional answers to your questions, Democrats have always been trying to improve the conditions for all Americans, filthy rich and dirt poor, called a Democracy. Obama demands all Americans to buy health insurance, note buy, there is no such thing as free medical insurance, what I have read in newspapers (not told) many countries with government provided health care are having trouble controlling costs. As vehicle insurance, people should pay according to their risk, that would be fair for most. GM are having a bad time at present, even at $10 to $14 thousand profit a vehicle does not compensate for so many unwanted vehicles unsold, plus I believe the economy is not too good right now. A $45,000 pick up selling for $30,000 has few buyers owing to unemployment.
-
Message 43
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 11th May 2009
Democrats have always been trying to improve the conditions for all Americans, filthy rich and dirt poor I don't think there was ever a politician who did not claim that he or she was trying to improve the conditions for all [fill the blank]s.
-
Message 44
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 11th May 2009
suv, Churchill's, "All I have to offer you is Blood, Sweat and Tears" or something like that. That's all he had to offer during the Depression, (so no big deal), and dealt it. "Tanks anyone?"
-
Message 45
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 11th May 2009
Churchill's, "All I have to offer you is Blood, Sweat and Tears" or something like that. Wasn't that when the Brits ditched him?
-
Message 46
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Monday, 11th May 2009
suv. believe that was said when they brought him back, (that's if he ever left) Chamberlain stalled for time and was called an 'appeaser', had no choice as Britain couldn't have fought a drunken Italian at that time with one hand tied behind his back. Pitchforks on the right shovels on the left, we'll show them. America to the rescue, 2nd time, making a habit of it.
-
Message 47
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 11th May 2009
Churchill's, "All I have to offer you is Blood, Sweat and Tears" or something like that.
Quoted from SUV's message.
Wasn't that when the Brits ditched him? (from Petaluma)
No.
"Blood sweat and tears" was 13th May 1940, at the height of his influence.
The Brits ditched him in 1945, then he came back later, of course. -
Message 48
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) ** on Tuesday, 12th May 2009
I don't think it was so much ditching Churchill, it was a case of Churchill not being in tune with a post-war British public who wanted something in return for the sacrifices it had made the last six years or so, something Churchill wasn't offering at that time.
-
Message 49
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 12th May 2009
Stoggler (48)
Well put.
it was a case of Churchill not being in tune with a post-war British public who wanted something in return for the sacrifices it had made
And one of the things it wanted was a better health service.
That's how the "everyone pays their dues" NHS started. The doctors hated the idea, but it worked out well, imho. Doctors are now quite satisfied, in the main.
43 million Americans have no health care system at all.
We don't send people away from ER's in this country nor do we have separate ambulances for different ethnic groups. -
Message 50
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 12th May 2009
Petaluma (42)
I'm interested in the USA because I have family there and I travel to US and Canada a good deal. My interest is informed by seeing the American way of life at close hand, from Maine to California and from Florida to Alaska.
Some things you do there are superb (I'm watching "The Wire" on 鶹Լ TV at the moment and it is the best TV I've ever seen, it is real, it reflects the USA I've actually driven through)
I've met big-hearted good ol' boys in West Virginia who have driven 15 miles out of their way to show us the route to their airfield, and I've nearly been shot by a drugged-up psycho in California who thought I owed him $5 because he showed us how to buy a ticket on the Frisco cable cars. I've met a blind man in Haines, Alaska who showed me his collection of hunting rifles and hand guns. You just don't see that sort of thing here.
Yours is a land of staggering contrasts, great wealth and great power sit beside grinding poverty and hopelessness.
Obama demands all Americans to buy health insurance, note buy, there is no such thing as free medical insurance, what I have read in newspapers (not told) many countries with government provided health care are having trouble controlling costs.
All of that is true.
I currently have National and private health cover but when I get old and poor I know the state will pick-up the bill and I stand a chance of being able to pass-on my property to my loved ones.
In the USA I've seen many people who fear old age and geriatric care because, however rich they were in their working years, they can be made paupers by medical bills when the insurance companies refuse cover for things like Alzheimer's care needs, prostate cancer relapse or osteoporosis complications.
Then your system is a case of 'pay-up or get a worse care regimen' (or no care at all).
Sure, our taxes are way higher than yours but we don't spend our last years in anxiety about paying for medical care.
I sense that Obama is trying to rectify that, by taking the fear out of being poor and ill?
And if that is what he is trying to do, I'm all for it.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.