Steve Jobs Had a Liver Transplant Two Months Ago

evw writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Steve Jobs had a liver transplant two months ago (subscription required, alternative coverage is available based on the WSJ's report). He is on track to return to work at the end of June. 'William Hawkins, a doctor specializing in pancreatic and gastrointestinal surgery at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., said that the type of slow-growing pancreatic tumor Mr. Jobs had will commonly metastasize in another organ during a patient's lifetime, and that the organ is usually the liver. ... Having the procedure done in Tennessee makes sense because its list of patients waiting for transplants is shorter than in many other states.' There are no residency requirements for transplants."

Comments

Re:How much

[ionix5891]

theres was probably a line of apple fanboys queuing to give their livers to steve

2 Months is very fast

[wjsteele]

for a recovery. My Dad's liver transplant had him out for almost 6 months. In fact, right after his surgery, he was in isolation for 30 days, then in ICU for another 30. I'd be real suprised if he actually was able to "return to work" this month. Even "part time," physical therapy and all the tweaking they need to do with the medications (anti rejection, etc.) to get his chemical balances back is a big thing.

I wish him well... my Dad was able to go to Oshkosh (AirVenture) with me 1 year after his surgery. A trip I will never forget.

Bill

Re:2 Months is very fast

[WarwickRyan]

It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

Re:2 Months is very fast

[CarpetShark]

2 Months is very fast for a recovery.

Never underestimate the awesome power of reality distortion fields.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jurily]

It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

This being Slashdot, that raises interesting questions. Steve's not rich because he was born into a banker family, in fact, he was adopted. He's rich because people bought his products.

So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[D-Cypell]

Exactly! Add to that the fact that the surgeons simply needed to rotate Steve by 90 degrees to have all his internal organs shift to 'landscape mode' for easy access and I am sure the surgery was a breeze.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[D-Cypell]

"So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?"

Always an interesting question. I would say yes, it is a bad thing. Not for Steve of course, but for what it represents.

Steve Jobs has large wads of cash as that is what we give people who prove themselves to be great assets to the economic system. No doubt, Steve Jobs is exactly that, but should your value to the economic system be the primary factor behind the level of medical care you receive? I would say no. Steve Jobs has no more right to the best standard of care than does somebody who has been in the police force, or a teacher (for example) their entire lives. In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.

It is easy to get confused in this matter because we are talking about Steve Jobs, who seems a pretty smart and decent guy anyway. How about if we replace Steve with Ken Lay, should 'Kenny Boy' receive a much higher level of medical care than somebody who choose to be a librarian rather than a 'business tycoon'?

You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types ;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ijakings]

All they did was flash him with the 3.0 firmware, then cut and pasted that liver right in there.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[tverbeek]

Recovery time is going to depend a lot on the patient's condition before the transplant, including why they needed it, so comparing one person's to another's requires taking that into account.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Timosch]

I tend to go even further: Even criminals, who in your opinion don't deserve that, should enjoy equal medical treatment. We send them in jail for what they've done, but when everyone else would get the same medical treatment, denying it to them would be a cruel and excessive punishment.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[cyber-vandal]

Any medical care that Ken Lay gets would have to be the very best since he's been dead for 3 years. But I get your point ;-)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[thetoadwarrior]

Steve Jobs probably has more money than your father and is willing to spend loads of it to stay alive. When you have the means to pay for it, you get great medical care.

Just look at Magic Johnson. He has HIV yet has gone on for ages with a relatively normal life and it's because he's able to afford to down a bucket of the best AIDS preventative medicine.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[coaxial]

So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?

Yes. Is it his fault? No, it's United States' lack of universal care like every other country in the world has.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Teppy]

Assume that a perfect matched liver was available: Suppose *you* were the top liver transplant surgeon, and someone offered $50k to give up your day off, and instead perform a liver transplant on them. Would it be immoral for you to accept?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[drsmack1]

>> but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect

If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

This Churchill quote seems appropriate right now: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[frieko]

I find it hard to believe I'm putting these words together in the same sentence, but there was an interesting episode of Star Trek Voyager on the subject.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Recovery time has a lot more to do with the patient's ability to recover than with money. Particularly the patient's ability to handle all the meds.

People just want to believe that a top transplant surgeon can somehow transplant a liver better than the average transplant surgeon. Instead, a specialty surgeon can likely deal with special, difficult cases more readily than the average surgeon.

Believe it or not, liver transplants are quite common. Go down to your local hospital's transplant unit and you'll be amazed by the streams of people coming in and out with transplants. The real problem is finding matching organs. That's why I'm signed up to be an organ donor - to improve the odds of a few people who could use my "parts" in the case of my traumatic death.

Yes, I've known several people who have had transplants, some in my immediate family. You might know someone too... it isn't obvious to the casual observer.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[mindstrm]

2 very good points for debate.

1) Should it matter HOW he made his money, as long as it was legal? Is it okay becuase he's Steve, and he made cool products, -vs- someone who had, say, rich parents? On the flip side, if I was a billionaire, should I not be able to purchase the best medical care for my son, even if he is lazy and not good for much?
2) This is the crux of the public healthcare debate. I'm Canadian - we don't worry about rich people getting better care. We worry about everyone getting better care. We worry about people who need liver transplants getting them, and about having the best, well trained doctors specialists seeing the right poeple at the right time. We are absolutely not fully successful at this - yet we still believe in the concept.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[roman_mir]

Living in Canada (where are you located), I disagree. The system does not provide best care and there should be a legal way to get extra care above what they normally provide if you pay the money.

Think about this: if a public hospital allows a person to stay only for a few days after a surgery, why shouldn't a person with means be able to leave that place and go to a private hospital that does not depend on the public resources and stay there for any amount of time that it takes this person to recover fully or until he even simply feels like it as long as he pays? In Ontario this is generally illegal, however what would be the difference between that and simply hiring a bunch of nurses/doctors to take care of you personally in your house even (except that doing it would be so expensive that only the richest people, someone exactly like Jobs could afford it?)

How is it even legal to prevent a professional to provide his/her services for the best payment if he wants that extra money? I am a software developer working on contracts, generally speaking I always search for the best deal I can get. Why should a doctor be denied opportunity to get the most money his abilities would allow him?

So the only argument against a fully private system would be this: if the government subsidizes education of some doctors, then it could demand that those, who were subsidized give back at least some of their time to the public system (say 30% minimum of their time would go to public system) Of-course there is a larger problem with government subsidizing any education system - it drives the education costs up, because universities know that government is there to provide loans, so whatever the costs of education are, anyone can just get this 'mortgage' to pay for it, so there is no incentive to make education any cheaper.

If the government stayed away from subsidizing education, the prices for it would go down and more people would be able to afford it in the first place. More doctors would graduate and that would drive their prices down so even a private health system could be affordable.

You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types

- and I am not, as you can probably guess, I believe on economy my position is logical and yours is not. You would have a system that would be regulated, taxed and subsidized and would eventually collapse under its own bureaucratic cost.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[sqldr]

Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him

Nah.. they probably just downloaded the "iSurgery" app for their iPhone.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it bad if he uses his money to buy to buy a better house then you or I can... is it bad if he buys better food? What about cloths?

If it IS bad that he can get better medical treatment, then who should pay for yours and mine? Should Steve? Universal health care sounds great until you notice that you are paying for the smoker who needs a new lung and the guy who got drunk then slammed his car into a minivan filled with a troop of boy scouts.

No matter what the talking heads say, everything costs something. If the government is covering it, then YOU are paying for it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[D-Cypell]

I wouldn't be immoral for me to accept the work, but it would be immoral of me to demand access to the liver so that I could use that during my 'overtime'

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure one thing excludes the other.

Yes, we can have socialized medicine. Wouldn't the wealthiest always have the option of going elsewhere to get the best treatment they can afford? Shouldn't they have that right?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easy to get confused in this matter because we are talking about Steve Jobs, who seems a pretty smart and decent guy anyway. How about if we replace Steve with Ken Lay, should 'Kenny Boy' receive a much higher level of medical care than somebody who choose to be a librarian rather than a 'business tycoon'?

LMAO. Word in silicon valley is that Steve Jobs is considered one of the biggest assholes around. On the other hand, while Steve Ballmer has a roid rage reputation of throwing chairs, rumor has it that he is actually a really nice guy in day-to-day non-business interactions (just wear a helmet if you are leaving Microsoft for Google).

Re:2 Months is very fast

[platypussrex]

This is the crux of the issue. a) that somehow medical treatment is totally different than any other service/commodity (it's not) and b) that we should be force at gunpoint to pay for every unhealthy
  clown on the planet because of their bad choices.

If i want a better house, I earn more money so I can buy it. Ditto with a car. Want a better education? Pay for it. That's how the world works.

As for the second point, all you need to do is work at the ER in a major hospital for a while to see what happen when you give people free medical care. All the welfare grabbing losers who are already sucking on the government teat like that was no tomorrow show up for the most trivial reasons you can imagine, just because it won't cost them anything. Things that any normal person would either self treat of see their doctor in the morning. I'm not kidding, I saw a guy arrive once in an ambulance because he ate something that gave him gas. Think of how many thousand dollars that cost the taxpayers.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ucklak]

So if any of these people or these people need a liver transplant, they should be front and center in line to get a brand new liver, well ahead of a supportive member of society that regularly pays his contribution to society? That's 2 counties out of 3140 in the US and those are people arrested on a Friday night.

Socialized medicine in the US will never work as it's intended because the gap between the haves and the have nots and the gap between the dos and the do nots will widen contributing to an apathetic society. The do nots will get the care ahead of the dos and drain the system and the haves will get the better care that the have nots will complain about. The people that will end up getting screwed will be the average Joe wanting this "everyone's covered" plan that does his contribution to society. What's the point of being a 'do' if the 'do nots' get all the same benefits? If you want to be a doctor to treat the 'haves' but the law states that you have to treat the 'have nots', what's the point of becoming a doctor? Doctors will not get paid competitively in a monopolized payment structure.

If you're going to grow a vegetable garden for yourself, you need to prepare a method for dealing with rabbits. (If I have to explain that, you will never get it)

Now, in the same vein, the current 3rd party payment system needs to be radically overhauled but that is a beast that is "too large to fail."

Re:2 Months is very fast

[rastilin]

Steve Jobs has large wads of cash as that is what we give people who prove themselves to be great assets to the economic system. No doubt, Steve Jobs is exactly that, but should your value to the economic system be the primary factor behind the level of medical care you receive? I would say no. Steve Jobs has no more right to the best standard of care than does somebody who has been in the police force, or a teacher (for example) their entire lives. In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.

I'm all for socialized medicine, but when his ass is on the line I support Jobs's desire to go the distance to survive. I wouldn't condemn him to death just to prove a point.

You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types ;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.

There we disagree, those people are "The System". If your system works perfectly with 1000 honest men, but you can't get your hands on those; then your plan is flawed. Regardless of how it would work in theory.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Wowsers]

I'm sure Steve will get better faster, so long as he follows that old saying about having an apple a day :) .

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Junior J. Junior III]

He only makes $1 a year, though. Can he really afford the best doctors on a salary like that?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what kind of shape your dad was in before his transplant, but that's got to be a factor in recovery time. Aside from these specific health issues, Steve is probably in good physical condition.

Be glad your dad got one. I hope he's continuing to do well.

My dad died in '92 in a surgery designed to reroute blood flow around his ruined liver. We were told there was no way he was getting a transplant as a long-time alcoholic.

A few year later, in 1995, Mickey Mantle got a new liver. He too was an alcoholic, characterized as "recovering," and also had hepatitis C, but was a famous and beloved public figure. "Although the average wait time on the list to receive a liver in 1995 was three to four months, Mantle received his in a day."* Everyone involved claimed there was no favoritism, and still does. I don't believe it.

(The liver did Mantle no long-term good; he died of cancer two months later.)

So don't anyone think the rules apply to everyone equally. They don't. Money and fame talk.

(* - from http://www.miracosta.edu/home/lmoon/allocate.html, which frankly doesn't look like the best citation in the world, but I do remember it from news reports at the time. Wikipedia agrees about the alcoholism and hepatitis.)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jurily]

This Churchill quote seems appropriate right now: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

How about this one from Geza Hofi: "In capitalism, people exploit people. In socialism, it's the other way around."

And no need to guess about going abroad: Hungarian politicians haven't seen a Hungarian hospital from the inside since WW2.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[thetoadwarrior]

I know everyone in general gets better treatment for AIDS now but Magic has had it since at least the early 90's when treatment wasn't as good and in fact some people still thought you had to be gay to get it.

His money has certainly helped him reach this point. People with money always get better medical treatment even in countries with free health care.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[cmdr_tofu]

I must confess as well to a definite socialist bent, so I cannot disagree with you. I am glad that Steve Jobs can get the treatment he needs but think it is a crime that the working poor cannot get such high quality medical care.

Still we have to look at both sides right? Let's ignore rich criminals for a minute and look at it like a utilitarian for a minute. What if the work Steve Jobs was doing was significantly improving the quality of everyone's life? What if he was not making iPhones, but working on a cure to cancer, and a breakthrough was expected within 5 years. Given there are only so many livers to go around, does a meritocracy based medical system keep the exceptional talents required for human advancement better than a socialized medical system?

I would still agree socialized medicine is the way to go. It's a moral issue, not a practical one. But then again, I live in the USA, so it is unlikely I will ever see socialized medicine.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[meyekul]

Absolutely not. It isn't like you can pick the experience level of your doctor anyway, or that there is some miracle cure that you ONLY get if you spend a certain amount of money. I don't imagine he got any special treatment (maybe a nicer, more private room) than you or I would have gotten, and he probably took his own helicopter in when it was time for surgery. Insurance dollars spend just as well as Apple dollars, and the docs would have to answer the same questions to the same review board if something went wrong. He had the luxury of picking his hospital and of course he chose the one with the shortest list. He still had to wait in line, BEHIND some regular old people from Tennessee, before he got his turn.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[stiller]

You are confusing two things:

1) Every person should have access to good, quality healthcare (prisoners too, you brute, ne bis in idem): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems
2) The ability of wealthier persons to choose a more expensive and (possibly, sometimes) more effective treatment.

I wholeheartedly agree to the first point, but you and I both apparently already enjoy this right (Dutch system for me). The US is a bit (a lot?) behind here.
But to say that the second point is bad, is IMHO indeed a socialist (if not communist) statement. Are you saying that, because we can't afford to offer this type of treatment to the general populace, it should be denied to people who can afford out of pocket? Remember, it is very likely, that procedures and techniques pioneered by small, commercially funded centers will eventually trickle down to general healthcare, where otherwise they might not have been developed in the first place.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Lost Engineer]

Under a socialist system, nobody gets the liver. After all Tennessee livers must not be given to outsiders under the Tennessee anti-organ trafficking act of 2012.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[dunkelfalke]

If the government stayed away from subsidizing education, the prices for it would go down and more people would be able to afford it in the first place. More doctors would graduate and that would drive their prices down so even a private health system could be affordable.

Wrong. This is pretty much the same as saying that when the goverment wouldn't subsidise car manufacturers, everyone could afford a Porsche.

A private education system, same as a private healthcare system, will charge for the services whatever the market can bear. That means for healthcare that the doctors will charge real shitloads of money. Just because they can - if people are seriously ill, they'll pay any cost to get healthy again. Those, who cannot afford to pay that huge sums of money would receive no healthcare - thre is no reason doctors would waste their time for the poor when they can use the time to treat wealthy patients. Everyone else would have to pray to their personal deity or to resort to traditional medicine (which is also pretty costly these days since there aren't that many places anymore where you can harvest herbs).
Same would happen to education.

I believe on economy my position is logical and yours is not.

Nope, your position is illogical because it is based on beliefs. In other words, economy is a religion for you.

What I describe are just facts. We have already had fully private education and fully private medicine. There is a good reason why 20th century has changed that.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[whoop]

Doctor A is a good liver transplanter, say, 50% are still alive after five years. Doctor B is the best in the country, and 80% are alive after five years. In the current system, Doctor B charges more than A. So, if everyone should get the same level of care, should Doctor B lower his techniques to be on par with A, or should Doctor B be the sole provider for the country and just accept whatever payment the government deems his services should be worth?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[MrKaos]

I tend to go even further: Even criminals, who in your opinion don't deserve that, should enjoy equal medical treatment.

The true measure of a society is not how they treat the most valued, but how they treat the most despised.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Vellmont]

because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

And this reduces a recovery time from 6 months to 2 months? No way in hell. The "2 month return to work" is really likely marketing hype. The marketing people picked the earliest time they could possible claim he returned to work, and that happened to be 2 months.

Money bought Steve the ability to get a liver faster by going to where the liver is. It bought him close monitoring, a nicer environment, and possibly some better odds. It's never going to make his body heal any faster.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about this: if a public hospital allows a person to stay only for a few days after a surgery, why shouldn't a person with means be able to leave that place and go to a private hospital that does not depend on the public resources and stay there for any amount of time that it takes this person to recover fully or until he even simply feels like it as long as he pays?

Blow me. A life saved through your awesome system that wouldn't be saved under other systems is worth your cushy post-op care? Seriously - Fuck You.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jurily]

Of-course there is a larger problem with government subsidizing any education system - it drives the education costs up, because universities know that government is there to provide loans, so whatever the costs of education are, anyone can just get this 'mortgage' to pay for it, so there is no incentive to make education any cheaper.

The government should always aim to give the talented people the opportunity to learn something useful. But private universities are not the way to do that.

In more developed countries (flame on!) it goes like this: government owns and runs university, gives free access to those in need, and gives loans to cover their living expenses while they're studying. It's much cheaper for both the government and the student.

Of course you can always have private universities that only exist to make money, but be clear about their roles in society.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BasilBrush]

What's the point of being a 'do' if the 'do nots' get all the same benefits?

What's being suggested is all the same HEALTH benefits. The answer is of course that people "do" for a mixture of reasons possibly including getting paid and enjoying it. You don't need to bribe people with their health to get them to "do".

Conversely, punishing the poor with third rate or none existent healthcare, as you already do, has done nothing whatsoever to solve the problem you highlight, has it? Look at this list of recent unemployment rates. America is mid table amongst other countries that have "socialized" healthcare.

If you're going to grow a vegetable garden for yourself, you need to prepare a method for dealing with rabbits. (If I have to explain that, you will never get it)

No, it doesn't need any explaining at all. You cast some people are vermin that don't deserve healthcare. Your analogy contains no possibility of any such vermin proving themselves worthy of healthcare. Your analogy casts people as vermin from birth to death, with no possibility of change. Or possibly, just possibly, your analogy that you thought unquestionable was a little silly.

If you want to be a doctor to treat the 'haves' but the law states that you have to treat the 'have nots', what's the point of becoming a doctor?

That rather reveals that you don't know enough about "socialized" medicine to be passing any comment at all. Most countries that have "socialized" medicine don't make private medicine illegal.

Question: Why aren't you campaigning to get rid of the "socialized" fire service, "socialized" highways, and "socialized" police services you already have. Surely according to your line of thinking they will never work.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[kidgenius]

It isn't like you can pick the experience level of your doctor anyway, or that there is some miracle cure that you ONLY get if you spend a certain amount of money.

Actually, here in the US, you CAN pick the experience level of your doctor. With the kind of money steve can throw around, he could probably pay for the entire procedure out of pocket, allowing him to pick exactly which doctor he wanted to perform the operation. And, if there is a *miracle* cure, but your insurance won't cover it because it's not proven (or whatever hogwash the insurer comes up with), then I'm sure that the people providing the cure will not say "Oh sorry, i know insurance doesn't cover it, and though you are willing to pay for it entirely, we still won't take your money in exchange for the cure". Money can most certainly get you better care. Do I have a problem with this? Not in the least. If you have the cash and that's what you want to spend it on, go for it. That's your prerogative. Just like I don't begrudge someone for wanting to buy a car, or throw their money out of an airplane in suitcases. I think that some sort of government subsidized care here in the US could be a very good thing, just as long as you don't disallow someone from paying for something better (like Canada, until recently IIRC)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[jollyreaper]

It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

And you know how he likes to tinker with components before a launch date.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government stayed away from subsidizing education, the prices for it would go down and more people would be able to afford it in the first place.

wat?

the price would perhaps drop, but i somehow doubt it would drop to the level of a single month's payment towards a school mortgage.
i pay about $100 a month for my school loans. you're saying the price of a college education, or at least a semester of such, would drop below $100?
if not, then how exactly will more people be able to afford it?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ozbird]

Any medical care that Ken Lay gets would have to be the very best since he's been dead for 3 years.

Why "the very best"? It's not like any treatment he gets is going to kill him or anything.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BasilBrush]

If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

Well to save you from guessing, I'll tell you how it is in the UK. The vast majority of people use the National Health Service all the time (what you call "socialized" medicine). Some people go outside the system (private) if they can afford it and they want a nice private room rather than a ward, or to get minor procedures done at a time to suit them, rather then wait. Or if they want unnecessary work such as plastic surgery done. But if you have something SERIOUS wrong, like you've had a heart attack, or you need a liver transplant. Then the NHS is the place to be. They have the specialists and the equipment needed to give you the best care, not the private hospitals.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[babblefrog]

Given that the very best medical care is expensive, and resources are limited, what you are really saying is that if everybody can't have it, nobody should get it, right?

Is it just medical care that gets this treatment, or do you extend this to all goods and services?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Kjella]

First of all, you have to realize you can't give everyone "the best" treatment. For one being the seniormost expert on something is personal - whether it's based on cash or medical need that person can't treat everyone with that condition. Secondly there's an essentially limitless pool of marginally better care, particularly on chronic conditions. And not only on quality of care but availability of care, it's impossible to have full intensive care units ready in every little corner of the country. Basicly if you tried setting up a standard of best care and multiplied with the number of patients you'd probably find that there's not enough people to do it, even before you got into economical arguments.

Socalized medicine is about the reasonable. If I break a leg I should be brought no more than a reasonable distance to a hospital where there's a reasonable waiting time where a reasonably skilled physician will treat it and give reasonable medical care. Thousands of people do each year and in their own opinion fully recover. But if a pro athlete broke his leg, marginal differences that other people would never notice can be the difference between 9.87 and 9.89 on the 100m dash. That intense accelerated recovery can be the difference between making this year's championships or not. Or maybe just a millionaire with cash to spare. Either way you really got three alternatives:

1. Raise everyone to that standard
2. Forbid private medical treatment
3. Permit it

I already explained why the first is impossible. The second would be a very invasive regulation of private individuals, that as far as I know is not practised in any countries with socialized medicine either. You may need a license to practice but there's medical reasons for that. also it'd be fairly useless since it's implicit that whoever could pay for their own treatment also could do it abroad. So, even though I'm greatly in favor of socialized medicine I disagree, this is not a problem.

However, I do see it as a problem when large masses of the people abandon the public health care system. That instead of being a luxury, people choose private hospitals simply to get good workmanship. And quite frankly, your talk of "moral, decent life" creeps me out, if someone's doing time for fraud what does that have to do with they got cancer? Refusing medical care to criminals should go under the 8th amendment as "cruel and unusual punishment" in my opinion. Maybe if the condition was self-imposed like an alcoholic's liver failure but I doubt you'd really want the government to keep tabs on how many beers you've had and if you have a healthy and balanced diet.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

You're retarded.

if you DON'T have socialised medicine then you go outside your borders for medical care as the stuff you'll get in your home country (if you're not a mogul zillionaire) is going to be crap.

User pays. rememeber?

Always amazes me how people who have never even fucking SEEN a decent socialised system always mouth off about it.

You're in the USA ?, your healthcare system is a fucking disgrace, so change it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[wickerprints]

But when such a society treats the most despised better than they treat the most valued, what does that say about how they understand value? There are millions of disenfranchised working poor who cannot get medical treatment that prisoners in jail get simply by being incarcerated. If you can advance the constitutional rights of criminals, why is it that such arguments are not made for those who are financially imprisoned?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jerry Smith]

It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

This being Slashdot, that raises interesting questions. Steve's not rich because he was born into a banker family, in fact, he was adopted. He's rich because people bought his products.

So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?

Yes, he EARNED his money, it was not given to him. Is it bad then to spend it to save his life? Whilst other people cannot afford to do so? Please Mr. +4 Insightful: blame the system, not the users.

By the way: it's not always a matter of money, sometimes it's a matter of available and suitable donors. Who are you going to blame for that? The living, for not dying? The dead, for not being suitable?

Yes, karma to burn, but I'm not a whiner: I can take it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[oldhack]

Another way to look at it is: are you comfortable with our health care system that treat "normal" people differently than the wealthy?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[mellestad]

Isn't it the brutally honest truth though that statistically, he is far more valuable to society than a convict on death row?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[sdpuppy]

From the WSJ article:

. Patients are ranked on a list using a complex algorithm that determines how critical the need is.
Anne Paschke, a UNOS spokeswoman, said the organization conducts random audits of transplant cases to ensure that organs are allocated fairly according to its rules. If a transplant center is found to have violated those rules, consequences can range from a reprimand to revocation of the center's status as a transplant facility.

If the center that took care of Jobs allowed him to get the liver ahead of other patients, that would be patently unfair and the center would end up with more problems than it would be worth (even if we imagine that Steve provided a substantial contribution for such a favor)

As D-Cypell posted, nothing morally wrong with the doctor accepting extra $$ supposing he was offered to work overtime.

Unless he bumped other patient out of surgery or it conflicted with some agreement he has with his employer - the latter most likely taken care of with paperwork.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[shipbrick]

It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.

Therein lies the inherent problems with socialism in general. Their principles sound great, and socialism probably could be alright in a perfect world, but this world is so very very far from perfect. IMO, socialism is more prone to greater amounts of bureaucracy, inefficiency, and corruption.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the issue is there is a lack of understanding of the difference between good government and bad government. Good government minimizes risk for its people; bad government increases risk. With healthcare, a good approach for government would be to minimize risk for honest providers and minimize the risk for honest people trying to obtain or keep healthcare. Good solutions more often than not aren't purely socialistic or capitalistic, they're common sense.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jurily]

So if any of these [dekalbmugs.com] people or these people [gwinnettmugs.com] need a liver transplant, they should be front and center in line to get a brand new liver, well ahead of a supportive member of society that regularly pays his contribution to society? That's 2 counties out of 3140 in the US and those are people arrested on a Friday night.

Health care is not the method to settle this. If you don't think people coming out of jail will be productive members of society, suggest fixing the jails so they will. That's what they're there for, aren't they?

If you think basic human rights should not apply to everyone, then expansion of the death sentence is the answer for you. But judging people based on their mugshots is just plain wrong. How many of those look mean only because they just got beat up by a cop having a bad day? Here's one particularly mean fella:

MIGUEL VIGUERAS-GUTIERREZ
POWDER SPRINGS RD
MARIETTA GA 30064

Admitted: 2009-06-19 22:42:00

Charges: M/V MUST HAVE 2 HEADLIGHTS
PARKING ON ROADWAY
NO DRIVERS LICENSE

Yes, he clearly needs to die in horrible pain.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to the medical research people, Jobs should be lower in the list if a person's value to society is your criteria. Selling bling items to gay people isn't particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ucklak]

I never wrote that I am against socialized medicine. I wrote that socialized medicine won't work in the US as it's being sold.

So there's the case of the same health benefits. You're confusing people that 'do' with so called middle class, possibly. I never wrote that the poor should be punished. Being poor or wealthy is a matter of choice and personal decisions. You can be a producer no matter what income bracket you fall in. People that 'do' are people that contribute positively to society. Whether you're a factory worker in a chicken farm or some lazy, wealthy, trust fund kid that just exists, there is a contribution from those people.

The 'do nots' can also be called the 'will nots'. If you've ever spent time at a homeless shelter like I have, you are fully aware that there are some people that really need a hand (which is perfectly fine in my book in today's society) and there are people that work the system. The latter people are the 'do nots' that will never contribute positively to society where their debt is ever repaid. Those are the people that do not deserve to be on any organ transplant waiting list unless they're donating. It appears that you would give them a liver transplant first ahead of you if they were in line first.

And like I said, if you have to explain it, you'll never get it. It's like religion and politics. The vegetable garden analogy is very literal and very ancient.

You are growing a vegetable garden for you and your family or community. If you don't stop the 'vermin' from eating the developing plants, the fruit will never be produced.
You'll never benefit from the hard work you've put into it while the 'vermin' has reaped all the rewards. Analogies are very popular in eastern countries with rich histories. I never would think of China as a 'silly' country.

While a rabbit will decimate a vegetable garden, a leaf cutter bee will not decimate your plants foliage as it knows that if it needs more building materials, it will let it's favorite leaf grow.

And again, why are you assuming that I am against socialized medicine? Our current system is broken. I say remove 3rd party payment and the cost goes down. The problem is that the cost is fueling a giant bureaucracy that will only get larger with socialized medicine. So I'm not against socialized medicine, I'm against the path we're headed.

I know it sounds like "you say you're not against socialized medicine but you're against socializing medicine?" but that's not the case.
Currently, it costs $10,000 to give birth in a hospital to a healthy baby. To stay on that path and approach a monopolized payment structure, that cost will elevate to $30,000 knowing what we know about government.

Eliminate the 3rd party cost of the so called 'health insurance' and the cost is about $3,000 including the epidural. I have a friend that had complications and that bill came to $65,000. When she itemized the list and just went on hospital charges a la carte, it was something like $20,000.

The thought there is that "whew, I'm glad all I had to to was just pay my premium" and that's a personal response because YOU didn't have to pay the $65,000. The crime is that $65,000 was paid when $20,000 could have been paid.

Lower the cost and I'm on board. Keep this insanity and I'll fight it.

If you want to see opportunistic people at work, I seriously urge you to visit the closest public clinic near any Martin Luther King Drive in any city.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Fyz]

No, that's not the point. The point is the same as the saying, "You can measure a person by how he treats people he doesn't have to be nice to". I say that it makes a pretty good measure to how advanced a civilization is and how far it has come from its primitive origins.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[DarkVader]

Totally untrue. Under a socialist system, if no one in Tennessee needs the liver, it goes somewhere else, probably on a geographic radius basis.

Since SJ is a CA resident, the liver would likely be appropriately given to someone else before him, but if he were the only compatible recipient for that liver when it came available, he would get it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ucblockhead]

The real question: One reason for needing a new liver is alcohol. So the question is not necessarily whether Jobs deserves one more than a cop who gets shot in the liver saving a hostage. The question is whether someone like Jobs, who has contributed to society and lost his liver through no fault of his own, and a homeless (but non-criminal) alcoholic who destroyed his with over-indulgence, should both be treated equally.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ephemeriis]

But when such a society treats the most despised better than they treat the most valued, what does that say about how they understand value? There are millions of disenfranchised working poor who cannot get medical treatment that prisoners in jail get simply by being incarcerated. If you can advance the constitutional rights of criminals, why is it that such arguments are not made for those who are financially imprisoned?

There is no conundrum here, you just aren't following things through to their logical conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that we value the working poor less than those who are imprisoned for their crimes.

The attitude seems to be that if you're imprisoned you have no choice in the matter. You cannot care for yourself. You cannot get your own healtchare. And someone has to take care of you. We feel obligated to those we've robbed of their ability to take care of themselves.

But if you're out of prison, and just plain poor, it's your own damn fault. You need to get a better job or invent something cool so you earn enough money to pay for your own healthcare. And if you can't manage that? Well, that's nobody's fault but your own...

The imprisoned might very well be valuable members of society as soon as we let them. The poor, obviously, aren't valuable members of society because they wouldn't be poor if they were.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ucklak]

You really jump to conclusions don't you.

Did I ever say that every single one of those people heed to 'die in horrible pain?'. No, you did.

Those are people that needed assistance from officers to comply with societies standards. Some of those people like this guy:

COURTNEY MONTEZ MCCOLLUM

Charges: CRUELTY CHILDREN 3RD DEGREE
BATTERY
POINTING GUN OR PISTOL AT ANOTHER

has issues but still probably contributes to society in some way.

The purpose of the mugshots was to illustrate that there is a segment of society that aren't you. And there's lots of people that aren't in line with what you think is nice, decent, or respectful.

Would you feel slighted if you were on a waiting list for a liver and some guy that killed someone with a DUI got one ahead of you?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[pwinkeler]

Maybe not iSurgery but they may very well have used Osirix: http://m.macupdate.com/info.php/id/29646/osirix-for-iphone on their iPhones to plan the surgery

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ephemeriis]

So if any of these people or these people need a liver transplant, they should be front and center in line to get a brand new liver, well ahead of a supportive member of society that regularly pays his contribution to society? That's 2 counties out of 3140 in the US and those are people arrested on a Friday night.

I wouldn't say they should be ahead of anyone else... But they shouldn't be put to the end of the line or excluded just because they happened to be arrested. What, you do something stupid and you're not allowed to live?

Socialized medicine in the US will never work as it's intended because the gap between the haves and the have nots and the gap between the dos and the do nots will widen contributing to an apathetic society.

Look around the world at the countries that have nationwide, universal healthcare. They don't seem to be doing too bad...

The do nots will get the care ahead of the dos and drain the system and the haves will get the better care that the have nots will complain about.

So... If the government is paying for it the healthcare will automatically go to the poor first? I don't recall seeing that in any of the plans... Most of the time you've got a waiting list for organ transplants - organized by how close to death someone is, and then by how long they've been on the list - I certainly hope finances doesn't enter into it...

The people that will end up getting screwed will be the average Joe wanting this "everyone's covered" plan that does his contribution to society.

Right. Because the average Joe is doing so well under the current system...

What's the point of being a 'do' if the 'do nots' get all the same benefits?

It is certainly true that benefits enters into the decision making process... If I've got my choice of two jobs, and one of them has better benefits, I'll probably take that one. But it isn't like I'm going to switch careers just for the benefits. Nor am I going to put up with a horrible job just for the benefits. Nor would I be sitting on my ass in poverty just because I had healthcare. People do for a variety of reasons.

If you want to be a doctor to treat the 'haves' but the law states that you have to treat the 'have nots', what's the point of becoming a doctor?

One would assume that you could still specialize and have some choice in the kind of medicine you practice... If you really wanted to be a gynecologist you probably wouldn't be forced into proctology. Or did you mean you just wanted to discriminate against your patients? Only treat the wealthy? Only treat whites? Only treat beautiful women?

Doctors will not get paid competitively in a monopolized payment structure.

I guess I'd rather my doctor was doing it for some reason other than pure money. I'd like to think that my doctor wanted to make people healthy... Or enjoyed the work... Or something like that... I know that in IT the folks who are passionate about their work are usually superior to those who're just showing up for a paycheck.

If you're going to grow a vegetable garden for yourself, you need to prepare a method for dealing with rabbits. (If I have to explain that, you will never get it)

No, you don't need to explain. Your views are more clear, perhaps, than you realize. You've just cast anyone who is not able to afford their own healthcare as nothing more than vermin - to be dealt with accordingly.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[jshackney]

Question: Why aren't you campaigning to get rid of the "socialized" fire service, "socialized" highways, and "socialized" police services you already have. Surely according to your line of thinking they will never work.

It's working well in Michigan...

Fire Service ... layoffs/closures
Highways/Roads ... disrepair/natural reclamation
Police ... layoffs
Education ... layoffs/closures
Government ... sporadic shutdowns

Well, at least they recognize that something is wrong, they just can't seem to figure out what it is.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Fnkmaster]

The problem with this question is people spend way too much time arguing about the "should" part of it. Should is irrelevant. Health care is a scarce good (in the economic sense of the word, not the common meaning of "scarce") and must be allocated in some way. Some might even use the word "rationed" though that also has negative connotations that probably color the debate too much - so I prefer the word allocated.

If you control a portion of the means of production of a society (i.e. an operating system and computing platform that lots of people use and depend on, or any other large company), you will always have more wealth than the average fellow. And wealth allows you to influence the allocation of goods and services - you can hire a team of whoever you want, to do whatever you want within the boundaries of society's laws, given enough money.

And given enough money, if you don't like the laws of a country and how they restrict your ability to procure health care goods and services, you will just fly to another country and procure goods and services there.

This applies to modern socialist countries as well.

In this case, Steve Jobs was apparently eligible for an organ transplant under the rules of a US state. I don't believe they would have twisted the rules on organ transplants based on somebody's wealth, as the consequences for the rule-breakers would be pretty severe. But let's say he hadn't been eligible, but was convinced it was a necessary, life-saving procedure - he would have flown to a country where he could get an organ transplant instead. Again, that's life - without a universal, world-wide system you can't change the laws of supply and demand outside of the bubble of your nation-state.

More productively, we should worry about making the level of care for the other 99.9% of people good enough and fair enough that we don't have to worry about what the wealthiest 0.1% of people are doing. If scarcity of organ transplants is such an issue, we should invest more dollars in research on organ cloning or do more to encourage donations. Outside of this one narrow area of organ donations, other types of health care provision aren't subject to such strict scarcity constraints, and the problem is obviously more complex and nuanced.

But again, arguing that everybody has the "right" to any and all treatments available doesn't make sense. New treatments are developed at very high costs to companies - if you take away their temporary patent rights and the monopoly profits they provide over a period of time, you basically demolish the incentive for private research outside of the bounds of academia and government. So the newest treatments are naturally the most expensive, and we need some means to allocate them.

Right now, the US, with its admittedly very imperfect system, has been effectively subsidizing the rest of the world, especially Europe, with their happy-go-lucky single payer systems. We pay monopoly rates to cover the huge fixed costs of research, and you pay something lower that exceeds marginal costs but doesn't fairly carry its share of research costs. Nonetheless, you benefit from the development of new drugs by firms, European, American and otherwise, that intend to derive their most profitable revenue from the US market.

So to the Europeans out there pushing for US health care reform, be aware that ultimately this will result in companies less willing to negotiate with your single-payer health care systems and higher prices for your governments. In 10 or 15 years, I expect the US's percent of GDP spent on health care to be significantly lower and Europe's to be significantly higher, and for them to be closer to, though probably not at, parity.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BlackPignouf]

Nice load of crap there!

The problem is that US healthcare system isn't working, and this isn't due to the reasons you mentioned.
Go watch Sicko, you'll learn one thing or two.
You might even learn to behave like a civilized human being!

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Except he didn't EARN it.

There's nothing ANYONE can do to actually earn that much money. It's simply not possible. That money WAS given to him.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[bendodge]

The true measure of a society is not how they treat the most valued, but how they treat the most despised.

Wrong. The true measure of a society is how they treat the most helpless, not the most despised. The two groups are not the same, and the subtle substitution of words like "despised", "minority", "underprivileged", etc. is a cornerstone of socialistic thought. In other words, you redefine the people who need help as the people who didn't help themselves, rather than the people who couldn't. At its core, socialism is a removal of individual consequences for individual actions.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[bretticus]

I just took a break from studying for the medical boards (this Friday!) and read some slashdot. Your comment gave me a great laugh in an otherwise miserable day. Thanks.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Dun Malg]

I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.

I don't see why criminals should have to suffer medically for what are unrelated judicial issues. I say give "career criminals" transplants before you give a single liver to someone who is "moral, decent" but drank too much.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[dunkelfalke]

Amen to that.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Dun Malg]

So if any of these people or these people need a liver transplant, they should be front and center in line to get a brand new liver, well ahead of a supportive member of society that regularly pays his contribution to society?

Strawman. No one is suggesting elevating them to a higher status and pushing them to the front. What we're saying is that being arrested for shoplifting, DUI, or driving on a suspended license should not get you kicked from the "first come, first served, weighted for urgency" organ transplant list.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. There are many countries with socialized medicine with excellent quality of healthcare. Example: Sweden

Re:2 Months is very fast

[amiga3D]

I think everyone sees fire and police service as best handled by government. I think the reasons are obvious. The problem with government run health care is that it isn't as obvious a solution to everyone as it is to you. I work in the Defense industry and while defense is obviously a function that should be controlled by government I think it's myriad problems highlight why people distrust the government managing healthcare in the US. Money is pissed away by DOD like you wouldn't believe. I shudder sometimes at the huge amounts of money I see foolishly wasted...with no repercussions to the people who made the bad decisions. In fact often the most ineffective managers get the most promotions and awards. Thinking of these same people running my healthcare fills me with dread. In fact I fully believe a lot of what's wrong with US healthcare can be laid at the feet of government regulation and specifically congress.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[binary paladin]

Question: Why aren't you campaigning to get rid of the "socialized" fire service, "socialized" highways, and "socialized" police services you already have. Surely according to your line of thinking they will never work.

This is actually an interesting question and while I don't know that I have a specific answer, if you ever have to deal with any of these three systems directly you know what a mess they are. Police and road work are easy to pick on.

Few people with a brain think, "Wow, those boys in blue do nothing but protect the innocent and save lives. They always tell the truth and never pull anyone over just to increase state revenue." And I've never been anywhere in the USA where people say, "Man, the road work here is done in such a well thought out manner and they're not constantly ripping things up over and over again and they're always on schedule." Corruption and greased palms go hand in hand with everything the government pays for--this includes the FEW things I think the government ought to pay for. So, even for someone like me (who is very much opposed to socializing most things), you're right that there are some things meet a certain threshold where they're good that the government pays for them.

Those aside though, I want to point out something that 2.5 of those have that most people proposing socialized medicine advocates generally don't advocate: local control. I don't have federal police officers or federal firemen and although there are SOME (this is the 2.5 deal) federal highways, a majority of the roads are handled by the state and county, not by the federal government. This gives locals more control and, in theory, leads to higher accountability to the people directly.

I would be much more willing to consider some kind of socialized medicine IF it was at a state level with no federal strings attached.

However, socializing medicine is a government "solution" to a government "problem" and the problem of corrupt medical and pharmaceutical companies. It's a way to get the government to pay for the excessive costs and fees being pushed out by the medical industry in general rather than dealing with the problem of what is, more or less, a price fixed quasi-monopoly. So now you have the government paying into these companies and with that kind of money they buy all the government they need to keep their cartel going. At least if it's localized there's a competitive market of sorts among the states rather than a big fat stupid bloated contract from the feds.

Health care in this country is broken and I have to say, it wasn't always broken. When my grandfather was born a stay in the hospital (and I have the bill) for his mother including all the delivery and care and everything came to a wooping $28. While inflation accounts for some of the disparity in costs, think of how much a week's stay would cost now without insurance. Why has the cost risen so much?

That's the real problem with healthcare. Instead of just saying, "No one can afford it, the government needs to pay for it..." no one seems to be asking, "Why can't people afford it?" The generations before my parents, my grandparents and up managed to be healthy and afford their doctors on the wages of working men and women. What's changed?

The answer is not as simply "do we socialize or not socialize?"

And it's not just the medical industry either. It's the American lifestyle. Healthcare is about surgery and pills and not about taking care of yourself. All one has to do is look at the rise of obesity here. My mom was on what seemed like 100 medications for multiple sclerosis for years. She was living in a state of just... numbness. More or less, one day she had an epiphany of sorts and changed her diet, started exercising regularly, lost 100ish pounds over the course of 16 months and now is on no meds, has stable blood pressure and is doing better than she's done in her entire life.

Should me or my neighbors have been forced to pay for someone like my mom

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Achromatic1978]

Yup. Go to a chiro, with insurance. Have a look at your hourly bill: $160. Go without insurance: $40.

How does that work? (Bear in mind, I work in the healthcare insurance industry, so I know of what I speak). What amazes me is that people somehow think their insurance is this magical creature that makes money and pays these excesses/is a charity covering that cost.

That money is still coming out of you, you're just put on an indirect payment plan!

Imagine a more direct method of the same: "Well, your bill is $40. Or you can pay me $40/month for the next four months."

Some would have you believe that the latter is a good deal, because it means, in theory, if you're not denied coverage, rescinded for some real or implied reason, etc, etc, that when you go to the emergency room for a couple of days and come home with a bill equal to many people's annual salary, you reap the benefits of insurance, forgetting that without the implied acceptance of such high rates, your hospital stay wouldn't have cost anywhere near as much in the first place.

I used to work for a corporate law firm in Australia. They charged up to $600/hr for legal work, more when they went into court. Companies happily paid this, because legal expenses are tax deductible. The company knows they get to write it off, so the law firms can make a mint. When was the last time you heard of a law firm going bankrupt?

Doctors are being advised to invest in MRI, LASIK. Leaving aside the interesting side effect that doctors who own or own shares in an MRI machine/practice are up to 10% more likely to refer you for an MRI, this is a fantastic investment, because of people like you and me on insurance. You can pay $1, 1.5M for an MRI machine, and see your investment paid off within a year, quite easily, and then anything beyond that is a nice skim of upwards of $500,000 a year in profit. Why? Because we, the working stiff, are paying upwards of $1,800 for an hours worth of diagnostic procedure (and again, remember, "insurance" isn't paying it. You are. Insurance is just giving you a nice payment plan).

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Achromatic1978]

Yup. Whilst I'm sure Jonny Ives isn't doing badly for himself... Jobs is not (and pardon my blasphemy here), is not Apple.

It's just the way things flow uphill, right to the top. I'm sure Steve has plenty of meetings with plenty of people who contribute plenty of amazing ideas and make plenty of amazing products happen. They're not all multi-billionaires.

Things just get kicked upstairs. Kinda like in The Sopranos. (No, I'm not comparing Apple to LCN, I've just been watching the series again, so the phrase 'kick it upstairs' is fresh in my mind).

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

What a sad load of bullshit.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[paulwye]

I think it's interesting that you assume a birth in the public system will cost triple what it does in your already ludicrously expensive private system; in fact, the cost of a birth in Ontario is ~CDN$5000, and that's if you're Jane Texan and you just show up. I don't have numbers, but I suspect the actual cost to the healthcare system (i.e. the taxpayers) is lower (as I can't believe we give a better deal to non-Canadians than we do ourselves). I just don't understand where the fiction about the public system costing so much comes from. I suppose the private insurance companies are doing a great job with the negative campaigning.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to go even further: Even criminals, who in your opinion don't deserve that, should enjoy equal medical treatment. We send them in jail for what they've done, but when everyone else would get the same medical treatment, denying it to them would be a cruel and excessive punishment.

Not always. Some of these bastards are deliberately disregarding their obligations to society. So to hell with them.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

You are plain wrong.

I'm from Spain, where we have "socialzied healthcare". Private medicine of course exists and many people, usually richers ones, have some sort of insurance. I'm covered by both of them, and I choose the national 'socialized' healthcare usually becouse they have more experience and treat more "hard" cases that the private companies. Sure, if you go to your private company's hospital you will get inmediate atention. In socialized healthcare systems you only get that kind of atention if you are experiencing a serious disease/illness.

Also, I've heard from people around that it is common in my 'socialized' healthcare system to move patients to other 'socialized' hospitals if the treatment or the doctors are better or are specialized in the problem that patients face. I have the right to change my doctor to other one, also, and I did change my regular doctor to the one the other members of my family go.

So, at the end... You go to a private healthcare company if you want preferential treatment for minor diseases. When you are really bad, you go to the national one. When I read comments like yours I just think in:

• Uninformed opinion.
• Fear to the socialism side of it. As others have noted, firefight and police are services pretty much socialized in that terms and I see no movements to start private polices departments a-la Robocop's OCP.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[dunkelfalke]

That money is still coming out of you, you're just put on an indirect payment plan!
Imagine a more direct method of the same: "Well, your bill is $40. Or you can pay me $40/month for the next four months."

Not really. What you discribe is a how a credit company works. An insurance company is more like a bookmaker. I bet that I'll get sick, the take the bet depending on the odds. The difference is that the bets themselves are not the main instrument of bringing profits to the company, instead they bring the cash for investments which in turn bring profits.

Anyway, your examples are the way how it seems to work in the United States. In Germany, where I live, public health ensurances pretty much set the price caps for all procedures they are willing to pay (the minimum coverage is defined by law). It is not a perfect solution because there are too many price caps and thus the doctors often are underpaid, but it works.

A better solution would be possible, but not with the current corrupt government.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ErikZ]

No it wouldn't. It means that we just don't give a damn about people in jail.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[devleopard]

Socializing medicine is great, so long as the entire process is socialized. We need to socialize the education for medical professionals. Instead, we expect doctors to go through 10+ years of schooling, during which part they are working ridiculous hours for fairly little pay. They then have at least $100000+ debt. We need to socialize malpractice insurance. Instead, we expect our doctors to pay thousands every month on malpractice insurance, and if one makes a mistake, we sure them out the wazoo. (Imagine the outcry on Slashdot if the floodgates were opened for programmers to have to carry such insurance, even though poor code does more damage every day than all the doctors put together .....) Let's socialize the payout system. A typical doctor may have to wait several months sometimes for his income, based on insurance or Medicare backlog. Not to mention how they penalize doctors for any issues with claims forms. (You're a programmer, you write "80 hrs" instead of "80 hours", and HR tells you, "Sorry. That's wrong. Refill out your timesheet, and we'll process your paycheck the next time.") Also remember that insurance and Medicare pay out what they think a procedure should cost, regardless of what doctor charges. Doctors are willing to go through this because of the promise of adequate income to justify the risks. (Consider, however, that many medical procedures pay out as much as they did 20 years ago.. no other industry deals with this lack ofinflation.) Proponents of socializing medicine see doctors as these evil money-grubbing bastards, without considering how much they shell out every month just to have a practice.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[moosesocks]

But how do you codify that into law?

I appreciate that it's not necessarily a good idea to subscribe to any political philosophy as doctrine.

However, how do you properly implement a "common sense government" into a society that is very much conflicted about the direction in which it wants to go? Furthermore, how would you implement such a government without handing an inordinate amount of power over to a tiny minority?

Modern politics necessitates compromise. This tends to knock out any "really bad" ideas at the expense of also blocking the "really good" ones. If you can find a workable solution to this problem, the Nobel Prize Committee would very much like to hear from you.

Moving back ontopic, I'm not sure how the debate over healthcare has carried on for so long. The benefits appear to be very clear-cut for the vast majority of citizens, given the track record in other countries. From an economic perspective alone, we can identify how our system is already socialized in many respects, and yet costs a fortune to run, and underperforms consistently.

It's just plain sad that "evidence-based medicine" is being used as a buzzword in 2009. That phrase should have become redundant a very long time ago. The system is broken in no ambiguous terms, and desperately needs to be fixed.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[devleopard]

Simple. The working poor get to participate in free economy and choose the best care they can pay for, and in theory, there's no limit on their income. Prisoners cannot, nor can they choose medical providers.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BrokenHalo]

What's being suggested is all the same HEALTH benefits.

As a matter of curiosity, it would be interesting to see if Bill Gates would do the same thing as Jobs. I suspect the answer is of course yes, but Gates (whatever else one may think about him) has at least made a material contribution to the wellbeing of many others less fortunate.

I'm all for socialised health systems, but there's no escaping the fact that the care one may expect is in reality predicated on one's capacity to pay.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[osu-neko]

It's amazing, isn't it? No one pays for more health care than the US, and yet a substantial part of the population insists that the health system we have is the cheapest and most efficient way to do things, and any changes will make it more expensive. You have to understand that these people also belong to the same party that opposes teaching evolution and as such, they're immune to evidence, so pointing out that the facts fly in their faces really has no impact on there opinions...

Re:2 Months is very fast

[osu-neko]

s/for more/more for/

Re:2 Months is very fast

[osu-neko]

Money is pissed away by DOD like you wouldn't believe. I shudder sometimes at the huge amounts of money I see foolishly wasted...with no repercussions to the people who made the bad decisions. In fact often the most ineffective managers get the most promotions and awards.

I've seen the same kind of inefficiency, waste, and idiotic management... in large corporations. What you're talking about is not a feature of public vs. private sector, it's a feature of large vs. small. The exact same kind of bureaucracy, inefficiency, etc. infects any organization once is surpasses a certain size.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[FrankieBaby1986]

And if you can't manage that? Well, that's nobody's fault but your own...

The poor, obviously, aren't valuable members of society because they wouldn't be poor if they were.

ugh, I hate "The American Dream". It is statistically extremely unlikely to go from rags to riches. It is a pipe dream. While, yes, it is true that working harder is often correlated with earning more, but that is not always the case. There simply aren't enough high-paying jobs or good opportunities to take advantage of for everyone. Some people are going to be poor by no fault of there own other than the time and place of their existence. Being born as a "have" and not a "have not" provides VERY unequal opportunities in this country (US). From education, to social standing, to financial opportunities such as starting a business for yourself.

Health care is a very tricky thing to decide who gets access to what, and what is "fair". And no one likes being told their job that they spend years studying for should be shared with everyone for little recompense.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[mikelieman]

If you have the kind of money and connections Kenny-Boy had, how hard do you think it would be to find a similar enough looking body to be buried instead of yours?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[drsquare]

This Churchill quote seems appropriate right now: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Quoting a racist, upper-class twat doesn't exactly bolster your argument. If there's going to be misery, why shouldn't the ruling elite get their share of it?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BasilBrush]

I think everyone sees fire and police service as best handled by government. I think the reasons are obvious. The problem with government run health care is that it isn't as obvious a solution to everyone as it is to you.

The reason public run fire and police makes sense to you and public run healthcare doesn't is because that's the way it happens to be organised at the moment in your country. It's easy for me to envisage government run healthcare because I've seen it in my country. It's just as "obvious" as fire service, police, schools and highways to most people who have experience of it. The couple of American ex-pats I know that live in Britain don't need any more convincing. They know it's a better system than the one they grew up with.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Achromatic1978]

No, health insurance in the US is NOT like a bookmaker. In an idealized world, it would be - however they've bastardized things. Say I have condition 'y', or am predisposed to condition 'z'. I have health insurance that provides coverage 'w' for condition 'y', and coverage 'x' for condition 'z'. I am with health insurer 'a', paying a premium of say $500 a month. I see that health insurer 'b' is offering the same coverage 'w' and 'x' for a premium of $480. I switch. I have not switched for material changes to my coverage (I am not adding coverage for a condition I have). The demographics of the population have not changed (increasing preponderance of conditions 'y' or 'z'). I have not increased my risk of 'z'. But the insurer, who has previously set me a market rate of $480 a month is allowed to deny coverage on the grounds that that condition exists in the first place.

This isn't insuring against risk. As I said, no variables changed. Insurance company 'B' had set their rate based on their evaluations. It's more akin to a casino, where there's always a house advantage.

Realize that I work for a company that writes software that does, amongst other things, adjudications for health insurance claims and coverage. Not to be an argument from authority, but I do have an awareness of how the industry works, on both sides of Oz's curtain.

For a large part, I liked how things were when I lived in Australia. Everyone had access to universal healthcare, with a premium of 1% of taxable income. You could also take out private healthcare, which offered differing benefits (private rooms, shorter queues, whatever). If your income was over $50,000 a year, you were able to go one of two ways. You could either pay 1.5% premium for Medicare, or you could take out private cover, and pay 0%. This lessened the burden on the universal system for those who could afford private coverage, whilst allowing them to not be unfairly taxed.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[winwar]

"Given that the very best medical care is expensive.."

Define "best". If by best you pay paying an amazing amount of money for amazing things that may have been prevented then yes.

If by best you mean maximizing health outcomes and minimizing cost then no. The US spends vast amounts of money for crappy results.

"...you are really saying is that if everybody can't have it, nobody should get it, right?"

Show me a system where you can't get the "best" healthcare if you desire. It doesn't exist. Granted, you may not be able to pay for it but after all that applies to all goods and services....

Re:2 Months is very fast

[osu-neko]

Um, no. Not even remotely close. That's the kind of pack of lies people on one side tell about the other in order to avoid having to engage in serious discourse.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BasilBrush]

Countries with dictators apart, Government run universal healthcare doesn't imply the criminalisation of private healthcare.

The point is to supply at least a decent level of health care to all, not to limit the heathcare options to no more than a certain ceiling.

   

Re:2 Months is very fast

[dargaud]

The true measure of a society is not how they treat the most valued, but how they treat the most despised.

Not necessarily. Many years ago, when I saw that Larry Hagman (of Dallas fame) received a liver transplants thanks to his money although he'd been an alcoholic and well above age... it disgusted me of being an organ donnor. I don't want to be an altruist when the people who benefit from it clearly are not. That being said, I wish Mr Jobs a speedy recovery nonetheless.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[masmullin]

if everybody can't have it, nobody should get it, right?

Correct. Let God sort it out.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[nbauman]

It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

I've talked to a few transplant surgeons from the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Australia, and I've followed the medical literature.

Everybody who gets a transplant gets the best medical care money can buy. It's an all or nothing thing.

Hospitals monitor their results carefully, and if the success rates go down, the hospital better figure out why and correct the problem, or they can't do any more transplants.

I once heard a medical ethicist (I think Arthur Caplan) who worked with transplant programs say that they do discriminate against the poor -- black people were less likely to get transplants, etc. But the discrimination comes before they get to the transplant center.

Most U.S. centers will make sure a patient can pay for the transplant before they accept the patient into the program. (It can be Medicaid.) That's where the economic discrimination comes from. Once they get into the program, everybody gets the best treatment the hospital can give.

There are other (arguably unfair) criteria like "social support." They can decide that somebody who lives alone in a rooming house and is too confused to follow his medication schedule might not be able to handle the post-transplant regimen, while a married person with a spouse and supportive family could.

Super-wealthy and celebrity patients do get better personal treatment, but not better medical treatment. I'm sure the doctors return Steve Jobs' phone calls faster. After all, he might endow them with a research wing. But I would expect that he would get the same medical treatment, with the same outcomes, as a Medicaid patient who managed to get into the transplant program.

(This being Slashdot, I would add that some transplant surgeons are really hot chicks.)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

how is it even legal to prevent a professional to provide his/her services for the best payment if he wants that extra money? I am a software developer working on contracts, ...

There is no licensing and not much regulation on writing software, so you can do pretty much whatever you want. As a programmer (like me), you are a professional in the broad sense that you write software for a living, but not in the narrower sense of being in one of a few distinguished occupations (traditionally doctor, lawyer, dentist, architect, and a couple others) for which you are required to hold a government license and follow a lot of regulations and ethical requirements that we programmers don't have to deal with. You get a bunch of respect/recognition and basically automatic income in those professions, and you give up some freedom.

Heck, let's say you're in the army and you work as a sniper. That's fine, it's an honorable military specialty and you're a soldier working under the strict instructions of the government. Try to do the same thing as a private business and you're a "hit man", hopefully attracting the obvious response from law enforcement.

People in the medical business are in a highly regulated trade doing stuff that regular people are not allowed to do. If you're trying to go libertarian on me, first let us all start making and/or buying whatever medications we want without needing prescriptions. We can talk about widening doctors' rights to sell their services to whoever they please AFTER you've arranged that first part. Until that happens, they're like snipers in doing what the rest of us are not allowed to do, so they don't get as wide a range of choices about who to do it for.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ephemeriis]

And no one likes being told their job that they spend years studying for should be shared with everyone for little recompense.

Nobody is proposing that we let everybody become a doctor without having to go to medical school for years... We're talking about who has access to healthcare, not who gets to work in healthcare.

Or are you talking about folks who went through years of medical school with the sole goal of getting a big paycheck, who might be upset to have a smaller paycheck? They can deal with it just like all the IT guys who lived through the .com crash... And all the auto employees who are suddenly wondering about their next paycheck... And all the auto dealerships who've suddenly discovered they're out of luck... Or anyone else who suddenly finds themselves un(der)employed.

Nobody is entitled to a paycheck. You have to earn your keep in a dynamic and ever-changing market. This goes for everyone - doctors too. If they don't like what happens to the healthcare market they can get a different job, just like anyone else.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[B3ryllium]

... I've skimmed this thread, and all I have to say on the topic is "you people are fucking morons".

That's all I have to say about that.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

" You have to understand that these people also belong to the same party that opposes teaching evolution and as such, they're immune to evidence, so pointing out that the facts fly in their faces really has no impact on there opinions..."

Thank you for your unbiased, well-reasoned addition to this conversation.

Also, learn the difference between "there" and "their".

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?

Yes.

Health Care should not be about "who can afford not to die"

Support Universal single payer health care!

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I be responsible for providing medical care for people I've never met and don't care about? Let them die for all I care.

On the other hand, if you want to pay for it, there's nothing stopping you.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Bluesman]

Insurance exists solely to spread risk around to a large number of people, so that any single risk-adverse individual can pay a fee to mitigate risk that would otherwise bankrupt or kill him.

Insurance companies, by virtue of the fact that they have a large number of clients, can estimate their costs with a very high degree of certainty. They know that on average, 5% (for example) of their clients will suffer from heart attacks and the associated costs. I, on the other hand, can't estimate my own chance of a heart attack with as much certainty, so I am exposed to much more risk financially. The difference between my individual risk and the risk that the insurance company is exposed to (very little) is what creates value.

The ONLY reason it's EVER worth your while to own insurance is if you're completely unable to cover the costs of what the insurance covers out of your own pocket. Otherwise, if you choose to pay out of your own pocket in the event that something happens, the "something" might not happen at all, and you'll retain your money. The insurance company will never, ever, be able to beat the out-of-pocket price because they have overhead.

So if your insurance covers routine things that you could afford to pay for yourself, you are paying the cost of the medical bills, plus overhead, which is more than paying the medical bills alone.

The more likely a certain event is to happen, the less it pays to buy insurance for it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Value is relative.

If Steve Jobs dies, it means just the same to his family and the people around him, as it would if you had died.

The only difference is how much money he is worth. That i find simply disgusting. That kind of thinking is why we have GM and AIG begging for hand out after they ripped people off, and failed to run their businesses correctly.

That kind of thinking got us in this mess.

If you only care about a fellow citizen based on how much money they're worth, you are not the kind of person i would consider "good"

Those kind of people outsourced our jobs. Those kind of people bled our economy dry by not employing us, and selling us goods made overseas. Those kind of people run our government.

This is not how life should be. I'm not a jesus nut, I dont even beleive in god... but i DO beleive we have to have some sense of morals in how we treat life itself... be it human, or dog.

Cruel is cruel... and i dont want to ever judge someone based on how much money they have because it says something about yourself! It says that you're a coward that wishes you were that rich person... so much that you would put them before your very own life. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY SICK.

Everyone is valueable to those around them in life and death situations. Would you love your mother more because she's rich? IF so... you're SICK.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Bluesman]

You assume these people exist, so what happens when the pay for being a doctor is lower such that fewer people find it worthwhile to become doctors?

Obviously, fewer people will become doctors, by your own admission.

Now you have a shortage of doctors even worse than we have now. What is your answer for that problem?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Yummm....rabbit stew.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the very best medical care is expensive,

First of all, in general "the very best medical care" is not required in most cases. A reasonably good (ie - competent GP) primary level of care for everyone will reduce vastly the number of people needing the very best care (ie - major surgery, transplants, etc) by sniffing out problems while they still are treatable through lesser means. Secondly, the very best medical care is expensive because it's unfortunately scarce. The equipment is manufactured in short runs, the pharmaceuticals are purchased in small amounts, and the colleges of physicians and surgeons have recognized that establishing barriers to entry for new doctors and foreign doctors maximizes income for existing doctors. Establishing national healthcare purchasing authorities for pharma and medical equipment would increase the purchasing power and cost effectiveness of both, while the establishment of a national health insurance plan to cover primary care (family doctor) would cut emergency room visits and reduce the average acuteness of matters requiring further treatment.

Note: Leave the administration of hospitals to the private sector.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm sorry.. I pay $1,150 a month for health care. Many people do. To them and myself, $1,150 is a huge amount of money for me each month.

Do you think I should get less health care than Steve Jobs? That $1,150 is a lot harder for me to pay than Steve Jobs. He could pay 10x that each month and sleep just fine.

Me on the other hand... works very hard for it and its still difficult to budget. So in a sense i'm working a hell of a lot harder than Steve Jobs for my "right to live".

Why should he get any better treatment? In relative terms... I deserve the very BEST health care because I'm risking more of my life to afford it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you'll learn how Michael Moore wants you to think. That's about it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ephemeriis]

Well, first of all, I'm neither a doctor nor an economist. So you're going to have to take most of what I say with a grain of salt.

Second, I don't know how they do it, but plenty of nations manage national healthcare without falling apart. Take a look at Canada for an example, or France. They both managed to pull it off somehow. I'd assume we can do something similar...

I'm also not certain that a shortage of doctors would be any worse than what we have now. What we have now is a very uneven system in which millions of people go without any healthcare because they cannot afford it. If we instead had a system in which millions of people went without any healthcare because there weren't enough doctors I'd say we're at about the same point, not worse-off.

Supply and demand generally seems to take care of itself... Yes, there are various shortages here and there, but you don't see the world falling apart because there's some terrible dearth of postal workers. There's plenty of people flipping burgers... Plenty of people going to school for years only to get crap jobs in IT... I'm not convinced that all our doctors would suddenly disappear just because they didn't get paid as much.

But how's this for a solution: Free medical school.

Let anyone who passes the entrance exams go through medical school for free. Upon graduation they have to work for the state, at state-set prices/pay, for several years. Then they can go into practice for themselves.

Now you've got universal healthcare provided by the folks who're working off their tuition. And you've got plenty of doctors flooding the market because tuition is no longer a barrier to entry, only intelligence/capability. And after they've paid off their tuition they can still go into private practice and earn the big paychecks that they want - assuming they're providing something better than the universal healthcare that everyone can get for free.

Or you could do something similar with the state medical board certifications. You want to be certified to practice medicine in the state, you have to work for the state for a few years. Again you get rid of one of the barriers to entry... Again you retain the ability for doctors to make those fat paychecks you think are so important... And again you come up with free universal healthcare for the rest of us.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[The End Of Days]

The only way to be fair is to drag everyone down to the same level. Why do you hate the human race?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[zmollusc]

Surely in keeping with the apple philosophy, he would have been operated on by the BEST-LOOKING people (with the glossiest P.R.) available, with technical ability of secondary importance.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.

How serious a criminal? A murderer? What about less serious crimes? Where does one draw the line? Drug running? Enron-scale theft and fraud? Petty theft? Copyright infringement?

In other words, your post also advocates rationing medical care based on social contribution. We're just arguing over what metric should be used to measure worthyness.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Artifakt]

I think your first two sentences are totally incorrect, so the rest of your derivations from them become at least slightly suspect. That's sad, because I agree with several points you go on to make, some of them strongly. I still don't like building them even in part on that first basis. That's what you get when you claim unanimous agreement and then say it's existence is obvious, when being able to honestly use words such as ALL or EVERY is actually very rare. There's a sizable group right here on Slashdot who want to privatize functions like fire and even police service, and if you've followed some of their debates, they certainly don't find the reasons for them staying government functions obvious.
      There's two major sides in this debate, and all the rest are trivial.
On side is generally in favor of bigger government, and while they may not like increasing taxes, they think it's necessary to make some favored programs possible. That increase could be manageable, but might well be huge and totally non-functional. The other side is in favor of bigger government, so they can piss more money down that black hole they call the Defense budget, and the smaller holes such as the War on Drugs. Side A tends to lie somewhat about how they feel about taxes, at least to the extent of sounding more reluctant about them than they really are. Side B has swung pretty far out of line with reality lately. Where they used to be about like Side A on not really admitting they support bigger government on some programs (different ones than Side A to be sure), lately they've been in power during the two biggest deficit spending ventures so far, and a good chunk of them have never met a civil rights restriction they didn't like unless it involved amendment 2, but Side B always tells what has become an increasingly huge whopper about how they really favor much smaller government. We have the choice of the usual fibbers and petty crooks, or the bunch who's fibbing has become evidence of a pathological problem.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[OzFalcon]

>> So if any of these [dekalbmugs.com] people or these people [gwinnettmugs.com] need a liver transplant, they should be front and center in line to get a brand new liver, well ahead of a supportive member of society that regularly pays his contribution to society?

Why not?

Please note the following on that (1st) page........
"Keep in mind that the people listed below were only admitted to the county jail and that they are innocent until proven guilty"

America is really FUCKED IN THE HEAD to be posting mugshot pictures of people who have not even been found guilty of any crime (WTF!)
And are those the addresses of these people..... YES THEY ARE!
Jesus Fucking H Christ. Posting pictures and Addressed of people not yet found guilty.

If I was unduly (mistake made) arrested and had my mug shot for all to see as if I were ALREADY a criminal. I would be FUCKING PISSED OFF.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, you're wrong.   I am 'joe middle class', and I'm doing just fine.  I think that the number of unemployed people is now large enough that if i get sick and die tomorrow, that my boss will be able to find a qualified replacement.  Therefore i dont want the government to incurr debt on my behalf in order to provide insurance to those that can't budget for it. 

Re:2 Months is very fast

[petermgreen]

The second would be a very invasive regulation of private individuals, that as far as I know is not practised in any countries with socialized medicine either.
I was under the impression that canada didn't allow public hospitals though canadians can go out of the country for treatment (and afaict many richer canadians do)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Swift2001]

Except, you know what? Maybe the WSJ is talking through its Rupert Murdoch-owned hat.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Amiga Trombone]

Or are you talking about folks who went through years of medical school with the sole goal of getting a big paycheck, who might be upset to have a smaller paycheck? They can deal with it just like all the IT guys who lived through the .com crash... And all the auto employees who are suddenly wondering about their next paycheck... And all the auto dealerships who've suddenly discovered they're out of luck... Or anyone else who suddenly finds themselves un(der)employed.

And deal with it they do - how many people do you know that are going into those professions fresh out school now that they're no longer valued? Are you saying you'd like to have less doctors?

Hint: constricting supply usually doesn't help to reduce cost.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

er... No?

What would you do if you were dying and had the cash? Let's Ask Slashdot? Know what I'd do...

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Amiga Trombone]

Everyone is valueable to those around them in life and death situations. Would you love your mother more because she's rich? IF so... you're SICK.

They may be valueable to those around them, but that doesn't necessarily make them valuable to anyone else. If my mother gets sick, she's valuable enough to me that I'll pay for her health care. Your mother is your problem.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Amiga Trombone]

I'm sure Steve Jobs can also afford a much better car or house than you can, too. Do you also think you're entitled to a Porsche and a mansion because you're risking more of your life to pay for your house and car?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Artifakt]

Trouble is, it's the Internet. Someone compares a whole group of humans to sub human creatures, and specifies a situation where those creatures lose any endearing qualities, count as vermin, and have to be shot or poisoned if they are to be controlled, and they've said nothing wrong by Internet standards, but if you called that someone what they honestly are, without any exaggeration, you've Godwined the argument. (As I've just done, I think, if you didn't beat me to it).

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ehintz]

Decent guy??!!

He got his start by totally ripping off Wozniak. Atari paid Jobs $5k for a circuit board design that the Woz did (because Steve couldn't). Jobs told Woz he got $600 for it, and generously split the proceeds 50/50. How very decent of him-not. Then of course there's the glorious return to Apple in '96. For about a year his keynote speeches were blowing his horn about how he'd simplified the product line with the G3. All fine and dandy, except that the G3 was conceived and designed under Gil Amelio's watch.

I'm as much of an Apple fanboy as the next guy, having used macs since '91, but I'm under no illusions that Steve's a good guy. He'll rip you off with a smile.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[m487396]

I work in a public hospital in Australia. There's a private hospital across the road. I'm very glad that we give a high quality service to people regardless of whether they can afford it. Our service is so good that people with private health cover often choose to be treated by us, even though they pay the same premium. Unfortunately, no one has found a way to limit the ever escalating cost of our service without driving everyone who provides it to complete exhaustion. Suggestions welcome!

Re:2 Months is very fast

[rkww]

According to the NHS website:

Every year, an estimated 600 liver transplants are carried out in the UK. However, the number of people who need a liver transplant is much higher than the number of livers donated.

Consequently, deaths from liver disease remain high. In 2007, there were more than 13,000 deaths from liver disease in England and Wales.

The most effective way that people can help to reduce the number of deaths from liver disease is to join the NHS Organ Donor Register. See Useful links for more information.

The NHS treatment is free, although private insurance might pay for a room with curtains.

But as far as I can see, the only pertinent question regarding the story in hand is whether money changed hands for the liver itself. That's strictly illegal in the UK, and is the primary reason why people with money might seek a transplant abroad.

I notice incidentally thatLiver Transplant India will do a live donor transplant for only $60,000. But you have to supply your own donor.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[TheoMurpse]

the only argument against a fully private system would be this: if the government subsidizes education of some doctors, then it could demand that those, who were subsidized give back at least some of their time to the public system

Well, aside from the purely utilitarian argument I would suspect technogeeks to appreciate: Do what works best. If socialized medicine leads to a healthier society, then socialized medicine is better.

Seeing as how the most healthy (and happy!) societies are on socialized medicine plans, I suspect the impetus is on you to convince us as to why socialized medicine does not, in fact, work better.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Wovel]

I think you should be modded up to 8 or 9...The conservative side of the healthcare debate has always been ludicrous. I supported it for about 10 years, then one day I actually thought about it. The healthcare system we have can not continue on the path it is on. Most Americans now have less choice than people in countries with socialized medicine. Don't think so? Sometime in the next year or two, your employer will move your prescription coverage to Medco..

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Wovel]

You know,I remember how embarrassed Ted Turner was when he complained that Bill Gates did not give enough to charity and then learned Bill Gates had already given more than Turner's lifetime earnings, he just did not feel the need to brag about it. You actually have no idea what Jobs has given to Charity, I suspect it is a lot more than you, or me or anyone who will respond....

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Artifakt]

Some conditions have very high correlations with selected behavior. Drink a fifth a day and get a totaled liver, ride a motorcycle without a helmet and get a concussion, smoke two packs a day and get lung cancer.
      But, what about lower correlation? Ride a motorcycle at all, and some risks go up, even if you are a safe, responsible driver who always uses safety gear. Live in Tornado Alley? How about right on the Florida coast? How many times in your life have you had a sunburn?
    Then there are even lower correlation factors that the society often overrates. Rock Climb? Skydive much? Do you do specifically cardiovascular exercises, and is it a physician evaluated program? Does your place of employment give some people a few free hours on the clock to train as first responders? Was the forklift operator nearest to your current location drug tested in the last 3 months? Did you hit the sweet spot on booze and have exactly 3.38 oz./70 kg. bodyweight of red wine with your evening meal, at least three times a week but not more than five? Oops, that was last week, now we're thinking beer is better...
      What do we do if somebody drank too much, but it was thirty years ago? They quit, but it was probably at least a small factor in accelerating the timetable for their liver failure. What about the person who caught HIV, but from a heterosexual contact, back when it was still thought to be a Gay plague? What happens, in other words, when a person acted in accordance with medical opinion, and then the opinion changed?
      Yes, we probably could tailor limits to medical support based on obvious bad lifestyle choices, but just how obvious do they need to be? We've had warning labels on Booze and Cigarettes for many years now. There's not as much clear evidence on Pot causing permanent memory loss, but it's illegal, surely that justifies refusing to cover early onset Alzheimer's in former dopers? Now what do we do if somebody, whether it's a government or a private carrier, decides there's enough evidence to decline to treat somebody with heart disease because they ate too much red meat and drank too much coffee?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[caluml]

I have to say, as a UKian, I have no idea what health-care in the US costs. But I'm shocked now. That's a fairly big chunk of money.

I heard a story recently about someone (a friend of a friend) who had various symptoms that led her to think she had a brain tumour. She went to her doctors, and told them, but they didn't agree. About 9 visits later, the doc said they'd put her on a waiting list for an MRI scan. However, they put her on as low priority, which meant a 9 month wait. Luckily, she had a rich boyfriend, who paid for a private MRI scan, which, surprise surprise found a (luckily benign) brain tumour. She went back to the doctors, and they started getting the ball rolling. She's currently fine.

However, this is not normal in the UK. There are always these scare stories (and this is a true one). If it had been me though, I'd have demanded a scan. I'm totally outraged by the way this girl (who I don't know) was treated - the doctor should be struck off in my opinion. In the main part, socialised medicine works very well here.

Anyway, I feel for you - it's an awful prospect that you have to work to live. That's totally and completely inhumane. It's totally uncivilised. I can't believe there's not more of a revolt against the current system.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Wovel]

I thin Woz came out of his partnership with Jobs Ok...

Re:2 Months is very fast

[lawpoop]

The generations before my parents, my grandparents and up managed to be healthy and afford their doctors on the wages of working men and women. What's changed?

Do you live in an alternate universe? Our grandparents and ancestors further back lived lives with more horror and misery than you can imagine. Calvin Coolidge's son died from an infection in a blister on his hand he got from playing tennis on the White House tennis courts. Even the president's son died from a fucking blister. And people *couldn't* afford doctors. They had to save up and pool money to get treatment -- that's the whole reason why health insurance was started.

Just read any history book about some 100 years ago. If you lived to be fifty you were lucky -- you lived to be an old person. If you got to be that old, you were probably house-ridden from arthritis -- no arthritis drugs back then. People were dropping from the flu, typhoid, whooping cough, scarlet fever. If you really want to see ghastly, read up on Diphtheria. Bacterial growth causes a membrane to form over a persons throat, and they suffocate to death in the course of a few hours. Parents literally cradled their children for hours while they turned blue and died.

Hardly any body was healthy back in the day. 50% of babies died in the first year of infancy. 50% of the survivors died before they were 25. If you made it to 25, you stood a good chance of making it to fifty, or "old age".

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Wovel]

Do you worry about people from Ontario going to Vancouver because the list for transplants is shorter? because really this debate has almost nothing to do with money. Tennessee is among the 10 cheapest places in North America to get to and stay (For 18 days). Tough for the very poor , sure...Tough for anyone in Middle America, no.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Wovel]

Of course had Apple not returned, there would not be an Apple today. Jobs returned to Apple as a different person than he was the first time around. He was (is) a leader. Only the truly ignorant discount the value of leadership. Jobs did (I believe still does) work for a salary of $1 a year. All of his compensation is based on the performance of the company, he is the guy at the top, he is responsible and he earned every penny. The people you claim "gave" him the money all have made a healthy return on their investments since he returned.

There are plenty of great engineers who products never see the light of day. There are plenty of organizations great at marketing and fail to ever turn a profit. Bringing all of the pieces together and building a successful company is no accident.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ehintz]

Heh. I think *Jobs* came out of his partnership with *Woz* ok... :)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Artifakt]

There's some areas where it definitely helps you. Vaccination, for example may protect you if you're exposed to some disease, but getting a high enough portion of people vaccinated means you may never encounter a carrier, even if your own vaccination fails to boost your immunity enough. The best way to protect yourself is to pay for a small share of the whole program.
      Also, your moral position is irrelevant from a medical problem's (admittedly limited) perspective. If a plague of some sort gets loose in your area it's going to do whatever damage it does. If that leaves a whole bunch of unburied corpses around, someone is going to have to clean it up, and you should hope they do it before you are placed at further risk. You can argue all you want that you are not responsible for paying to prevent the problem, but I am not responsible for going into that damaged area and cleaning it up free of charge to protect you, either. If I have to do it, I'm not going to give you my risk, time and dedication free because you have some sort of morally superior status to the people I've never met and 'don't care about', quite possibly including you. There are plenty of situations where somebody is going to have to pay, one way or another to fix an existing mess, and however it comes out, that cost is imposed by the nature of the catastrophe, not by anyone's "moral right not to be their 'brother's' keeper".
        So in the real world and not Ayn Rand-ville, the question is, when might you be being short sighted enough about the risks you are hoping not to pay for that I can genuinely claim you have a moral obligation to pay a share? Maybe I don't have any moral right to make you carry insurance against your own possible injury, but even if that's so, I could still have a right to make you carry insurance against you injuring someone else.
        For a fairly extreme example, if not getting drug addicts treatment is not helping the society at large much, and you could probably pick much better uses for your money, then my taxing you for drug treatment support is arrogant, an unwarranted assertion that I (hypothetically a politician in a cases such as this) know better than you how to spend your money. But what if I can show in the longer run it ends up costing five or six times what it temporarily saves not to fund it, in the form of extra police costs. Is that enough that I can compel some part of your taxes to go to treatment programs? Unless you're claiming that you have no obligation to pay a share for police and prisons either, what's the point of acknowledging your moral claim not to owe it to strangers in the abstract, when pragmatically, you're statistically likely to be better off if we all kick in to a collective pot and do it the way that evidence shows is most likely to improve things for most of the people who pay for it? At what point are you being irrational, to insist that the whole society take a gamble that not funding X now won't lead to situation Y later that will cost a lot more for everyone to clean up?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's Spyware Removal Tool has detected a Communist sitting in front of your monitor. The computer will now self-destroy.

CANCEL ALLOW DENY

Re:2 Months is very fast

[eiapoce]

It is easy to get confused in this matter because we are talking about Steve Jobs, who seems a pretty smart and decent guy anyway. How about if we replace Steve with Ken Lay, should 'Kenny Boy' receive a much higher level of medical care than somebody who choose to be a librarian rather than a 'business tycoon'?

Only a name: Michael Jackson.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ifeelswine]

It's hard to compare to 'normal' people, because someone like Steve Jobs would have had an team of the very best surgeons working on him, and generally the best medical care that money could buy..

you are discounting the patient's role in healing. the best surgeons in the world are available to you or me, as they are available to jobs, however they may be more accessible to jobs. but rest assured they followed the same procedure accepted by the medical community that you would for you or me. all the money in the world isn't going to buy you a faster recovery. it takes as long as it takes, which varies by individual.
so what does wealth buy in this case? well, two things which are of concern if they are true --
* - did he move up the list faster than he should have? sure, he gamed the system by getting on the list in tennessee, but this is just part of being well informed/advised.
* - was his old liver destroyed due to metastatic cancer? as a slashdot physician (the best kind) on this topic stated, transplants are contraindicated in that case which implies that rules were broken because he's a superhero. if this is true it's kind of disgusting.
so there may be other reasons everyone has been so tight lipped about Steve's health than Steve just being Steve.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ifeelswine]

About 9 visits later, the doc said they'd put her on a waiting list for an MRI scan. However, they put her on as low priority, which meant a 9 month wait.

in the US, you can get an MRI often within a few hours. Getting it read may take a little longer, and more and more that stuff is off-shored.

Anyway, I feel for you - it's an awful prospect that you have to work to live. That's totally and completely inhumane. It's totally uncivilised. I can't believe there's not more of a revolt against the current system.

well, here's the deal. yes it is inhumane. and yes it is uncivilized. but if you have a good job like i do you frankly don't think about it much. the premiums are subsidized by your employer and any time you get sick you call the doctor and they tell you to come in in an hour or two. if you have strange symptoms like your friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend with the maybe brain tumor they'll start ordering tests. lots of tests. simple tests can be performed the same day in these labs/clinics that dot our landscape now adays (labcorp,quest, etc). the only time you hear about a waiting list is if you need an organ transplant or a flu shot during a shortage. so the reality is your average joe isn't irate about it because he's got a good thing going. if you're indigent and you go to the doctor, you still get treated. the unfortunately side-effect is that since indigent folks don't have a doctor to go to, they go to the ER for everything. This has caused serious problems with ER wait times across the country. if you're uninsured and ... come down with a brain tumor or a heart attack or something, you will get fixed (to the extent that they can) but you'll leave the hospital with crushing debt (if i walk in to the hospital with my insurance and have a procedure done it might cost the insurer $600, same procedure w/o insurance would cost $6000, so if you walk in with no coverage at all, 6-figure debt is not unusual) this debt leads to a lawsuit which leads to bankruptcy typically. so i'm hardly a socialist and appreciate that there are some terrific attributes of the US health care, but I don't think it's right that it's tied to employment. Most Americans with good health coverage, I think, agree that the system is broken (and perhaps may have their own spin on how it is) but most Americans are concerned about the solution making the system worse than it is; if it is accessible to you it is really the best in the world.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[roman_mir]

Wrong. This is pretty much the same as saying that when the goverment wouldn't subsidise car manufacturers, everyone could afford a Porsche.

- wow. How is it 'pretty much the same'? Not everyone can afford a Porsche, but plenty of people can afford Honda or Ford. Porsche is better, but Honda still gets you from A to B, so this argument is just dumb and definitely does not provide a useful comparison to any of my previous points.

A private education system, same as a private healthcare system, will charge for the services whatever the market can bear.

- correct. Only if the government kept its nose out of it, there would have been more competition and the market would drive the prices down.

That means for healthcare that the doctors will charge real shitloads of money.

- sure, if there were 10 doctors only, they would charge a cubic shitload of money. If there were 100 doctors only, each would charge a quadratic shitload of money. With 1,000,000 doctors, the shitload of money would be still quite large, but if the government staid out of manipulating the prices for education by providing loans and artificially driving the costs up, then there could be 30,000,000 doctors maybe, all of a sudden there would have been real choice and nobody would be charging money by the shitload. So just like 100 years ago, a person would be able to pay for a visit to a doctor and get what he needs with only a minimal expense. Of-course the legal system would have to be cleaned as well, so that all types of unreasonable lawsuits wouldn't force overly expensive insurance costs (and surprise, liability insurance is also mandated by the government.)

Does government ever do anything to drive the prices down? I don't remember many cases of that happening.

Just because they can - if people are seriously ill, they'll pay any cost to get healthy again.

- stupid argument and illogical when compared to my points. This is not about what 'people would pay', it's about how much competition there is for the same medical service, and again, people used to be able to manage somehow just a century ago.

Those, who cannot afford to pay that huge sums of money would receive no healthcare - thre is no reason doctors would waste their time for the poor when they can use the time to treat wealthy patients.

- if you have no money at all, the government would still probably take care of you, though I don't particularly see that as a necessary expense. You can't pay for yourself? Find someone who gives two damns - in this society the means of exchange are clear, why should anyone bother wasting time on something that does not help them in life, unless they are volunteering outside of work?

Same would happen to education.

- what education do you speak of anyway? The extremely expensive high level education that is specifically that expensive because the government dug their claws into it?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[roman_mir]

there is no good government.

There is government that society can bear to afford during good economic times and there is government that society cannot afford anymore. In either case the government never shrinks by itself even during bad times (like now), when it must shrink to decrease cost on the society. So the only way to shrink this government would be through violence, not through government benevolence. There is never 'good' government, there is just government that you still can afford to rob you and government you can no longer afford.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[MobyTurbo]

If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

In case you didn't know, all countries except the US and South Africa classified by the UN as industrialized countries have socialized medicine. For some reason, I don't think that the statistics show (life expectancy, birth survival rates, etc.) that the US is the only industrialized country with decent health care.

Nor do I think that all people who seek better health care, go to the US, or South Africa, in order to get health care that is better because the poor can't afford it. I wonder at the moderator's judgement how you got modded up to "5, insightful". It should be "5, doesn't know the world outside of the US borders".

Re:2 Months is very fast

[swamp_ig]

Unfortunatly the difference between average treatment, and the best money can buy, isn't actually all that great.

Working in medicine myself I can tell you that healing takes time, there's no miracles, and some people are luckier than others. Of course the doctor's/surgeon's skills are still important, but more from the respect that they don't suff up anything, rather than they do anything particularly *better*.

The expensive treatments for cancer, such as the biologicals, are generally only statistically better, rather than dramatically better.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to be a doctor to treat the 'haves' but the law states that you have to treat the 'have nots', what's the point of becoming a doctor?

Maybe some people become doctors to HELP people.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

No. A porsche and a mansion are luxory items. HEALTH CARE should not be a luxory item.

I dont need a Porsche and a mansion to live but I do need my health.

Perhaps people that look at things like you, see things in a materialistic light. I dont. This is life and death not "toys".

Re:2 Months is very fast

[BrokenHalo]

You actually have no idea what Jobs has given to Charity, I suspect it is a lot more than you...

1. Indeed I don't, though I have read unsubstantiated reports that he hasn't donated any... and
2. That wouldn't be hard, since my annual income wouldn't be worth his time to pick up if he found it in the street.

Actually, I don't care - it's none of my business. I was just presenting the idea for what it's worth.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[balou59]

I had a liver transplant in January 2000, was out of the hospital after 6 days and back to work within 2 months, so this really depends on the person.

Besides that, I don't think it's a good idea to transplant a cancer patient, as the immunosupression in the first year is extremely heavy and would make every existent cancer spread, as there is no natural barrier to cancer cells anymore. The outcome is probably that his pancreatic cancer will spread even faster than before and this will reduce his life expectancy.

All this resumes in a not very ethical behavior on the doctors side, as cancer is normally a contraindication for any transplant. FYI, if you find a compatible donor, you can get a split liver transplant, so no waiting list at all. But then, money can make a lot of things happen...

Re:2 Months is very fast

[RockDoctor]

So, is it bad if he uses that money to get the kind of treatment you and I can't afford?

What is this linkage that you imply between personal wealth and medical treatment?

Oh, I forgot - you live in America. My commiserations.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[martinX]

Yes but apart from the blistered, the infected, the tubercular and the malnourished, the rest of the people were generally healthy.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Ilgaz]

I really hope he didn't use his amazing gift to present is own health. You know, reality distortion field.

That is one thing doctors are really afraid of, the patient somehow managing to manipulate a doctor.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunkelfalke,

You have hit on the demand, but you forgot about supply. If i saw doctors making millions a year, I would want to be one. So would everyone else, so more people would become doctors. Then in order to get more business the doctor would have to charge less in order to both take customers away from other doctors and try to grow the demand. Yes you would eventually see that the best were able to charge more. However if all doctors are of a" certain minimum standard" that means that eventually everyone could afford cheap health care that is of that standard, but the rich could still get better if they so chose. The key is providing a minimum standard and then the market will balance itself out between the reward of being a doctor vs the cost of being a doctor.

Idayen

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ticktickboom]

and you still got it wrong
its a feature of being in the same club as yer boss

Re:2 Months is very fast

[MrKaos]

Wrong. The true measure of a society is how they treat the most helpless, not the most despised.

I think you are mixing the concept of deliberate action (individual has cause to be despised by a crime) with unfortunate circumstances (individual has been struck with an illness). Society in general, regardless of political systems because it is the will of the populace, wants to assist those helpless and in need. People who have committed a crime against our sense of morality and cause us to be repelled by their actions, like a child molester, cause a gut reaction is to hurt them because we are offended by their actions.

I am speaking of a society that is strong enough to resist those urges and recognise those individuals as needing help, what you are speaking of is how a society reacts to risk.

At its core, socialism is a removal of individual consequences for individual actions.

I can also say Capitalism is a removal of individual consequences for mass actions or Communism is a removal of mass consequences for individual actions. None of it speaks to a societies measure because they are political philosophies not social morality and only related in the heads of political idealists.

All political systems operate at the behest of the social moralities of the populations and are subject to corruption. The Soviet Union and the United States operated vastly differing political systems but both were subject to corruption. I don't think you would call the Japanese socialist, yet they operate the largest social welfare system in the world that does exactly what you describe.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[dunkelfalke]

You have hit on the demand, but you forgot about supply. If i saw doctors making millions a year, I would want to be one. So would everyone else, so more people would become doctors.

not really. first, human medicine study is really hard. second, the doctor lobby wouldn't want cheap concurrency. they would set enrollment limits on human medicine courses (in Germany, it is already the case, you can only study human medicine if your abitur grade is no less than 1.1, which is about A+.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ivan256]

Nobody receives more health care than people in the US either. That goes a long way to explaining why we pay so much more. (There is also a good deal of inefficiency)

Now... Not everybody has health coverage, so of course if you want to extend the best-in-the-world-by-far coverage to everybody, you're going to increase the cost. Or more likely, we're going to degrade the quality of care for the people who already have it in exchange for covering the people who don't.

By the way, there isn't a single fact in your entire comment. It terrifies me if that is the kind of stuff people are using as the basis for their opinions on the subject.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Idayen]

Dunkelfalke, You have hit on the demand, but you forgot about supply. If i saw doctors making millions a year, I would want to be one. So would everyone else, so more people would become doctors. Then in order to get more business the doctor would have to charge less in order to both take customers away from other doctors and try to grow the demand. Yes you would eventually see that the best were able to charge more. However if all doctors are of a" certain minimum standard" that means that eventually everyone could afford cheap health care that is of that standard, but the rich could still get better if they so chose. The key is providing a minimum standard and then the market will balance itself out between the reward of being a doctor vs the cost of being a doctor. Idayen

Re:2 Months is very fast

[lawpoop]

Yeah, aside from all the sick people, everyone else was healthy :)

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

There ya go making moral judgements about people you don't even know....
  What about the poor (but moral) Pagan that ends up living under a bridge because his ex-wife screwed him over?
    I have to admit thought that I'd rather see EVERYONE get fairly good care than some getting better than others.
  Single payer system, says I!!!

Re:2 Months is very fast

[inject_hotmail.com]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking...I was going to say "I don't think he'll be complaining about any medical treatment he receives." I mean, maybe after his body decomposes, and his molecules are reconstituted into some other living being, that may or may not be sentient, he could complain about the level of medical treatment he receives...but the bigger question would be Is he still Ken Lay?...Does he still own his particles after death?

(Who knew that I could link medical treatment, Ken Lay, and Theseus' Ship Paradox? [Well, half of the paradox])

Re:2 Months is very fast

[mattack2]

If you don't think people coming out of jail will be productive members of society, suggest fixing the jails so they will. That's what they're there for, aren't they?

No, the jails are there to punish people who have been convicted of committing crimes.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[__aarzwb9394]

If your country has socialized medicine; then I'm guessing that people go OUTSIDE the system (or even the country) to get the best care possible.

perhaps those with very large amounts of money might do so.

I would remind you that the best health care available to any individual is the best one they can afford.

The existence of allegedly superior healthcare in the US is of no use to someone with my level of income. And my level of income is much closer to the median than any multibillionaire.
I put it to you that a randomly selected US citizen has more chance of not being able to get care at all than a randomly selected UK one.
To sum up, I get better healthcare than a US citizen with no insurance (good enough vs almost nothing, maybe what you can put on your credit card); and Steve Jobs and Richard Branson get the same level (both get the best that anyone can buy.)
In this respect I conclude that the UK is better.

Rich UK citizens pay to avoid waiting, just as rich people in the UK, US, Canada, Japan, and everywhere pay for (what they perceive as, and they might be right) better education for their children. The existence of private education is no argument for the abolition of "socialist" education. Thay can both exist, and always will outside of a dictatorship.

The US political right uses its red menace scare tactics for health but not education. Why?
I think it's because even your own citizens would laugh at you if you tried it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[theshowmecanuck]

You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types ;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.

If you mean Canada, then you mean that everyone should not be able to get decent medical care equally. Most Canadians don't understand how bad the system is since they never have to use it further than their annual physical at their family physician. Except if you are one of the many who don't have a family physician. And if you have any sort of more serious issues, you will wait a long time to get treated. The exceptions are the diseases of the day. For example, those with breast cancer will be treated right away. Those with aggressive brain tumors will likely die unless they take it on themselves and go broke saving their own lives as anyone in the U.S.A. Those suffering extreme pain and who have to take months and months off work on disability due to herniated lumbar disks pushing into the nerves in the spinal canal will be told to wait up to 13 months for a surgery with a 97% success rate, never mind how it ruins their lives and mental health. (This latter describes my predicament... here is the worst part... the only people who get treated quickly for this... and it causes pain that I don't wish on anyone, where no position you are in doesn't hurt at 8 or 9 out of 10... and sometimes at 10... the only people who get treated quickly are those where it is so bad they lose control of the bladder and bowel functions... and sometimes they still can't find room in Canada and have to put them in an ambulance bound for Buffalo... one of my doctor's other patients had this happen.) Or those who damage a knee and have to stay on crutches and often suffer permanent disabilities because their wait times for treatment can be even longer. There are more than a few who need heart surgery such as valve replacement who literally have waited so long they died before they made it into the operating room.

Two years ago, Canadians per capita paid around the same as Europeans who have a much better health system than either the United States or Canada (which consists of taking the positive synergy or public and private health care insurance... single payer does not exist). This past year, it is expected that Canadians will pay almost double that, and within one or two thousand dollars or the per capita expenditure of Americans. If it keeps going, we'll end up paying more than Americans and continue to have terrible health care. I think if we get to the point where we do pay the same as Americans, we should just get credits from the government to go out and purchase our own health care insurance from private companies. After living in the U.S. I have found that if you have a good enough job to belong to a good health plan, you are better off than in Canada's health care system.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[epine]

At its core, socialism is a removal of individual consequences for individual actions.

at its core, the sentiment behind this sentiment is that it is rational to lie, cheat, steal, and lounge around the couch if you can get away with it. I've read some reports lately that individuals with right wing belief systems have heightened neurological activity in the fear and disgust circuits. It strikes me as plausible, but nowhere near firmly established.

I tend to think that people with a well nourished sense of self-esteem are intrinsically motivated to pursue an engaged and meaningful life.

Martin Seligman on positive psychology | Video on TED.com

Is it naive socialism to believe in human potential? There's no question here that people kicked to the margins will engage in despicable behaviour, or that most of the people doing the kicking will be extremely well groomed.

If we're going to continue kicking people to the margins, we'd better have individual consequences for individual actions, because there's going to be a lot of people behaving badly.

The real question for me is whether a different social order is possible which doesn't require so much old-testament bravado to keep the wheels of justice turning.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Falconhell]

WFT???

A chiro visit in Australia costs exactly the smae whether insured or not.

Seriously, if this happens in the US your healthcare is even more fucked up than I thought!

Re:2 Months is very fast

[roman_mir]

Spare me your homosexual fantasies and learn to express yourself in a more clear manner. Your comment is confused and undreadable.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Idayen]

What you said was slightly contradictory. Human medical study is really hard, but not too hard that they area beating away people with a stick(test)? You noticed that a lot of people wanted to go into medicine when their government is willing to chuck out a ton of money and make the incentives better. That created a problem of having the field flooded and then they had to limit who could become a doctor? Let the market do that on its own. The only things the government needs to do is make sure that practicing doctors are of a certain standard. I also have the opinion that if you could somehow bring down some of the downsides it couldn't hurt. Such as simplifying insurance (examples off the top of my head) through standardization and simplification of things such as how they present their policies and how their billing works. Also standardization of medical records would greatly simplify things. An independent organization would probably be better than the government at this. The government could offer incentives for standardizing though. I think that would be a better return on the governments money than subsidizing it, which would end up having so many scary issues. Yes I know that they could pick a standard that isn't the best. Sometimes the good standard is better than motley greats. In the US we do have an MCAT, but that is not there to limit the people that enroll. The reason the MCAT is there is because we have a limited amount of people willing to teach our next generation of doctors as they get paid well in their field and we don't want to waste those resources on drop-outs.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Achromatic1978]

As someone who moved from Melbourne to Seattle two years ago (and now works in the healthcare industry here), "Yes! Our healthcare is even more fucked up than you thought!"

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

"In capitalism, people exploit people. In socialism, it's the other way around."

"Exploit, people, exploit!"?
I guess that explains all of the Russian and Chinese hackers...

Re:2 Months is very fast

[wurble]

Ok, I have an odd question. If a patient comes in with one or more ailments, and those ailments can all be cured by exercise, then why can't a doctor prescribe exercise and that's it? Why isn't the doctor allowed to say "no, a pill won't help you, exercise will"?

You can try to say it's because the person isn't statistically likely to follow up and actually do the exercise, but by the same token, that's the same as if a person is prescribed one or more pills and doesn't take them. Once the doctor gives the prescription, if the patient doesn't follow it, it's their own fault.

Of course we know why doctors prescribe pills and surgery where exercise would work better. Because they make more money that way. They get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies. They make tons of cash from expensive surgeries. They make practically nothing when someone goes and exercises to cure themselves of their ailments. So really, the problem with the healthcare system is that the incentives are out of whack. Doctors do not have an incentive to cure people, they have an incentive to bill them as much as possible. So the real answer to fixing the healthcare system is finding a way to change the incentives to improving the health of patients. In a private system, I just don't see that as possible. For government run hospitals and government paid doctors though, it could be done by showing how many to what degree patients' health has improved, and issue bonuses and pay raises based on that alone, rather than basing compensation on how much was billed.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

"He's rich because people bought his products."

I understand that Steve received a liver from a Xerox exec that didn't think it was useful.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[jimmy_dean]

Nope, your position is illogical because it is based on beliefs. In other words, economy is a religion for you.

What I describe are just facts. We have already had fully private education and fully private medicine. There is a good reason why 20th century has changed that.

haha, and look what the 20th century got you, Medicare/Medicaid which is anywhere from $50 trillion to $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. And don't even get me started about public education...public schools are the biggest disgrace to America and it's not because we don't fund them enough. Your average American private school spends about $8000 per student whereas the average public school spends $25,000 per student. Look at the results! They speak for themselves!

Re:2 Months is very fast

[defaria]

It's not bad if he was born into it either. IOW it's his frigging money - he should be able to do with it what he pleases - regardless if he made it or inherited it! Who are you to say what he should or should not be able to do with his money however legally obtained. I betcha if some rich relative of yours died and left you a bunch of money you sure would want to be able to use it in any way you saw fit. Why then do you judge others?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[defaria]

Steve Jobs has large wads of cash as that is what we give people who prove themselves to be great assets to the economic system. No doubt, Steve Jobs is exactly that, but should your value to the economic system be the primary factor behind the level of medical care you receive? I would say no. Steve Jobs has no more right to the best standard of care than does somebody who has been in the police force, or a teacher (for example) their entire lives. In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.

You are confusing morals with economy. Like it or not care can be bought. You ask why should Steve Jobs or any rich person receive superior medical care - that's simple. Because they can afford it! They have the means, means which you and I do not possess.

Look at it the reverse way - you probably have more health insurance than many others in the US. Why sir should you receive better health care than them?!? How hypocritical of you! I say you should immediately report to your health care provider and demand the lowest form of health care policy they offer!

But wait! What about those without health care??? Indeed you should drop your health care package entirely least you have more coverage those less fortunate than you you hypocritical rich and undeserving person you!

Truth be told people do not deserve things based on their needs nor simply because they've acted morally by some person's code. They deserve things because they achieve them. And by achieving they deserve to keep and to get better things than those who have not achieved. Doling out goods based on need instead of accomplishment is communism and how many times must we show that such political systems and such philosophy is bankrupt?!?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[GWBasic]

But if you're out of prison, and just plain poor, it's your own damn fault. You need to get a better job or invent something cool so you earn enough money to pay for your own healthcare.

...Or just go to prison! In colder climates, some homeless people will commit a crime in full view of the police just so they can go to prison for the winter.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[lawpoop]

But when such a society treats the most despised better than they treat the most valued

False dichotomy. We don't need to treat criminals terribly in order to treat upstanding citizens well. We just need to treat them with a baseline level of humanity.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[Lost Engineer]

That is true in a good system but the admittedly hypothetical act I mentioned is typical of those proposed by state lawmakers, as opposed to doctors. Who will be making the rules in this new American socialist system?

Re:2 Months is very fast

[lawpoop]

The same thing happens here with regular doctors. I saw a urologist and needed a kidney scan. My insurance didn't cover it, but what the hospital wanted to charge me was about 60% of what they tried to pass to the insurance company. I applied for financial hardship and they charged me 20% of the cost, I think. And I make a decent salary.

I think most doctors and hospitals understand that the average person can't afford health care if they don't have insurance, so they charge a sliding scale.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ghrom]

You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types ;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.

I don't believe you are evil, I think you're just not that bright. What you just said is like saying that there's nothing wrong with 2+3=4, it's the 3 thats ruining it.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[ghrom]

The NHS treatment is free

No it's not.

Re:2 Months is very fast

[rkww]

>> The NHS treatment is free > No it's not. The NHS treatment is free at the point of need.

Re:How much

[B00KER]

Tennessee makes sense because.... Steve's Rich?

Apple

[Lifyre]

While I dislike their general philospohy towards their users and products but I think they provide an important counterpoint to Microsoft. Steve Jobs for better or worse is the guiding light for Apple. I'm sure more than just Apple's investors and employees are hoping he comes back strong and sticks around for a good long time.

All the best Steve and good luck beating that thing you've got.

Re:Apple

[qmaqdk]

While I dislike their general philospohy towards their users and products...

Let me get this straight. You were referring to Apple here, not Microsoft?!

Re:Apple

[Lifyre]

Indeed. With Microsoft they control my OS and to some extent my software. With Apple they contol my hardware, my OS, my software, my peripherals, and my soul.

I personally like linux for all its faults and will continue to abuse it and myself with microsoft products until such a time as they are no longer needed.

-Lifyre

Re:Apple

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I dont care what Steve had done in his life for Apple...

We're talking about his life, not his carear. We shouldnt want him to survive because he is the Apple god that he is... but because he is a human being going through something extremely painful and sad.

Anyone looking at this in terms of "economics" or "Apple needing him" is just silly.

Steve Jobs is a human being, suffering with life and death situations these past years. It is terrible and I hope he recovers, not because i want him to return to work.... but because I WANT HIM TO LIVE and not DIE.

Anyone thinking about this in terms of money, carear etc... needs to stop. You need to see life for what it is, and what it means to each of us and those around us.

If he lives, and he never wants to work for Apple again, and just wants to garden... I would be perfectly happy. He is a HUMAN BEING just like you or I. It is sad and if anything he is a representation of the frail nature of humanity. No matter how much money you have, your liver can fail, you can get cancer and die.

No one in those situations should ever be judged or have value placed on them based on how much money they have.

Re:Apple

[Lifyre]

Call me selfish, jade, evil... call me what ever you like. All lives are not equal.

Some people contribute more to my way of life and the future of my way of life than others. I therefore have a more vested interest in their survival. If you got cancer tomorrow I would wish you the best of luck and hope you got well soon, but I don't know you from Adam and won't follow your disease, recovery, or honestly care beyond simple human compassion for those who are suffering. Because honestly it is unlikely to effect me.

Reality is a harsh mistress. Some of us treat with her in a more pragmatic less carebear approach. To each their own.

Re:Apple

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I wont call you those things. I understand.

I understand that some people contribute more to society. I am greatful. We all are. That does not make them more important to me than my mother who has done far more for me than Steve Jobs ever did. Steve Jobs may have given us Apple and all the toys that come along with it but for as big as he is... My mother and father have done far more for me than Steve Jobs ever will.

Thats my point.

I may not be of importance to you personally but hear me out. I wont insult you because i think this is important to learn or atleast understand within perspective that to each of us, we have people who are important to our lives. My family is more important than you to me on a personal level. However you're in the same position. We do not know each other, but we know our families. So in a sense we are in the same boat. It does not make you more important than me, or I more than you.

Somewhere right now is a child dieing of cancer. Is it sad? Extremely. Does it change my life? Not every day no... but it does hurt. It should. It should mean something to us as people.

We're too selfish sometimes. I'm no saint but I want you to have the best of health care because I want the best of health care. Its right to try and help each other. If it is wrong, then why do we have civics? Why do we have society? Why do we bother?

Why do we have communication skills? We are people that are tied to each other, like it or not. We are competitive but at the same time we fail to realize that we do need each other.

You may not need ME specifically, but you need other people in your life. I do.

I think that is probably the point

Who the hell cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't we supposed to care about the technical side of things and his ideas, but by no means about his private life?

Re:Who the hell cares?

[pianosaurus]

Aren't we supposed to care about the technical side of things and his ideas, but by no means about his private life?

Breaking news here on Slashdot Science: Someone had a liver transplant! Two months ago. Stay tuned!

Maybe it's just me, but I feel /.'s been going downhill lately.

Re:Who the hell cares?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Jobs is one of the architects of the computer age and is still very much a part of it. If he dies, the technological landscape will change, so I would say it's worth knowing how he's doing.

Re:Who the hell cares?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

We should care about him as a human being rather than want him to survive so he can announce the next iphone. It's his life... He's a human being suffering with life and death situations. Think of how hard that is for anyone to deal with.

It may be his private life, but there is empathy and he is a public figure. I think its a great lesson for all of us, in that we learn to care about life, rather than his wealth.

And then we take that same lesson and apply it to those without wealth, or middle class people etc. It is a very scary time for any human... fortunately for Steve he has money to buy a chance at recovering. Many do not have that luxory and frankly if we value life.... be it Steve Jobs or your mothers or childs... It should NEVER come down to how much money they have when we're talking about providing care in life and death.

Re:Who the hell cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:How much

[Jurily]

theres was probably a line of apple fanboys queuing to give their livers to steve

Unfortunately, he only needs one. And he needs no other organs.

livery in TN

[cellurl]

I guess we in Tennessee don't ruin our liver as often as other folk!

Re:livery in TN

[WindBourne]

Far from it. TN has a serious drinking problem (IIRC, it is actually one of the higher ones). OTH, you would have a higher mortality rate amongst younger folks, typically from accidents. This has a double advantage in that a younger person is less likely to have viruses. Getting a liver from somebody older and you are likely to pick up a variety of virus. As it is, our increased cancer rate can most likely be tied to blood transfusions as well as transplants.

Re:livery in TN

[cellurl]

You are incorrect my friend. Perhaps you are drunk? http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_alc_con_bin_dri-health-alcohol-consumption-binge-drinkers

Re:livery in TN

[OakDragon]

TH, you would have a higher mortality rate amongst younger folks, typically from accidents.

That's right, you want to go to the states where they like their 4-wheeler off-road vehicles!

Re:livery in TN

[PFritz21]

I guess we in Tennessee don't ruin our liver as often as other folk!

Which is ironic, since Jack Daniel's is made in Tennessee...

Re:livery in TN

[oldhack]

Mr. Daniel knows what he's doing.

Proof / Evidence

[HaloZero]

Unless Jobsy himself has told you this, I'm pretty sure that running this article either violates HIPPA, or is simply full of lies...

Where did the information about a transplant come from? I hope the source was verified, and re-verified, and then re-verified again. Remember when CNN posted that Jobs had had a heart attack, but it simply turned out to be "citizen journalism" gone horribly, horribly wrong? Gotta be careful with this crap.

Either way, all the best to The Steve.

Re:Proof / Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Stock and options traders start these rumors to make money on their short stock or long put positions. The upside for AAPL is pretty much bought out so there's just the down side to strike it rich.

I, for one, am monitoring Jobs' health and reading everything I can about Jobs' health. When the time comes, I'm loading up on out of the money puts and PRESTO - I'm rich. Then, I'll be able to afford that Mac Book Pro I've always wanted!

Re:Proof / Evidence

[Kingrames]

Welcome to Slashdot. Enjoy your stay.

Re:Proof / Evidence

[bkaul]

Running the article doesn't violate anything. It's the doctors/hospital who are restricted by HIPPA, not the press.

Re:Proof / Evidence

[tverbeek]

While HIPAA (note the correct spelling) restricts employees of the hospital from divulging any of this information without Jobs' consent, there are certainly other people who could have known about the transplant, and then provided this information to the Wall Street Urinal without violating it. Friends, family, neighbors, the FedEx guy, the limo driver, Steve's certainly-overpaid hairdresser, an iStalker, the florist who delivered a bouquet of apple blossoms with a note reading "an Apple® a day keeps liver transplant rejection away", etc. are not bound by HIPAA. Neither is any newspaper or web site that subsequently publishes the info. With any of these, there might conceivably be some grounds for a privacy suit under some other statute, but HIPAA ain't it.

Re:How much

[curmudgeous]

He's just practicing that ol' "Buy American!" bit instead of running off to China like the rest of the rich and abusive.

How much did it cost?

[bogaboga]

I know nobody has exact numbers but wish Mr. Jobs well. I wonder how much it cost though. Is the cost of such a procedure high to the extent that it would force an average family into bankruptcy? If bankruptcy is indeed a realistic possibility then I support some sort of government involvement in health care.

Re:How much did it cost?

[kidgenius]

Yeah, it would force the average family into bankruptcy.....if they don't have insurance. This is EXACTLY why you have insurance. You don't have insurance to cover going to the doctor for a physical. You don't have insurance for going to the dentist to have your teeth cleaned. You have insurance for those "just in case" scenarios, just like what happened here. Insurance has unfortunately morphed into something where the routine medical procedures (cleanings/checkups) are covered instead of just the major things that happen to us every so often.

Re:How much did it cost?

[Dopefish_1]

Insurance has unfortunately morphed into something where the routine medical procedures (cleanings/checkups) are covered instead of just the major things that happen to us every so often.

The reason for this is that, if insurance didn't cover you going in for a checkup and other routine maintenance, people would tend to stop going in for checkups rather than pay for them out of pocket. This could very well lead to a serious health problem, which would cost serious money to correct. Whereas if it was caught and/or treated earlier, the costs might be vastly less. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a friggin' truckload of cure.

Why a liver transplant?

[kamatsu]

Last I read, the cancer hadn't metastatized and was removed without chemo etc. Okay, fair enough, that's pretty unusual but I guess they caught it early. Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now? I mean, having a liver transplant introduces a whole lot of health risks, and as far as I know unless his previous liver had already developed the metastatic cancer, they shouldn't replace it - wouldn't that just be throwing away a perfectly good liver, and then putting another one in, only to have it develop tumours in a few years? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the cancer is worse than they're letting on.

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[tverbeek]

The obvious conclusion is that the cancer had metastasized and appeared in his liver. Whenever a doctor says they got the cancer, there's always a chance that they didn't get it all. Apparently that's the case here. Hopefully they caught it early enough and got the last of it. Time will tell.

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[Dogtanian]

Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now?

Yeah; his old liver was last year's model, and a new version in a range of smart-looking colours had just come out. Jobs didn't want to risk being seen as unfashionable or behind the times.

Also, he wants a kidney transplant as well, but the new kidneys don't work with the older model livers.

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now?

His contract was up and he was eligible for a $99 upgrade?

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

From my understanding of cancer is if they find it metastasized in one organ it's almost certainly metastasized in other organs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastized#Treatments_for_metastatic_cancer If that's the case it sounds like Jobs' options are pretty much treating it as a chronic condition and curing it is probably not likely.

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, metastatic cancer is a death sentence

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[TheLink]

Does the new model liver come with free Chianti and fava beans?

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[JamesP]

So this is the new iLiver 3G Ass, two body parts in the same package.

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[Anonymous Coward]

He got an iLiver then? I am waiting for the iSpleen myself.

(I was gonna make a penile joke but decided no to then got the captcha: immense :/)

Re:Why a liver transplant?

[spyowl]

Exactly my thoughts as well. Of course, it is very possible the cancer had eventually appeared in his liver as well - I am no medical guru, but liver being the center of the chemical balance of the whole body, it's pretty grim. A liver transplant buys you a little time, but the cancer is very likely to reappear very soon. For this reason, I didn't think they even allowed you access to the liver in this case - at least not in the USA.

Of course, there could be a different disease unrelated (or only indirectly related) to the previous cancer treatment that had damaged the liver, and it was being legitimately being replaced.

This comes as quite a surprise.

[davidbrit2]

I mean, usually you can't upgrade the components in Apple stuff very easily.

In all seriousness, though, I wish him well. Sounds like an unpleasant ordeal.

Re:This comes as quite a surprise.

[langelgjm]

I mean, usually you can't upgrade the components in Apple stuff very easily.

Ah, but you see, Jobs is an older model and comes with the superbly designed and easily upgradeable outrigger body.

Re:This comes as quite a surprise.

[confused one]

Nah, he predates even that. Think all the way back to the do-it-yourself Apple I and the designed by a hacker, for hackers, Apple ][.

Re:This comes as quite a surprise.

[FrankDrebin]

For real. I mean, if the iJobs had a removable liver like everyone else, this wouldn't be such a problem.

Re:This comes as quite a surprise.

[David Horn]

Normally with Apple stuff you throw the old model away and simply wheel out a replacement- oh, wait.

nice to see

[WormholeFiend]

that the liver transplant wait times are not that long...

Re:nice to see

[Anonymous Coward]

He had the surgery in Tennessee which has the shortest liver transplant waiting list in the country and averages only 48 days.

Re:nice to see

[idamaybrown]

I am sure that being Steve Jobs and rich had nothing to do with it.

Re:nice to see

[barzok]

I'll drink to that!

can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

..what happens there if you aren't insured for this treatment / not very rich? Are you just left to die?

Re:can Americans tell me..

[sjf]

No, most hospitals are required by state law to treat folks without insurance for emergency care. So, by the point you are actually dying you'll get treatment. And, by that point it's only palliative.

But, hey, at least the US doesn't have socialist health care! Those socialist fire fighters do such a terrible job putting out our houses when they're on fire, and don't get me started on those socialist training camps called public (US sense) schools.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. That's pretty much the case. As an added bonus after you die the hospital gets to take your estate to pay for your $20,000 per day hospital bill.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[WindBourne]

Well, it depends. Do you have insurance that covers it. If you do not, then there is gov. insurance in medicare/medicaid. In general you get on a waiting lists. Of course, it has to match your histochemistry and size (the liver from a 10 y.o. is not going to go into a person of say 300-400 lb). BTW, my mother-in-law just had a kidney put in (here in colorado). It took 2 years. Chance are that Jobs waited 2-3 years for one.

What is impressive is that he did not go to India. Many of the wealthy like to go to India to buy them. LITERALLY. There are operations there that run out and steal the organs from a number of live ppl, or will take them from ppl dying of aids and other diseases (but claim otherwise). In spite of this, westerners run out there, pay the 20K and get the operations. That is because India has their money tied to the dollar, so from our POV, it is cheap.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Hubbell]

Yea, waiting 6 months to get an MRI after a 90kph motorcycle accident in Canada is oh so good (friend of mine) Or lets try Britain:
That is why the Orwellian named NICE, National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness, in Britain recently ruled that it would not pay for treatment for macular degeneration for seniors until the patient went blind in one eye. Seniors have been denied treatments for cancer on the same grounds.

Socialized medicine means healthcare rationing just as it does in every country that has it.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[sjf]

Show me an HMO that doesn't ration health care.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Are you just left to die?

No, you begin a new career as an "Organ Donor."

Where do you think all those livers come from?

Re:can Americans tell me..

[mrsquid0]

In theory there are state hospitals and charity hospitals that will help you. In reality it is not uncommon for people without insurance to die in these situations. I had a roommate once who lost a leg when his insurance company dropped him after he got sick.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[mrsquid0]

Most of these sorts of horror stories turn out to by myths when they are investigated.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Nick Ives]

As bad as our health care system is here in the UK, you'd never wait months for a scan after a high speed crash.

Also, most of the scare stories about NICE have no basis in fact or are trying to second guess the clinical judgements NICE have made. This tends to happen a lot with breast cancer drugs, I can think of an occasion a couple of years ago (can't remember the drug) where a breast cancer patients group was campaigning against a NICE decision not to allow them a new drug. NICE had worked out that the benefit to patient outcomes compared to alternative treatments was barely significant but the cost of the new drug was a lot more, so they decided it shouldn't be used.

HMOs in the USA make exactly the same sort of judgements on the same sort of evidence.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Hubbell]

Except you can pick and choose said HMO's, and if I don't want health insurance I don't have to get it AND I don't have to pay for anyone else's at the same time.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

But then you are a potential risk for the society - as are people who refuse immunisations.
If you are antisocial, get the fuck out of the society.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[maztuhblastah]

Show me a state-run health service that doesn't ration health care.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[kidgenius]

HMOs in the USA make exactly the same sort of judgements on the same sort of evidence.

Yes they do. But there are more than just HMO programs here in the USA. There are PPO programs which give you more choices and freedom in your health care. In addition, if I want to have a bake sale and pony up the dough for treatment that no one will insure, then I can. Nothing says I can't. If you don't have that kind of cash, then yeah, I guess you won't get that procedure, but you wouldn't have received it under a socialized program, nor under an HMO program, so you're screwed either way. But just because you can't get the procedure, doesn't mean that others shouldn't if they have the means.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[oldhack]

Let me add that "everybody gets health care at ER" is crock-a-shit. I did go to county hospital ER once because my doc's office was closed, and it was a war-torn third-world triage scheme with interminable wait.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me a government that can do it better!

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Read very carefully, because you've been hit by one of the most common FUDs the insurance firms in the US use:

In almost all countries with socialised health care programs (there are some exceptions, like Cuba or Sweden - but Cuba is run like a private plantation and Sweden has compulsory military service, so they already enslave their citizens), anyone is completely free to choose private care offered by licensed professionals practicing legally.

Indeed, the NHS and private healthcare systems in the UK each have their strengths and weaknesses, and depending on the condition you need treatment for each may recommend you to the other. There is absolutely not compulsory rationing in the UK if you can afford to pay - such restrictions would be daft, as private patients receiving expensive new treatments contribute toward research, training and availability for everyone else.

Slashdot is full of childish ideologues who can't come to terms with the fact that there is no magic set of rules for a perfect society. Balance always gets you closer to a happy existence for the greatest number of people while destroying the lives of the fewest.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey by all means lets treat everything exactly the same, no reason to take different approaches for different situations.

Need to drive a nail: Use a hammer

Need to screw in a lightbulb: Use a hammer

Need to wash the dishes: Use a hammer

Need to install a window: Use a hammer

Need to put up Drywall: Use a hammer

Need to Install a Hard drive: Use a hammer

Adjust the brightness of your monitor: use a hammer

Re:can Americans tell me..

[onefriedrice]

But, hey, at least the US doesn't have socialist health care! Those socialist fire fighters do such a terrible job putting out our houses when they're on fire, and don't get me started on those socialist training camps called public (US sense) schools.

This is a fallacy. Presumably there are some things that shouldn't be socialized or that work better in the free market, otherwise everything would be socialized and we would wait on the government to give us everything. Given this fact, we can't say that socialized healthcare is better than free market healthcare based merely on the fact that fire-fighting works well as a socialized service.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[ruiner13]

The very fact that heath care companies are for profit is the problem. When someone's health care can be influenced by their profitability, people are only going to get hurt. Does anyone else have another explanation?

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

My HMO was willing to pay out a lot of money to do test, when the doctor wanted a different test (that would have cost less). HMO get a bad name, but they are a lot like government, lots of red tape. Even when there is a cheper way of doing it, They have to go by the book. All the Public health care I hear about have more red tape then my old HMO. While I had to use in network doctor, I did not have to goto my PCF. As long as I have been to that doctor before. (no refusals)

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Dhalka226]

Other people already correctly covered the response as far as not being able to pay for it: Hospitals are legally forbidden from refusing treatment based on an inability to pay.

That said, if all other things are the same and you're not Steve Jobs or filthy rich, the actual answer is you die. If he truly got a liver transplant because of a metastasizing cancer... well, he shouldn't have. We're supposed to give donor organs to people in whom they would do the most good. An underlying condition that's highly likely to 1) destroy the new liver and/or 2) kill him relatively shortly is generally considered to be disqualifying for transplant, and with good reason. So either he found somebody who specifically donated a liver to him or, more likely, money and fame talk. After all, would you want to be the hospital that refused to prolong Steve Jobs' life?

Re:can Americans tell me..

[fuzzlost]

..what happens there if you aren't insured for this treatment / not very rich? Are you just left to die?

Yep.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[TheLink]

I don't know what you (and the others saying the same thing) have been smoking but in the UK (and everywhere else I know of) if you have the means you can get the procedure.

What the NHS provides for the people is a certain level of health care. If you want to use private health care for whatever reason, you can.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[TheLink]

> I had a roommate once who lost a leg when his insurance company dropped him after he got sick.

Wow these insurance companies are worse than I thought. What height did they drop him from?

Re:can Americans tell me..

[TheLink]

a) With socialized medicine the doctor tends to get paid about the same anyway, so it's more likely he'd try to do his best for the patient given the limits of the hospital and the health care budget.

b) With private health care where the patient is paying most of the bills (and the boss), the doctor will do his best for the patient given the limits of the hospital and the patient's budget.

c) With private health care where Insurance Companies are the paymasters, the doctor may encounter some conflicts between what's best for the patient and what's best for the Insurance Company.

So:
With b) even though it's about profit, it the patient tends to get the best the patient can afford.
With a) the patient gets the best the Government can afford to give to the average person (or more if the country goes into debt ;) ).
With c) the patient gets the best of what the Insurance Company is willing to pay, which not surprisingly can often be worse than a) or even b).

Re:can Americans tell me..

[DigiShaman]

Six months waiting list for an MRI? Fuck that! You would be better off getting treatment at a local veterinarian clinic. If it's good for Fido, it's good enough for me.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me an HMO that doesn't ration health care.

Show me a private health insurer that doesn't try and make a profit out of health insurance.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[ErikZ]

Most of these sorts of horror stories turn out to be completely true when they are investigated.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[drsquare]

Except you can pick and choose said HMO's

You can't pick and choose, your employer chooses for you. And the refusal of insurers to treat pre-existing conditions means that when you need treatment, you can't switch providers, and if your current HMO refuses to cover you, you're fucked.

and if I don't want health insurance I don't have to get it AND I don't have to pay for anyone else's at the same time.

This is of no value to anyone other than sociopathic libertarian hill-billies. "Other people die so I can save taxes" isn't a convincing argument against socialised health care.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[drsquare]

Any health care system, private or public, would have to seriously ration drugs if it had the pitiful budget of Britain's NHS, which is half that of pretty much all other developed nations.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

CTRL+V.

You only need to do it once.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Hubbell]

Learn the definition of insurance, and go educate yourself on the fact that you can purchase health insurance separate from work provided for as little as 100$ a month.

My hard earned money being taken from me to pay for some leech on the other side of the country is bullshit. SS, Welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid should be abolished. This entitlement state the US has become over the last several decades is insane and unsustainable and goes entirely against what this nation was founded upon.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[shilly]

Don't be a dumbass. If you are already suffering from age-related macular degeneration, then insurers would be mad to agree to take on that risk. They would instead write it in as an exclusion, or raise the premium to the point that it's as high as the costs of treatment. And if you don't have AMD, then you're not going to know in advance whether or not you should buy insurance that excludes the condition.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Wovel]

If you did not have insurance for the past 61 days or longer and then went to get some because you find out you are sick, you will find your self 1) Paying a lot more than $100 a month for the plan on your own
                                                                      2) Pay the full cost of treatment on your own for 12-24 months

If you could not afford that you would bankrupt yourself and wait till it became an emergency and expect me to pay for it. I am not sure where they "choice" is to have insurance in America. Taxpayers already pay for other peoples healthcare in the US, we just do it in the absolutely most inefficient way possible and at the most expensive point of the treatment cycle. The system is broke, the sooner you recognize that, the sooner you can stop looking foolish on /.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Wovel]

Insurance companies cannot drop patients for developing a covered condition during their coverage. Been completely illegal for over 20 years.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Hubbell]

As I said to another poster:
Learn the definition of what INSURANCE means. It doesn't mean 'hey im sick, how about i pay x company 1/100 of the cost to take care of me and expect them to accept/be happy about it'
It means: I might get sick in the future, so I'm going to pay x company a certain amount each month incase i do get sick and need their help with the cash payments.

Do you expect to get into a car accident without auto insurance, then following said crash find an auto insurance company, and then get them to pay for the crash you just had?

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Here I was about to say that tale sounds suspiciously familiar.... then I did a bit more digging. Disturbing stuff.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Shoe Puppet]

In contrast, without socialized healthcare the rich likely would get both eyes saved whereas the poor have to go completely blind.

Re:can Americans tell me..

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Australia Health funds are non profit.
It would be stupid to allow health funds to be for profit.Thats why the US does it that way.

Reminda me of my favourite graffiti, "US does not mean us"

Re:can Americans tell me..

[mrsquid0]

No, they do not. See, for example, Snopes.com, and some other myth-busting Web sites.

Still old news

[selven]

But it's nice to see Slashdot becoming honest about it.

Re:Still old news

[Anonymous Coward]

You already knew about his liver transplant? In that case, you are the one guilty of covering it up, because no one else did.

Otherwise you're just a fucking troll. Thought so.,

What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[1mck]

Why didn't he try that stem cell therapy, or any newer technology where they grow your organ using your own cells??? Seriously, he's that rich that he could literally invest a huge chunk of change into it, and their 1st customer would be him! Apple...think different?

Re:What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[dimeglio]

If it is found out that his liver came from a PC user will he then say that "I'm also a PC?"

Good luck Steve.

Re:What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[tverbeek]

Stem cell therapy? On cancer? Please tell me you're joking. That'd be like putting out a fire with gasoline.

And no matter how much money you have, you can't just "buy" a new medical technology in a matter of a few months.

Re:What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[arb phd slp]

Stem cell therapy? On cancer? Please tell me you're joking. That'd be like putting out a fire with gasoline.

And no matter how much money you have, you can't just "buy" a new medical technology in a matter of a few months.

Tony Stark can build new medical technologies out of junk lying about his cell. Doesn't every billionaire keep a crack team of doctors in their secret base under the volcano?

Re:What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[dotgain]

Jobs would probably only need to install something like EFI-boot or Chameleon on the liver to fake the EFI interface, and even then only if he wanted to boot off it. Otherwise, simply holding down Apple+Option+P+R while regaining consciousness from the op. should do the trick.

Re:What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[flydpnkrtn]

I think the implication was that Steve "regrows a brand spankin new liver" using stem cells... not just throwing stem cells on the cancerous liver he has now...

Re:What about this Stem Cell Stuff???

[Anonymous Coward]

you can put out a fire with gasoline.

Subscription Required

[erroneus]

When I read the summary, it came across as having a transplant requires a subscription.

Re:Subscription Required

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read the summary, it came across as having a transplant requires a subscription.

Thanks a lot... Somewhere in the boardroom of an HMO, there is now a whiteboard with the words "Step 3: Profit!".

Re:Subscription Required

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many spams in your mailbox, my friend.

Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[Apocalyptic Grouch]

The Wall Street Journal articles have problems with lack of attribution and stated lack of verification of this info. If the story true (and I think it probably is), the authors of the articles need to elaborate.

Immediately after the article was posted on their site, I wrote the writers and editors the following email:

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:23
Subject: Questionable standards for reporting by Wall Street Journal journalists Kane, Lublin, and Meckler
To: Yukari Iwatani Kane , "Joann S. Lublin" , Laura Meckler
Cc: "Robert J. Thomson" , New York Times News Department

Dear Journalists of The Wall Street Journal,

The two articles referred to below, published June 20, 2009 on the website of The Wall Street Journal, state controversially without attribution that Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs received a liver transplant in Tennessee approximately two months ago:

Reported June 20, 2009 by Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann S. Lublin, "Jobs Had Liver Transplant",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124546193182433491.html

Reported June 20, 2009 by Laura Meckler, "Jobs's Transplant Highlights Differing Wait Times",
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124546226305633529.html


As journalists you are expected to seek reliable sources and to accompany reports of controversial facts with attribution. However, as Yukari Iwatani Kane and Joann S. Lublin state in the first article, "The specifics of Mr. Jobs's surgery couldn't be established." They further state explicit lack of verification of Job's putative surgery by spokespeople for each of the three hospitals in Tennessee designated as liver-transplant centers.

As of ten minutes ago I could find only the following two other online articles reporting on this topic. As their sources these articles cite only The Wall Street Journal, and at that as a secondary source:

Reported June 19, 2009 by MG Siegler, "Not Only Was Steve Jobs Sick. He Had A Liver Transplant",
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/19/not-only-was-steve-jobs-sick-he-had-a-liver-transplant/

Reported June 19, 2009 by Peter Kavka, "Report: Steve Jobs Is Recovering From Liver Transplant, Still Coming Back to Apple",
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090619/report-steve-jobs-is-recovering-from-liver-transplant-still-coming-back-to-apple/


Do you have primary sources of this information? Have you checked and cross checked this information? If you have evidence, have you validated its authenticity? Do you have corroboration?

If so, please elaborate in your articles.

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[MeatBag PussRocket]

MOD PARENT UP!! this is very insightful and i appreciate your objectivity here. as of late main stream media has been _very_ lax in handling the information they receive. there is a huge lack of fact checking in a desperate attempt to compete with the internet and "news" sites. the profession of journalism needs to realise that by shirking thier responsibility to be accurate so they can break the news they are in effect breaking the prefession. if i find something on the internet i am smart enough to know it is of dubious certainty, when i go to a professional news outlet (Reuters, AP, BBC, NPR, CNN, hell even FOX news) i should be able to expect honest well verified journalism. lets not even get into yellow journalism, in the US the news is so slanted its a joke.

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[Anonymous Coward]

The journalist in question has a reputation for being a conduit for strategic Apple leaks - probably got it from Jobs himself, or from Apple PR at Jobs' direction, but on deep background. The specifics of the surgery couldn't be established because Jobs/PR person likely told the journalist that they would answer no questions. Look at the timing - late Friday. That's definitely a strategic leak.

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[mewsenews]

As journalists you are expected to seek reliable sources

Yes.

and to accompany reports of controversial facts with attribution.

No.

Sometimes the only way for a journalist to obtain the information they need from reliable sources is to promise to keep their sources anonymous. It's particularly funny that you are picking on the WSJ because they are the paper that brought down Nixon with information from anonymous sources.

This article from American Journalism Review will show you that the practice is perhaps controversial, but common.

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[crow]

It was the Washington Post that brought Nixon down, not the Wall Street Journal.

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[mewsenews]

Whooops.

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[Anonymous Coward]

It's particularly funny that you are picking on the WSJ because they are the paper that brought down Nixon with information from anonymous sources.

Dude, are you seriously comparing Watergate to Steve Jobs' liver?

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[afabbro]

The Wall Street Journal articles have problems with lack of attribution and stated lack of verification of this info. If the story true (and I think it probably is), the authors of the articles need to elaborate.

Do you whack off reading Wikipedia policies or something?

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the liver has been caught taping conversations. It's Job's liver we're talking about, remember?

Re:Questionable standards for reporting by WSJ

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was the FBI. Deep Throat was recently revealed to be the deputy director of the FBI at the time. The Watergate scandal was a coup, and Woodward and Bernstein were willing patsies.

Big news

[slasho81]

In today's news world, the big news is that we hear about it only now and not two months ago.

Re:Big news

[slasho81]

I was making a point about the instantaneous nature of news in our days.

Re:Big news

[FishingAddict]

Not surprising at all. This just further illustrates Steve's continued mastery of media control. They're like puppets to Steve. What other person can you think of that could keep an organ transplant completely quiet for two months while under the media microscope? Get better soon Steve!

Hostile liver

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be ironic if the donor was a Visual Studio coder.

I am beginning to see the metaphor here whereby Steve Jobs is the modern day Prometheus who climbs the roof of the Apple Campus every night and the Eagle of Usability descends from the sky to feast on chunks of his liver.

We need a cancer expert here, since...

[drunkenoafoffofb3ta]

Your immune system keeps cancer at bay -- not always -- but often. Your immune system also causes transplant rejection.

Surely suppressing the immune system for stopping transplant rejection = massive increase in cancer aggressiveness!

If this is true, then either steve's doctors are crazy, or the WSJ are telling porkies!

Re:We need a cancer expert here, since...

[PopeRatzo]

I hope Jobs is gonna be OK. Hepatitis C is one of the major causes of liver cancer.

Just a reminder to all Apple users: don't forget to use protection when you go to the bathhouses.

Re:We need a cancer expert here, since...

[tverbeek]

The immune system does not play a substantial or effective role in fighting cancer. It functions like the Immigration and Naturalization police, clobbering aliens who are not welcome. But cancer cells are native-born citizens who have become domestic terrorists, so Immigration has no authority to subdue them: they aren't different enough. Telling Immigration to stand down for a bit, while the National Guard goes in for a surgical strike to remove terrorists cells and replace them with a patriotic new immigrant liver is a pretty good strategy.

Re:We need a cancer expert here, since...

[drunkenoafoffofb3ta]

Hmm. I always understood it to be way more complex than that. The immune system not only mops up pathogens, but also errant cells that are then programmer to die.

Also, cancer isn't a binary yes we bad cells escape this, or don't, but a relative ratio of escaping the body's safety mechanisms to being mopped up. But then, I'm no expert these days. But I was Reading a cyclosporin patient information leaflet, and cancer spreading is one adverse event you're warned about. I'm worried Steve has had this because his quality of life will ne better in the short term, but ultately he will die faster. I really hop the wsj is wrong and Steve isn't suffering.

Re:We need a cancer expert here, since...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It is true that your immune system is constantly fighting cancers and often wins without you even knowing.

Suppressing the immune system CAN increase the risk of Cancer (I'm on immune suppressing medicine now) However my Immune system is a bit over active. So i dont know if I will get cancer... but studies of the medicine show that cancer is a real side effect.

However 15 years ago i was on what Steve will probably be taking, which is Cyclosporin. Its an immune suppressing medicine used in transplant patients. Its side effects are kidney failure and of course cancer. I did not experence any of those either. That was 15 years ago.

thats not to say i wont get cancer because of it... but its also says that it doesnt neccessarily cause cancer all the time either.

Our immune systems all vary. Some people are immune to HIV. Some people dont get breast cancers... etc.

Its hard to say what will happen, but its easy to show what has happened to some in testing or experience.

If Steve had a liver transplant, he has no option. Thats a serious surgery and he needs that organ to live. He will risk cancer again if it means surviving.

Which is the very thing i'm dealing with. I never had cancer, but i need to suppress my immune system to keep my body from going insane so i can live.

Cancer is the risk in life no matter what medicine you're taking.

Re:We need a cancer expert here, since...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fucking brilliant funny, you ignint mod!

Re:How much

[Jarik_Tentsu]

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to give your focus to my newest creation - the iLiver. The iLiver can work with our other iProducts, such as the iFood or iDrink..."

"Mr Jobs, I heard that it only handles DRM-content...I enjoy buying my food and drink at this bar down the road..."

"Only DRM-enabled goods purchased at the Apple Store can be accepted by the iLiver. But this is not a problem, with the Apple Store now hosting thousands of digestible products available to buy."

Zombie Steve Jobs has system upgrade

[David Gerard]

Steve Jobs, visionary leader of Apple Computer, has died -- and come back, better and stronger.

"They don't call it the Jesus Phone for nothing," Jobs laughed with reporters, before eating their tasty, tasty brains.

Jobs' new cyborg arsenal includes wifi, 3G, laser cannons, a flame thrower and a can opener, all running on Mac OS X Robosteve. Bundled applications include an enhanced hypnotic force field based on the one he uses at MacWorld keynotes. "I can't wait to try it on Bill," he said.

Disney, in which Jobs is the single largest shareholder, remained unaffected. "Steve's just working with the way we do things here," said the disembodied computer-hosted soul of Walt Disney, who was decanted to a computer in 1966 to avoid being declared legally dead, so that copyright in his works would never, ever run out.

Re:Zombie Steve Jobs has system upgrade

[Sponge Bath]

"Jobs laughed with reporters, before eating their tasty, tasty brains."

So that's how he stays so thin!
I'm not sure that's enough for most people to survive on.

Re:Zombie Steve Jobs has system upgrade

[David Gerard]

He used to be a fruitarian. If we're talking about tech reporters, obviously he's stretched to vegetables.

refurbished

[Verunks]

now they'll sell his old liver at half the price on the apple store

yea

[unity100]

you are GUESSING that, just like you said.

just like how americans run away to canada.

and therefore churchill quote is totally inappropriate.

Re:yea

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, poor Americans run to Canada, rich Canadians run to America. Not saying that there's anything wrong with the Canadian system, it's just human nature to do the best you can when your health is on the line. And if you've got tons of cash to blow, the US has got great doctors for you.

Re:yea

[unity100]

haaa then. poor americans run to canada, and GET treatment, rich canadians run to america. VERY rich people all around the world run to switzerland, because they have the best of a lot of things. so therefore switzerland totally outdoes america ? i think you got the point.

what you said does not prove what you are trying to falteringly defend.

rich people will always find the best treatment options, wherever they want, period. its the masses that matter. and that means 95% of world population.

Lets see what you have common in there.

[unity100]

Canada. Biggest trade partner of canada is u.s. u.s. senators try to push ALL laws they pass in usa to canada. like acta etc.

britain. another country which has u.s. as one of its biggest trade partners, not only that, but also adopts many political lines of u.s. internationally, leave aside a lot of domestic stuff.

BOTH fail in regard to socialized healthcare.

yet france, denmark, scandinavia etc A LOT OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES manage to pull it off VERY well.

so its not the failure of the system then. maybe its a failure of dickheads who are yelling 'socialism boooo ! it will suck our souls dry'.

there are NO systems on the face of earth that just delivers what is expected by itself. for anything to succeed, YOU NEED TO PROPERLY RUN IT. that includes your water closet and even your butt, leave aside social mechanisms.

Re:Lets see what you have common in there.

[Johan Folin]

Sweden is often regarded as the success of democratic socialism, but there are lots of problems. Treatment queues are long and expensive treatment is often denied. There are companies whose business plan is to fly swedes to Poland to get medical treatment and/or dental care because the queues are too long in Sweden. In most cases it's even illegal to pay for medical care out of your own pocket, because "it wouldn't be fair". It's better to let people die than having them pay for medical care if they can afford it. People paying for care step out of the line, so those who cannot afford to pay the cost themselves get treatment quicker. But we couldn't do that here in Sweden - that would be neoliberal, and that's the devil.

Re:Lets see what you have common in there.

[unity100]

there are lots of problems with EVERYthing that mankind has today. EVERY single thing.

what matters is using the LEAST problematic ones. like democracy. it has a LOT of problems, but it is the best we CURRENTLY have. until we discover something better, we will use it, and keep patching its issues.

same goes for socialized healthcare and sweden.

Medical privileges

[AlpineR]

In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time.

What if the best medical care possible is very, very expensive? Like, for a sci-fi example, a drug made from atoms of antimatter trapped inside buckyballs. The buckyballs are tagged with proteins to stick to cancer cells, then an electromagnetic pulse cracks them open, releases the antimatter, and POOF - no more cancer.

Suppose that making the antimatter requires a $5 billion dollar facility that needs $100 million dollars of energy to make enough for one patient. There's not enough money, energy, or scientists on Earth to make enough to treat everybody with cancer.

Should we deny a billionaire cancer patient the freedom to buy his own dose from a multibillion pharmaceutical company that invested in such a facility for the small but profitable segment of the population that can afford such a drug?

Re:Medical privileges

[DarkVader]

Well, obviously the answer is yes, we should deny the billionaire. Heath care should be a basic human right, not one rationed by wealth.

If it's impossible to provide the treatment to the garbageman, it's wrong to provide it to the billionaire.

Re:Medical privileges

[Anonymous Coward]

Next you'll be demanding equal access to sex or no sex for anyone

Re:Medical privileges

[pyite]

If it's impossible to provide the treatment to the garbageman, it's wrong to provide it to the billionaire.

That's one of the most unbelievable things I've ever read. Some people have money. How they spend it is not your business. The only reason things ever become affordable for the "common" person is because someone who has a lot of money goes out on a limb and tries it first.

Re:Medical privileges

[anagama]

Just wait till the third world comes looking at the excessively luxurious lifestyle of garbagemen.

The fact is, there aren't enough resources to go around. People are basically like yeast. Yeast turns wort into beer until the excrement of yeast colony kills itself off. We are just smart yeast -- smart enough to make cool stuff, and not smart enough to stop our exponential growth. Anyway, if we could keep population in reasonable limits, it might be OK to say health care is a basic right. Till we solve that problem, health care is just a means to exacerbating our problems and using up our resources all that much faster till our entire colony collapses.

Before we get socialized medicine in the states...

[Shivetya]

can we get socialized justice?

because while I have no problem with people buying the best medical care they can I do have one where they can buy innocence or buy off the sentence they deserve.

Regardless, I still am against having other people being forced to pay for my routine medical care. Paying for catastrophic should first be my concern as well but I can see where a medical system setup where catastrophic could be public funded provided it doesn't excuse the person receiving it from making a best effort.

Well I know of one stem cell treatment.

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Well if you want to be technical a bone morrow transplant is a form of stem cell therapy and is used to treat cancers like leukemia and renal cell carcinoma. Unfortunately it's one of the most dangerous procedures a doctor can do to you. (To give some context my dad was dying from RCC a couple years back and I saw that an experimental bone marrow transplant might cure him. Probability of cure was about 20%. Probability of it just killing him in 2 weeks was also about 20%.)Yes I realize those percentages might be a bit higher since people getting them are literally deathly ill but double digit death rates are really damn high.

The hardest part of the proceedure........

[Anonymous Coward]

.....was finding a viable liver in Tennessee.

Speaking as a doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

Organ transplants are, with a few exceptions, usually contraindicated in cancer patients - especially when the cause of the failure of the organ is metastasis. But I guess if you're Steve Jobs, money truly CAN buy anything. The rest of us mortals however would be allowed to die quicker.

Re:Speaking as a doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

No Koolaid worshipping idiot worships you!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Canadian system

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about this: if a public hospital allows a person to stay only for a few days after a surgery, why shouldn't a person with means be able to leave that place and go to a private hospital that does not depend on the public resources and stay there for any amount of time that it takes this person to recover fully or until he even simply feels like it as long as he pays?

This is allowed in Canada (I live in Ontario).

The main rule about health care in Canada is this: you cannot "double-dip". You either receive payments from the government (which in Canada's single-payer system are the provincial governments), or you receive payments from private parties, you cannot mix and match. Once you choose to join the provincial payment system you have to do all your billing that way. Each province handles the billing and payments, and there are generally agreements between the provinces, so you can use your Ontario health card in BC for payments, and the two provinces will work out payments between themselves.

All doctor offices are basically private businesses, and there are private clinics that do X-rays, MRIs, CT scan, etc. (in addition to public institutions who offer these services). So we have private businesses in the Canadian system, it's just we (generally speaking) have only one payer (the provincial government), so prices are set (after being negotiated).

The fact that there's only a single payer cuts overhead costs a lot since there's basically no billing paperwork, so a doctor (and hospitals, clinics, etc.) doesn't need a back-end staff to handle it.

Now, it's perfectly legal for you to have supplemental insurance if you want, but there are only certain places that have chosen to opt out of the public single-payer system. So if you have the means to pay for surgery at a "better" private hospital you can. If you want to have your surgery at public hospital, and then be transferred to a private one, you can as well.

Most people don't know these things because the public system is generally "good enough" (even if wait times can be a bit long) so they don't go looking at these details, and also because 95% of the population don't have the money to do these things so it's a moot point.

How is it even legal to prevent a professional to provide his/her services for the best payment if he wants that extra money?

When I joined by current employer my contract stated that I couldn't work for someone else (without first getting permission at least). If you receive payments from the government, you agree not to get payments from anywhere else. If you don't like it, don't sign up with them.

Now the system isn't perfect, but one thing I think should be avoided at all costs is something like the US system. If Canada is going to change, we should look at France or Germany or perhaps Switzerland. The US system is one giant cluster fuck.

Of-course there is a larger problem with government subsidizing any education system - it drives the education costs up, because universities know that government is there to provide loans, so whatever the costs of education are, anyone can just get this 'mortgage' to pay for it, so there is no incentive to make education any cheaper.

And that's why the "international tuition" fee for a high-end education like McGill or University of Toronto is $30,000 per year, but Harvard's or Standford's normal fee is something like $50,000? There are many reports of Americans coming to Canada to receive an "Ivey league" education because even the full price in Canada is cheaper than the price in the US.

Re:Canadian system

[stine2469]

>All doctor offices are basically private businesses, and there are private clinics that do X-rays, MRIs, CT scan,
>etc. (in addition to public institutions who offer these services). So we have private businesses in the Canadian
>system, it's just we (generally speaking) have only one payer (the provincial government), so prices are set
>(after being negotiated).
skip a few paragraphs
>Most people don't know these things because the public system is generally "good enough" (even if wait times
>can be a bit long) so they don't go looking at these details, and also because 95% of the population don't have
>the money to do these things so it's a moot point.

You just contradicted yourself.  If 95 percent cannot afford private care (at the rates the goverment is paying for standardized care, then aren't the rates that you say were negotiated to high??????

The Timing of Steve Jobsâ(TM)s Liver Transpla

[c4t3y3]

The following is taken from Daring Fireball, one of the few reliable sources of Apple info on the Internet.

The Timing of Steve Jobs's Liver Transplant I'm curious about the reported timing. The Journal story says "about two months ago", but I heard from a bunch of sources last week at WWDC that Jobs had been seen on campus the week before - i.e. about two weeks ago. I mean, he was there walking around, giving people hell like usual. Regarding recuperating time, the Journal story has this sentence:

Recovery from a liver transplant is relatively fast, said William Chapman, a specialist at Washington University who has no direct knowledge of Mr. Jobsâ(TM)s case.

But six weeks doesn't sound "relatively" fast, to me. It sounds crazy fast. I don't know how authoritative it is, but here's what health-cares.net says regarding liver transplant patients:

After discharge from the hospital, patients are seen every week (for approximately three weeks) in the outpatient clinic for an examination and monitoring of blood tests. During this time, medications are adjusted based on the levels found in your blood. After approximately one month, patients are usually seen only two to three times during the first year. Also beginning at one month, blood is checked every other week; eventually, it is checked only once a month. Most patients are encouraged to resume physical activity, including work, after three to six months, depending on their recovery. Patients may resume heavy activity, including workouts, at six months.

So I'm thinking that if Steve Jobs had a liver transplant, it was more than "about two months" ago.

Re:How much

[strstrep]

From TFA, Tennessee has a shorter wait time than most states: 48 days, instead of 306 nationally. That would be my guess as to why Tennessee.

think, steve!

[kaini]

he'd probably have made a fortune selling the old one on eBay.

Re:think, steve!

[Jerry Rivers]

Pickled Jobs

Re:Story was covered by Timecop THREE DAYS AGO

[Anonymous Coward]

GNAA Link in OP

It is astounding ....

[jotaeleemeese]

... to see how many people can't grasp the concept of human rights.

Re:It is astounding ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Health care isn't a right. A right is something you have when you're born. When you're born, you already have all the basic freedoms listed in the US Bill of Rights. Rights are something other people can try to take away, not something other people give to you.

For instance, the 2nd amendment: Right to bear arms. That doesn't mean the government issues you a gun, that just means the government can't take away a gun that you have.

So if you want an amendment saying that the government can't take away your health care or deny you coverage, that's fine, that's a right. But saying that it's a right to be given health care doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying whether socialized medicine is good or bad, I'm just saying that health care isn't a right.

In Steve Jobs' case, he's willing (and has the ability) to spend more money to buy the best medical care possible. It's as if he took his car to the best mechanic possible, or had his house remodeled by the best contractor possible. Health care is a service just like any other, and the more you pay for it, the better service you get. Now, because health care can be life-or-death, I see why people would want to make sure that people who can't afford good service get it anyway.

Captcha text: Referee

Re:It is astounding ....

[Robert1]

I know, incredible right? All those people from just 2 counties!

Re:It is astounding ....

[CajunArson]

That's incredibly insightful.. it is astounding to see the number of people who think that healthcare is a right when it objectively is not a right and can never be a right... and that is not my opinion but an objective fact. A "right" is only a protection from other people curtailing your own freedoms. Your right to free speech is a protection against others preventing you from speaking, your second amendment right to bear arms is a protection from the government banning you from lawfully owning firearms. However, a right NEVER entitles you to be given anything. My first amendment right does not entitle me to be given free airtime to rant at society and my second amendment right does not entitle me to steal guns.

Anyone who claims to have a "right" to healthcare does not actually believe in the constitution because the 13th amendment outlawed slavery. If you expect to enslave doctors and society in general for the simple reason that you got sick, then not only are you guaranteeing that the already heavily-socialized medical system will become even worse, but you also have no respect for real "human rights".

Re:It is astounding ....

[anagama]

Well put. Too bad you'll be "overrated" down to zero.

Re:It is astounding ....

[D-Cypell]

Yes, and since we don't believe in human rights here in the UK, my slave doctor can just sit in his shackles and take my blood pressure until I see fit to grant him his freedom....

*sigh*

Re:It is astounding ....

[Jeff Hornby]

So what about your right to be given air? Are you saying that I wouldn't be depriving you of your rights if I took away your right to breathe?

Re:It is astounding ....

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yup.

And i'll put this out there. NY Blue Cross Blue Shield is now $1,150 a month.

Talk about fucking insane cost...

I'm not Steve Jobs... I'm not rich. I doubt anyone can truly afford to pay that rate. I DO... but right now in this tough economic times its hard... very hard.

I saw the cost of my health insurance go from $250 a month... to $1,150 a month in the course of 10 years. In the last 2 years, it has gone from $500 to $1,150.

Think about that for a second.

I unfortunately need my health care because i have a genetic immune system condition which also means i cant shop around for cheaper health care because i have a preexisting condition.

On a side note, there are cheaper plans that all start at around $550 a month but also have $2000 additional charge every year.

If i lose my health care.... I'm going to die.

Tell me how that is fair or right?

Put your mother, or child in my position... would you still think thats fair?

Re:It is astounding ....

[gobbo]

A "right" is only a protection from other people curtailing your own freedoms.

Your argument is full of ideology (as are most arguments about rights, so no offense). Unfortunately, ideology is like halitosis: it's always someone else's problem. Your viewpoint is natural; others' are constructed.
Nowhere is this more obvious than the notion of rights.
Your particular ideology calls on a specious "objective fact" that the wealth of society is to be parted out to individuals based on their ability to crowd close to the trough. Now, there may be a kind of sociobiological correctness to this, by acknowledging that civilization is a thin hallucinatory veneer on our endocrine-driven counter-adaptive animal impulses and "that's simply natural", but that's not what we're taught in kindergarten or by ecologists, so it rings false.
Health care is a collective activity, akin to utilities and other components of what is loosely called the social 'safety net'. One of the things that is astounding about the american health care system to an outsider is its utter complexity and inefficient bureaucracies, with their sometimes kafkaesque cruelty. Since health care benefits from continuity, one could argue that it naturally becomes a 'lifelong transaction' --- and that it is in the interest of a populace that that transaction be with a public institution, in order to best protect people from abuse and neglect, and ensure fair access.
I realize that there is a certain amount of that protection built in to most health care in the US, but nothing like a socialized system. So, in your definition of the right to protection from oppression, universal healthcare can be considered part of maintaining basic human rights.
But further, there is the issue of the wealth of society. If wealth in the form of medical knowledge is generated out of collective activity (e.g. internationally available results of research, subsidies for hospitals, university funding, tax breaks, yadda), and one accepts that a minimum level of access to health care protects rights (such as the right to not be denied medical access due to prejudice, cruelty, or opportunism), then that wealth should be distributed in a fair fashion, so that its collective nature is part of the formula. That is the right to not be ripped off (i.e. economic freedom).
Further, there is such a thing as collective rights, unless you don't think that hominids evolved in troupes and god made us like cougars, so that civilization is an abomination. The collective right to economic development suggests that since it is so much cheaper and socially stabilizing to have a reliably healthy populace, universal health care protects the collective rights of society to have freedom to develop rationally.
Playing devil's advocate here, but as a canuck I see this played out daily, with mixed but mostly supportive results. FWIW, I have no problem with rich bastards jumping to the head of the line, so long as no-one else is denied a needed transplant. The biggest canadian hero isn't Gretzky or Wolverine, but Tommy Douglas, and that's more than just ideology, it's results.

Re:It is astounding ....

[Amiga Trombone]

That's easy. A "right", properly understood, is the freedom to act. A right to free speech, a right to bear arms, a right to practice your choice of religion or not, those are legitimate rights. When you start talking about things other people are forced to provide you with, such as a "right" to health care, you talking about an entitlement, not a right. In fact, since somebody else is forced to either provide or pay for your "right", it's not only not a right at all, but a violation of somebody else's right to their labor or their property.

Re:It is astounding ....

[nacturation]

Do people have a right to have access to clean water?

Re:It is astounding ....

[Jurily]

Anyone who claims to have a "right" to healthcare does not actually believe in the constitution because the 13th amendment outlawed slavery. If you expect to enslave doctors and society in general for the simple reason that you got sick, then not only are you guaranteeing that the already heavily-socialized medical system will become even worse, but you also have no respect for real "human rights".

You, sir, are a moron. In developed countries, universal health care is not a right, but a public service, and we also have a separate tax category slapped on our income.

Tell me again, how is wanting to use a service I've been paying for all my carreer when I need it, "expecting slavery"?

Re:It is astounding ....

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

So what about your right to be given air?

Who is "giving" you air?

Re:It is astounding ....

[anagama]

No. Rights are human constructs. People are not born with rights. We are born with certain biological desires and as we grow, we develop additional learned desires. Societies have evolved as a way to ensure that at least some of our biological and learned desires are met, but mere existence is meaningless with respect to rights. We have rights because as a group, we've decided that each of us individually is better off if the whole group is better off. In other words, we've developed rules to benefit the herd.

With respect to water, it may be that it makes sense to ensure clean water for everyone, because lower disease rates as a direct result of a clean water supply means less chance of a disease for any of the people making the decision to provide clean water. That's just enlightened self-interest. It is also enlightened self-interest to provide free speech, free presses, etc. etc. But the notion that any of these are inherent to the biological existence of a human is silly unless you subtract a couple hundred years of science from our collective consciousness.

Re:It is astounding ....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, do you believe that you have a right to a portion of every American's paycheck to deal with your genetic defect? Let me give you the social cost of this. We keep genetically defective people alive to procreate. Those defects pass on from generation to generation leading to greater and greater health care costs. The gene pools gets worse and worse.

Do we pay the health care costs of those that are massively obese, smokers, drug-addicted, into fight clubs, into risky sports such as sky diving, scuba and rock climbing, etc? I know people who choose not to engage in risky sports because they cannot afford injury. That's a good thing!

And I'm actually in favor of a single payer health care system. It's the sense of entitlement that I worry about most.

Re:It is astounding ....

[platypussrex]

The only problem here is that you are pretty much wrong on all counts. Humans didn't evolve by sitting around in lovey-dovey quilt making sessions. They evolved by the ones who were better able to survive wiping out the ones who were not.

The problem is that the majority of the population are lazy gets who when given a choice between 1) work hard and earn something for yourself and 2) let your neighbour work hard and earn it for you, pick 2) every time. So you can prattle on as much as you like about collective endeavours, but that's not human nature. Come down from your ivory tower and smell the coffee. Most of the world is perfectly happy to let other people carry the load for them.

Re:It is astounding ....

[Inthewire]

It's the very definition of fair - you have a medical condition that is costly to treat. So treating it is expensive.

Re:It is astounding ....

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yes I do. I'll tell you why. I pay for health insurance. Other Americans are benefiting from ME paying my health care. Its an insurance policy. The money I pay, doesnt just go to me. It goes to a pool of people and that money is pooled together to pay for the group of people within the policy. Thats how it works.

So YES. I do in fact believe I have a right to a portion of those American's paychecks because they pay into the same group...

Thats how universal health care works as well... HOWEVER the difference is that more people pay into the group policy and the result is everyone gets to pay far less!

Re:It is astounding ....

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The price i pay for health care isnt unique to me tho. It is a rate that all NY Blue Cross Blue Sheild members pay. You pay that price even if you're healthy.

It just so happens that I have health issues.

Is it fair that the healthy still pay the $1,150 a month and that I and other group policy members are using their money to pay for our health care?

Its not fair that I have a medical condition. I hope you were not saying that. Its fair that its costly? I dont think so because the cost is inflated. The cost of medical care in this country is ridiculous and only the top 1% of the country can afford to get medical care without being in an insurance policy.

The concept is we all pay in, and we all benefit when we need coverage. The problem is teh price of a group policy is too great to enter the group for most people. If more people were allowed to enter the group, there would be more funds in the group, and thus lower rates. Its quite simple really.

If you like the health care group policies as is... What is wrong with adding more people to the paying pool of funds? It can only improve the coverage of Americans and lower individual rates.

Re:It is astounding ....

[kklein]

Humans didn't evolve by sitting around in lovey-dovey quilt making sessions. They evolved by the ones who were better able to survive wiping out the ones who were not.

...Which finally explains why there is no such thing as society, family, or pair-bonding in humans!

Most of the world is perfectly happy to let other people carry the load for them.

On behalf of all the people you're supporting with your amazing hardworking skills, I extend to you a heartfelt THANK YOU. As you say, we don't actually like to do anything, so we just sit around all day eating up your hard earned money. Surely you are the only hard-worker in the world, and your yoke must be much to bear.

Re:It is astounding ....

[martinX]

One of the things that is astounding about the american health care system to an outsider is its utter complexity and inefficient bureaucracies, with their sometimes kafkaesque cruelty.

Yep, the US healthcare system is the only one in the whole world that could be described like that.

Re:It is astounding ....

[Sark666]

Do you feel you have the right to have society offer you protection from others (i.e. police)? I would certainly hope so.

You're bringing rights and the constitution into this but it boils down to some things just shouldn't be for profit.

Wouldn't you think it's insane if your house was burning down and the fire dept wouldn't help you because you weren't up on your fire insurance payments?

You should have the right not only to your freedoms, but to have a society that will protect you from physical harm, and your home (as in a fire etc) or yes even your physical wellbeing regarding your health. I'm in Canada, I don't know how many times I've heard from friends in the US that they couldn't afford to go to the doctor over something. That is just insane. Yes Canada's system isn't perfect but as soon as you put a price on something you will end up with the have's and have not's. I'm willing to pay more for my taxes to not have such a situation, even though I could afford my own health care costs (currently I might add, who knows in the future).

Re:It is astounding ....

[gobbo]

right... I guess I meant "to a canadian", because for the vast majority of us it's so straightforward, it's almost an afterthought.

Re:It is astounding ....

[gobbo]

]They evolved by the ones who were better able to survive wiping out the ones who were not.

Bunk. Please cite your sources, else it's just ideological prattle. It's just as easy to say that your ancestors prevailed because their language used clicks, which are better for hunting, and that they had better sex, and were better cooks. (All of which has some support in the evidence.)

Most of the world is perfectly happy to let other people carry the load for them.

The vast majority of the people in my community like to be productive, and as I travelled the world living and working like a local, discovered pretty much a universal pride in productivity, equating a variant on a work ethic with self worth.

You should probably change the company you keep.

INSIGHTFUL?

[bussdriver]

Come on, everybody knows the free market religion being hyped for a generation now its not insightful for hardly anybody to repeat the mantra again.

I could argue but I've found it about as pointless as debating the existence of god to a believer.

It IS legal if that is the law of the land in which you live. If greed is the motive, then don't enter a market with a ceiling lower than your ambition.

What is this, E Entertainment?

[n00btastic]

Let's just leave the guy alone, there is no need to be gawking all over him as if he was a pregnant Brittney Spears.

I see this guy

[guliverk]

I see this guy in morgue yesterday

The stench of Randroid droppings...

[Chris Tucker]

...is thick in the air this afternoon.

The piles of the stuff are everywhere, too.

Watch your step, ladies and gentlemen, lest you inadvertantly step in their disgusting filth.

Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to read, Troll. He said _same_. Where did he even imply "well ahead" of others in line?

Process of getting a liver transplant

[Ilyon]

Getting a liver transplant is a long, involved, and lengthy process.

First, you need to have good medical care and good insurance. If your doctor has been carefully monitoring your liver with CT scans every six months because he realizes you're at risk (perhaps because you have Hep B), you will have a good chance at early detection of liver cancer. If you have no such proactive care, good luck!

Next, your doctor has to present you the option, you have to recognize its urgency, and you have to ask for the transplant, aggressively. If your doctor says, "This is not yet urgent", or "We can wait and monitor this", or if you say, "Can we just wait and see?", it might be too late by the time you recognize the danger (much like climate change and peak oil). That's because...

It takes 6 months to process a liver transplant application, then months to years to actually receive the transplant.

The application process has two parts: medical evaluation and financial means. The medical evaluation is a comprehensive evaluation to determine that you're a good candidate for transplant, that the cancer has not spread beyond the liver, and that you're psychologically fit for the transplant. The financial means evaluation... well, if you don't have the financial means, you do NOT get listed on the transplant list. Period. The only way to get a liver transplant without financial means is if you're an emergency case with sudden liver failure. Oh, you also need to have a designated caregiver who commits to taking time off work to take care if you, if/when necessary.

Once the application process starts, it can take 5 months to actually get on the transplant list. If the winter holidays occur fall in this time period, make that 6 months. If they accidentally list you on the non-cancer waiting list (with lower priority than the cancer waiting list), it might be another month (total 7 months) by the time somebody catches this mistake and it gets corrected. Most likely it will be YOU who catches the mistake, because nobody else is paying attention. If YOU fail to catch this error, the patient may be on the wrong (lower priority) waiting list indefinitely.

Once you're listed, it could take weeks to years to get the transplant. For non-cancer patients, the priority is determined strictly by a function of three blood test results: bilirubin, creatinine, and INR. As these levels go up, you develop ascites (fluid in abdomen), encephalopathy (cloudy mind), and then it gets worse. The problem is, you typically lose weight as you get sicker, and as you lose weight, the creatinine level goes DOWN, so your priority gets lower, initially! If you're lucky enough to be in Oregon or Florida, with no motorcycle helmet laws, you might get your transplant in a few months. If you're in Southern California or New York, you might be waiting a year or longer, progress to extreme illness and hospitalization, and be on the verge of death before getting the transplant. These are the patients who take 6 months to recover from the transplant. Often it takes days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning. These patient have been IV fed for so long that the digestive tract is initially dysfunctional. They have to start with limited plain-cracker diets. Because their gut microbes have been ravaged, their gastric emissions are horrendous foul smelling.

If you're a liver cancer patient (like Jobs) the good thing is, you'll probably get your transplant sooner than the non-cancer patients, because liver cancer transplant priority goes up strictly by time on waiting list. "Sooner" is relative to when you got listed. If you trusted your Kaiser doctor and didn't sense any urgency, you probably didn't apply for the transplant until it was almost too late (there are limits are tumor size for transplant). If you are well-informed and proactively asked for a transplant application, you might get your transplant before you start to feel any symptoms of a dysfunctional liver. This is probably wha

Re:Process of getting a liver transplant

[Organic Brain Damage]

>> Getting a liver transplant is a long, involved, and lengthy process.

Not for Steve Jobs. Because his net worth exceeds $100 million, he doesn't have to worry about what his insurance company will or will not pay. He simply writes a check.

Re:Process of getting a liver transplant

[Ilyon]

>> [Getting a liver transplant is not a long, involved, and lengthy process for Steve Jobs.] Because his net worth exceeds $100 million, he doesn't have to worry about what his insurance company will or will not pay. He simply writes a check.

Steve Job's wealth gives him two advantages: no time wasted securing financial means for a transplant, and freedom to choose where the transplant is done. Once he gets on the transplant waiting list, he has no advantages over anyone else listed in the same region.

Typical transplant patients might have to spend some time securing the 20% of the costs not covered by insurance, or negotiate with the medical facility to waive the 20%. However, some insurance plans do cover 100% (one of Kaiser's better plans, offered through large employers, covers 100%). Jobs obviously didn't have to worry about this. Even if he personally did not have the money, I'm sure Apple would have covered it.

Mere mortals with normal insurance plans are limited in where they can apply for their transplant. If you're in California or New York you can expect to wait months to years for a transplant. Some plans (including Kaiser) allow limited choices outside your local area, but don't necessarily promote this option. Jobs had the luxury of choosing exactly where he would apply for his transplant. His criteria were short wait time and good transplant team. Perhaps privacy might've been an issue, too.

Beyond these two advantages, Jobs transplant priority is dictated strictly by rules of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). For transplant candidates with cancer, UNOS has a priority score starting at 22 upon acceptance of transplant application, increasing in increments of 3, 2, and 2 points every 3 months. After 9 months, his score would be 29. In low-demand, high-supply areas like Florida, he would likely get his transplant within 3 months of being accepted. In California or New York, he would likely wait 6-9 months. With his listing in Tennessee, it is very possible for Jobs to get his transplant within 3 months.

Transplant priority is determined almost entirely by UNOS rules. There is very little local discretion. Any facility that tries to bend the rules to favor a wealthy candidate would lose their accreditation to do transplants and would stop receiving donor organs. This is a self-policing system, because other facilities in the same organ-sharing region would scrutinize any suspicious transplant ordering by a neighboring facility.

There is still the question of why he would be given a transplant if the cancer was spread from another organ. Most likely, he was monitored for at least a few months before being accepted on the transplant list. During this time, they might have cut out or otherwise treated the liver tumor. They would also be watching very carefully to see if cancer would show up elsewhere. He might have received chemotherapy to help prevent appearance of cancer elsewhere. As long as the cancer is limited to the liver (after successful treatment for pancreatic cancer), and is limited in size, UNOS would not rule out a transplant.

In summary, Jobs freedom to choose where he got his transplant probably helped him get his transplant 3-6 months earlier than a California resident who didn't have that option. Other than that, he was subject to the same UNOS prioritization as everyone else.

I agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. In my opinion, Apple and Steve Jobs have established that they can lie to shareholders and everyone.

Re:The Timing of Steve Jobsâ(TM)s Liver Trans

[Ilyon]

The 3-6 month recovery period applies to non-cancer liver transplant recipients in long-wait areas like California and New York. In these areas, the wait list is so long that you have to be extremely sick before getting a transplant. You're probably mentally incoherent because of encepalopathy and your digestive system is probably dysfunctional because you've been tube fed. You're probably hospitalized. When these patients finally get their transplants, it can take days to weeks for the transplanted liver to start functioning, and months to be in a physical state resembling normal.

This was NOT Steve Jobs case.

Jobs had liver cancer and probably caught it at the earliest possible opportunity, since he had reason to expect the possibility. He obviously did his research to figure out which area had the shortest wait time and good care (Tennessee). He probably got the transplant before his bodily functions started failing. Thus, he probably recovered from the transplant very quickly. It's very plausible that he got his transplant only two months ago.

For more details, see my comment elsewhere in this discussion.

Re:How much

[Achromatic1978]

Must be great for Jobs, who has probably never before set foot in Tennessee in his life. Meanwhile, all the other transplant waiting list patients around the country, who either cannot afford the trip to Tennessee, or whose insurance won't pay for organ transportation, they can spent an extra eight months waiting...

If God made Steve, like Steve makes Macs

[Frankie70]

- The liver would be soldered to Steve's heart.
- You would have to send Steve to God to get his liver replaced.
- The new liver would cost around 50% of what it would cost to buy a new Steve.

No.

[Slur]

But to be fair to your comment, I do see myself as Jobs' natural spiritual successor at Apple. Is that so wrong?

Rich indeed...

[Slur]

Who do you think was the first person to buy the "I Am Rich" iPhone app?

Re:How much

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What a marketing line: "Unlike Linux, Apple will always de(-)liver you the best."

Death the democratizer no more

[bdwoolman]

The debate surrounding TFA points up something that is becoming increasingly apparent. The rich will enjoy significantly more lifespan than the poor or even the middle class. Now this has basically always been somewhat true on average. Aristocrats always enjoyed health advantages over their tenants since the beginning of history. However, we are talking ten or twenty percent more life in this case. But with advances going the way they are the wealthy, and even the comfortably well off, could live almost twice as long as the majority of people. Think of the advantage this in turn gives them in terms of gathering and maintaining even more wealth. One could always envy the rich historically, but it was the rare person who got much more than the three score and ten. That has changed, and things are teed up for it to change far more drastically in the next twenty years. Life is the ultimate coin. There is bound to be real social upheaval unless we level the playing field. Until then... I suggest you cut back on a few extras and get the high option plan.

Re:How much

[anagama]

I'm not fabulously wealth, six feet tall, and I don't look like I spent the last eight years working out 6 hours per day. Some people have advantages. Some people don't. There is nothing inherently wrong about that, it's just a fact of life.

Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

So he'll be back at the next ADC wanking us all about how great Apple's new zero-button, no-screen laptop is?

Jobs: "Look folks! It's just a razor-thin sheet of aluminum! It doesn't get much simpler or more elegant than that."

Audience member: "Uh, that IS just a razor-thin sheet of aluminum. In fact, it looks like you just unrolled and flattened a soda can."

Jobs: *whistles and walks away*

Re:How much

[osu-neko]

He shopped around, discovered that the state of Tennessee could best meet his needs, and took his business there. It's called a free market. It's kinda nice, really...

Are you suggesting only people Tennessee be allowed to buy products and services from Tennessee? I doubt the people of Tennessee would agree with that. Are you suggesting people from California not be allowed to buy products and services from outside California? The "buy local" people might like that, but I don't think that's really a good idea either...

SEC violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't the SEC already been upset with the little information that Apple has released about Jobs's health?

If there ever was any meat to those allegations, then surely having a liver transplant matters even more so. Seems like something that the company needs to disclose in a timely manner, preferably before the operation.

As much as he might disagree, he's not a private individual. he holds the fortunes of countless thousands of people in his hands. it matters.

I really, really hate CEO worship, because, most of the time, it's crap. Any old guy could run most companies. Jobs, however, seems to be the exception. That's not to say the company will fall apart when he's gone. But I think his departure (either from the company or the planet), will surely have an effect on that company more than almost any other CEO departure I can think of.

Re:SEC violations

[DannyO152]

Bureaucracies and the such will get upset over what gets them upset, usually not playing ball with the bureaucracies.

I think the spirit of the law is that a company should tell its owners and possible owners who's running it for them. Apple said Jobs would not be running the company for the next few months, explained who would be, and people bought and sold their stock accordingly. If the six months were to recuperate, undergo a procedure because he had life-threatening health issues, or to practice the origami which will be central to his post-Apple plans, that's beside the point.

How many times do we get "spend more time with the family" for the public whitewash of the private, confidential reasons?

Yeah... every right is human right!

[hackingbear]

That's why we ended up with humongous debts and deficits! Right, who does not want good health care, education, housing, retirement, and high-speed internet? They are all human rights and everyone deserves the rights. Let there be Rights! Paying the bills, however, is not a human right.

Better living conditions...

[Slur]

...and better health, diet, and educational conditions produce more invested members of society. Let's focus on what we can do to help those now in need, while providing for a future where there won't be so many people lost and hopeless.

Unless your plan is to nuke all the MLK Drives in the world.

Re:How much

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why is that. Must be the state with tons of motobikers..

His liver had to

[Anonymous Coward]

deal with all the poison in the Koolaid

90 day warranty

[hedley]

He's already 2/3 done. I suppose Applecare is available.

Re:How much

[sp0tter]

well, they don't call it the 'volunteer state" for nothin'!

Re:How much

[The End Of Days]

Bullshit. The only way to be fair is to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator through coercion. Remember, Harrison Bergeron had a happy ending because that overly gifted outlier was shown the error of excellence.

Enforce mediocrity! Stop making those who can't achieve feel bad. They're entitled to believe they are just as valuable to the world as people who are capable and successful.

Re:How much

[node 3]

theres was probably a line of apple fanboys queuing to give their livers to steve

To be fair, if a fanboy gives their liver, they can't line up for the next iPhone. This is basic Fanboy 101.

This is also why Steve Ballmer hasn't received a heart.

As for RMS and a shave, I don't know. I'm hoping they'll cover it in Fanboy 102...

Well since cancers are caused by genetic changes

[NotSoHeavyD3]

and those same changes can generate new proteins your immune system can infact recognize those new proteins as "not self" and attack cells expressing those new proteins. (So yes, your immune system can fight cancer. Actually renal cell carcinoma is one where there is quite a bit of research using the immunological based treatments.)

Re:How much

[node 3]

Bullshit. The only way to be fair is to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator through coercion.

Not really. You just put a regulatory agency in place with objective rules for who gets a liver in what order, and disallow wealth to play a factor (i.e., you can't buy a place in line).

Re:How much

[node 3]

He shopped around, discovered that the state of Tennessee could best meet his needs, and took his business there. It's called a free market.

I don't think, in any way whatsoever, that the market for liver transplants should be a free market.

It's kinda nice, really...

It's not "kinda nice, really", it's fucking disgusting. I don't really blame Jobs for going to where the livers are, but the system which allows such inequalities to exist in the first place.

Are you suggesting only people Tennessee be allowed to buy products and services from Tennessee? I doubt the people of Tennessee would agree with that. Are you suggesting people from California not be allowed to buy products and services from outside California? The "buy local" people might like that, but I don't think that's really a good idea either...

How do you get from there (livers) to here (general "products and services")? The context is scarce, life-saving organs. We're not talking about produce or iPods, we're talking about people's lives.

Ha

[Miamicoastguard]

Maybe he should have laid off the LSD and he wouldn't be in this mess.

Good for him!

[assert(0)]

Good for him (and his "hormone imbalance"), but who really cares? SJ is not the ipod, nor the iphone, nor the macbook. Etc. These brands will easily outlive him.

Re:How much

[yiantsbro]

So Tennessee, home of whiskey, has the shortest waiting list for liver transplants?

Re:How much

[thebigbadme]

Well, even if Mr. Jobs hadn't gone to TN, all of those other people in other states still would not have gotten any livers faster.

If anything only the people of the state of Tennessee should have complaints, because he would have caused the use of a liver which otherwise might have gone to the next person in line.

And why are you presuming he has never set foot in Tennessee? Should I presume that you have never been someplace because of who you are?

Doing this actually makes total sense, take the demand, and bring it to the supply. Usually I think supply is brought to demand, but perhaps the funds to transport the supply don't exist, especially because the market is not an open one. For the record: I am against wide open markets/totally free markets.

But if Tennessee has enough livers that they can turn a person over in 48 days (I don't know if that's true, I read it in a post above), it seems like not such a bad thing to allow a person to take advantage of this fact. If you wanted the latest Nintendo game, which you could only buy in Japan... why shouldn't you be allowed to go to Japan to get it? Yes, I understand, Life-and-Death situations are more complex than this, but the spirit of the argument remains.

Siliconvalley Hillbilies

[CuteSteveJobs]

> Having the procedure done in Tennessee makes sense because its list of patients waiting for transplants

I'm looking forward to Jobs return at AGM's complete with a straw hat, braces and strumming a banjo. Jeff Foxworthy can be new iPod spokesman. 'Oh and one more thing' will be replaced with 'any one you critters move to dat door get a load of buckshot in yet ass'

Re:How much

[fooslacker]

Unfortunately toxic levels of redbull and tatoo ink ruled out a large percentage of the possible fanboy donors.

Re:How much

[fooslacker]

"We HAVE to support DRM-content only so that we can ensure the quality of the detoxification and protein synthesis functions of iLiver. If you could just put anything in it people would complain about iLiver and it would make us look bad so we must control both the Organware and the Consumptionware for our user's own good."

Donate your organs now

[Anonymous Coward]

Donate your organs, so that some rich asshole can cut in line and get your organs ahead of others. After all, it's their "right". I wonder how the donors would feel, knowing that they just saved a money grubbing asshole. Such a system, that honors wealth, is enough to make me not want to donate at all.

Just a reminder, people, that these organs are DONATED, not SOLD. The idea that some piece of shit can cut in line because he has more money is perverted beyond belief.

And, a reminder, to those who think that socialized medicine won't work. If you love capitalism so much, then why don't you start a for-profit fire department, or a for-profit police department. Tell me how wonderfully it's working once you get it set up and running. "Sorry, Mr. Smith, but because you're not willing to pay the extra 20K for the ultimate fire protection plan, we're going to have wait another 20 minutes before we come to your burning house. What's that? You want an upgrade, ok, great, we take discover or mastercard. Oh, you're inside the building? Well, let me tell you about our save you from a burning building protection plan. That will cost you your first born child, and a lifetime of slavery. Sorry sir, this is the best the market can do, you don't want socialism, do you?"

Re:Donate your organs now

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Where do I begin?

Those who survive cancer - US 65% England 46%
Those diagnosed with diabetes who receive treatment within 6 months - US 93% Canada 43% UK 15%
Seniors needing hip replacement and getting it within 6 months - 15% UK 43% Canada 90% us
Those waiting for specialist and not treated within 4 weeks - 23% US 57% canada 60% uk
71 MRIs per million in US, 18 in Canada, UK 14
Seniors with low income who say they're in excellent health - US 11.4%, in canada 5.8%
Life expectancy in the US for those who die of natural causes is higher than in Europe, though a higher homicide rate in the US does lower life expectancy below that of Europe. I'll admit that the higher homicide rate is sad and one of the black marks on US society.

"If you love capitalism so much, then why don't you start a for-profit fire department, or a for-profit police department?"

Capitalists aren't anarchists, not do they tend to take their views to such extremities as the Left. Your distorted view of capitalism is almost as poor as your distorted appraisal of socialism. Set up a bubble world, then condemn your opponents based on your fantasy construct. To take a ridiculous page from your tactics, "If you love socialism so much, why not make the government the only employer?"

transplant

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Job must have got a brand new iLiver

It is astounding ....

[roman_mir]

... to see that some people believe that they have a 'right' to require that society provides them with something, with anything really. This is amazing, actually.

Re:How much

[moosesocks]

I think the more interesting question here is why Tennessee has a wait time 6x shorter than the national average.

(And since 306 is the national average, we can guess that 20-30 states have an even longer wait time than that)

Wonder if...

[String Theory]

Wonder if they had to hold down Command-Option-P-R as they brought him out of it?

MOD PARENT UP

[kklein]

The argument is eloquent and insightful.

None of our business...

[locoztx]

sorry.

Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Report

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop posting these lies, we have seen them all before.

You quote the Spectator?

[jotaeleemeese]

Seriously, they are are a bunch of rabid right wingers that have not a single kind word about anybody but their buddies (rich people). Just read Saki's section and you will see where they stand (that individual is a socialite that boasta about how welathy his firends are).

NICE is in the very difficult position of rationing resources, as such some people will be left out, but not for lack of money or insurance, but for verifiable clinical reasons.

It is easy to be cynical when you are not reaching the conclusions needed to use the NHS money more efficiently.

Ahh wealth

[kenp2002]

Never ceases to amaze me that people with money seem to have no problem getting organs but people without money seem to die waiting for them...

Partial or Whole Liver transplant?

[jameskojiro]

Do we know if Steve's liver was a partial or a whole liver transplant, because if it was a partial then it would be better cause he wouldn't have needed to steal someone's dead liver from them.

Maybe he used his iPhone to find an apple fan who wanted to give him 1/2 of their liver. You know the liver can regenerate the other half if it is removed.

"two months" number may be short

[peter303]

I'm guessing that he took medical leave because an imminent transplant. Probably more like 5 months then. This is merely a technicality and doesnt really matter.

Re:How much

[Anonymous Coward]

The iLiver can deal with the poisons in the Koolaid unlike the ordinary human liver.