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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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:How much

[B00KER]

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

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?

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

nice to see

[WormholeFiend]

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

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..

[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..

[mrsquid0]

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

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..

[ErikZ]

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

Subscription Required

[erroneus]

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

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

[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.

Big news

[slasho81]

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

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is astounding ....

[jotaeleemeese]

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

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 ....

[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 ....

[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]

]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.

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.

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: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...

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.

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...

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...

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.

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."