Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (564851)	5/6/2010 6:29:15 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575906

NHS Denies Cancer Drug as Too Costly (But Don’t Call it a Death Panel) John on May 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm Sorta sounds like what I imagine a death panel might do (if one existed): Thousands of cancer sufferers are set to be denied a ‘miracle’ drug on the NHS that is routinely used in virtually every other Western country. The Government’s rationing body says Avastin is not cost-effective despite evidence that it can prolong the lives of bowel cancer patients by more than two years. [...] When used for bowel cancer Avastin costs around £18,000 for a course of ten months’ treatment given with chemotherapy. But a complex formula used by NICE, which looks at quality of life and overall cost effectiveness, says the annual cost is £36,000. This exceeds the maximum limit set by the body of £30,000, a figure which has not changed in ten years despite inflation. Ah, well, what’s a couple years of life compared to a socialist utopia? verumserum.com Interesting to know exactly what a life is worth in Britain. No indexing for inflation I note.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (564851)	5/6/2010 10:51:59 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575906

The questions and confusions surrounding international immigration are not unique to SouthWestern USA. The process of Globalization has been active for some time now. Immigration is but one facet of that phenomenon. We've learned a lot but there are still major problems that have not been resolved. The facts we know are that most reasons for immigration is gender specific. Females are immigrating to be domestic servants or for match made international marriages (shortage = 100million women). Males are more likely to immigrate for job and career opportunities. Many people immigrate with the idea that it is a temporary measure and with no intention of changing their nationality. Often times children and families are left behind and as plans go, plans to reunite at some later date are frequently not successful. Under the best of conditions this is all done with full international sanction and with human rights protections. However, the opening for criminal opportunists is a gaping and complicated issue. Immigrants are vulnerable. Trafficking and sex trade has mushroomed to be a 33 billion dollar per year industry and is growing annually. The poverty of those left behind is getting worse. Even when the immigrant believes things are all above board, they may find out once they are beyond the protection of the village back home, they've been sold into slavery. This is often true whether or not the individual had the intention to immigrate legally. However, illegal immigration is the bread and butter of human traffickers. Governments should encourage and promote the employment and social protection of immigrant workers under civil code, which of course means by the law. Legal immigration laws and practices are the only sensible route to addressing that issue on the global scale now at issue, involving hundreds of millions.