Artful Dodger: Facts?? where are they?????

Prove my data wrong then rather then just keep calling people you don't like the views of "loon".

And seeing as you are no expert, what makes you right?

(V):  Krugman is a far left loon.  He's no expert.  Data mining isn't always accurate.  Anyone can find someone to quote that supports their view. 

(V):  I've already explained the facts.  See below.

Übergeek 바둑이:
> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now,
that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here
anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a
billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are,
everyone is covered.

No, that is NOT completely wrong.  Access to Canada's health care system IS the biggest problem in their health care system.  You should know this.  It's not that people don't have access, they do.  But they  regularly have to wait and wait and wait for certain procedures.  This information is from a Canadian doctor given during an interview.  There are waiting lists in Canada and a dog can get an MRI faster than a human.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The
system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how
urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation
takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter
of common sense.

Exactly.  Thanks for proving my point here.  Access is a problem.  My doctor and I decide on my degree of importance.  And if I want to see a doctor, I simply make an appointment.  If I need a procedure, I get it.  The "system" has nothing to say about it. 

And it's not as simple as you state it.  It's not about a child needing a heart operation vrs and old person needing care for their bunions.  You've stacked the deck with your example.  In the US, the child needing a heart operation will be served but so will the old fart needing medical care for bunions.  BOTH are important.  Care is care and we can do both.  But in Canada, as you point out, there is rationing because access to care is limited.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are
coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of
certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting
lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Yep, access is a problem

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The
Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few
companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and
certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

A company that offered insurance would be a private insurer.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry
their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental
coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

Except that it's true.  Canada's health care doesn't cover everything and so 70% of the people have supplemented the lack of coverage with private coverage.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This
is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system.

The cost keep rising and demand a great percentage of the budget.  Something has to give.  It can't be sustained so to help control costs, access is limited (via rationing).


> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I
disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a
billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same
treatment.

This fact alone doesn't define the entire system.  As a system, it simply doesn't work well in practice.

If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life,
and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system.
Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

But they don't have a right not to contribute to help pay for the system which is precisely what Obama is proposing.   And don't be fooled, the history of the world is the history of economic discrimination and inequality.  The geek down the street makes twice the money I make.  I probably work twice as hard.  There never has been a world were everyone is equal. 

Approximately 1.3 million people were employed in the NHS in England in
September 2005 on a headcount basis. This represents an increase of 34,300
since 2004 and an average increase of over 38,000 per year since 1997.

(V): This is about 3% more employees every year. Is there somewhere something like a profile of where these new jobs get created? It would be to get an idea in which direction the NHS was heading the past years en passant.

Bernice: makes me wonder sometimes to..lol

but Jules lives in the rich South
while us poor Northerns are the poor relations

my next door neighbour husband died a couple of months ago on route to hospital in an ambulance
the ambulance driver decided en route that he was fed up of doing over time so he went by ambulance depot and clocked off still with patient on board
so there was a delay of over 7 mins whilst the shift change took place and reaching the hospital hence the patient on board died
he may of course have died anyway we will never know for sure but my point is from the top notch doctors to the cleaners of the hospitals
are overworked poorly paid and thousands leave every year to work in the private sector


http://ts18.gazettelive.co.uk/2009/06/medics-speak-out-over-colleagues-detour.html

I'll repeat till I fall that our elites got slated.

(V): Of course nobody can control a whole population and much less an awaken population. I write about the government and priviledges. Both, government and priviledges are not for real, outlived. That's why in the chambers of parliaments you don't see politics, but a danse macabre. The troubles in may were ridiculous, were opium for the people. We are talking about trillions and voyaging coffee beans.

Czuch: How do you know it sucks so much Czuch.. where are the stats?

Ahhh there isn't any formal ones. Hmmmmmmm

And if private companies are refusing treatment if they think they can get away with it... well I see certain defenders of your current system going on about "death panels"... I guess the USA invented them??

gogul: I'm talking in terms of all the various groups and individuals.. Not just MP's. From the tax payers alliance to RNLI, to the rotary club, to the RSPCA, to the small groups, to the people who get laws changed by saying "this needs sorting".

No-one can control a whole population.. if you believe they can.. I'm sorry but that is a fantasy.

Medicare sucks compared to private insurance, so the solution is to get everyone into the same crappy system, so at least we all get crappy care together????

Übergeek 바둑이: I am curious to know how coverage and waiting lists compare for people who receive Medicaid compared to those that have private insurance


It does not matter what type of coverage you have or if you have no coverage, the waiting time is the same for all groups.


This puts poor people at a disadvantage,


Well, if medicare puts poor people at a disadvantage, then why are we being pushed into more government sponsored care?

(V): Absolutely not. Even if MPs start a total turmoil among them self, it is to protect priviledges, not only their own ones.

Czuch:

> I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage

I was trying to get to the fact that here in Canada it does not matter if you are rich or not. The coverage AND the waiting list are theoretically the same. In practice there is some disparity between the rich and the poor because no system is perfect; however, the poor do get good coverage and comparable service.

I am curious to know how coverage and waiting lists compare for people who receive Medicaid compared to those that have private insurance. For example, are all procedures covered in a standard private insurance policy covered by Medicaid too? If all procedures are covered the same, is the waiting time the same for Medicaid patients? In many cases the answer has been "no, they are not the same". This puts poor people at a disadvantage, and I think that is where the debate on Medicaid s coming from.

Übergeek 바둑이: It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.



I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage, but by access, he is referring to the amount of time it may take to get any specific treatment.

IE, if you are stuck on a long wait for a procedure in Canada, compared to the US, then he would argue that your access is an issue with your health care system, compared with the US

gogul: No. too many groups and individuals to orchestrate.

(V): Yes. I say that the mix is orchestred.

gogul: I never said opposition is completely non-parliamentary. It's a mix.

Bernice: Really... in what way.. can you be specific???

Ferris Bueller: Instead of brainwash, use *public relations*, PR. It's the job of PR-agencies to work for their clients advantage. They do everything to keep their client. Creating a good reputation, and if the reputation has gotten bad, they find something else to keep on with it. And why shouldn't I call this evil.

(V): you still talk crap.... ***shakes head***

(V): Now that is a sweet post. GB is a orchestred governing. Opposition is completely non-parliamentary. Now a British elitist answers, well that's done like this since ages, sounding much like someone who has never heard about something called real life.

Many Americans are being brainwashed by the big insurance cos. & their pawns.  They are being fed countless distortions about the systems in Canada, the UK & elsewhere because the insurance cos. have bought off the media, commentators & many of the politicians.  For this reason, you see so much fear & hysteria at town hall meetings that many of them can't be conducted in a civilized manner.

Ferris Bueller: it's impossible for one brain to know about everything the elites are trying to hide. Switzerland was confronted with a blackmail from a certain economical attitude. Meanwhile there is no doupt about that the strategies of the past years are MUCH more than a failure. Big corporations are able to blackmail governments, and it serves the biggest theft in history. I'm sorry for every noisy town hall meeting, but the responsable people hide and don't care about the peoples feelings.

It is absolutly clear to me that the promises of the pro globalisators were lies. The global development shows the failure, and the character of the promoters of globalisation show the theft.

One problem in the care is that universities ate bought as well, it's a full partnership in between universities and powerful corporations. Today there is no university in the world willing to explore that 'intellectual property' in lots of medication is a theft as well. I'm sure that lots of patents belong to general knowledge. Historians with access to fine libraries can prove this.

Bernice: No... the UK is not perfect. But, due to our openness and to some extent our ability to complain (Something you guys in Australia still carry on from your UK heritage) .. can make a big difference.

We are encouraged to give feedback.

... we can even get laws named after ourselves.

Artful Dodger: ... what facts? Please explain!! As for the MEP... his party do not support him on what he's saying about the NHS. All major parties here support the NHS, David Cameron says it transformed his son's life who was born with cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

Waiting lists... why is it every time some org sets up a clinic in the USA for those waiting for medical treatment, there is a very long queue? And even though the USA does not collect data on waiting times in it's country (which other countries do) from what is collected..

""In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

Paul Krugman - New York Times July 16, 2007........

[N]ot all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.

This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. ''It was only later,'' writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, ''that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments.''

He adds, ''I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero.''

...... explain this please!!

Übergeek 바둑이:  Many Americans are being brainwashed by the big insurance cos. & their pawns.  They are being fed countless distortions about the systems in Canada, the UK & elsewhere because the insurance cos. have bought off the media, commentators & many of the politicians.  For this reason, you see so much fear & hysteria at town hall meetings that many of them can't be conducted in a civilized manner.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh Boy....I can't wait for Jules to come on...From "god's own Country"..nothing can compare to the UK.
I would love to know where he lives and exactly what his standards are.

If everything is as good as he says, why is it that poor Snoopy doesn't recognise or understand what country he is talking about LOL.....

I can understand he thinks his "country" is the best at everything but he does take it a bit too far.

Artful Dodger:

> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now, that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter of common sense.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Another big source of complaints come from rich people who feel that private clinics and hospitals would let them get their procedures done sooner. Rich people get the same treatment as everyone else, so they feel frustrated because they cannot use their money as leverage to get operations sooner. This is where myths such as "Canadians going to the US" comes from. They want to get to the top of the list, and the system couldn't care any less if they are rich or not.

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

The most common form of supplemental coverage is the Blue Cross, which operates in a semi-private form. Many employers offer that supplemental coverage as part of an employee benefits plan.

Low income families get supplemental coverage through the welfare system. A welfare card will allow low income families to get free access to drugs, dental care, etc.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system. However, that complain comes from people who want to see lower taxes. Are the costs out of control? It depends on the state of the economy. During recessions we hear a lot of complaints. During the oil boom, you hardly heard any complaints because the government was running a surplus.

> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same treatment. If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life, and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system. Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

I won't say Canada is perfect. There is no perfect system. Every country is got its problems. Sweden has a very interesting model and it is highly successful. I used to think healthcare here was good until I went to Austria. I was extremely impressed with the quality of service there.

Bernice:

> does that mean that Americans are more unhealthy than Canadians or
> does it mean the wages are higher in the USA

In my post I indicated that the statistical data is sketchy. some cancers are better in the US, others in Canada. It is not a reflection of one system being truly better than the other.

The problem with this is that sometimes health factors are not related to the healthcare system, or even to income. The US has a higher incidence of diabetes and heart disease than Canada. That is due to some differences in diet and lifestyle more than the healthcare system. Certain diseases are genetic too, and income is not related to incidence or survival rate of the disease.

In some parts of the US incomes are high, and in others low. Medicaid was meant to equalize some of that income disparity, but so far it has not been enough.

The US spends more on health care than any other country in the world, but the accounting on expenditure includes private insurance costs. Once one looks at the public (government) spending per capita, other countries certainly spend more. Some have slightly better health care systems, others do not. I see no real correlation, other than slightly higher infant and child-before-five mortality rates in the US compared to developed countries with publicly funded health care.

In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access. They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put, they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out according to strict rules.

Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under the Canadian system). In British Columbia health care costs are is 42% of the government's budget. It's projected to rise to 80 to 90 percent in coming years.

Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising costs with no end in sight. This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice. But practice and theory are very far apart.

Übergeek 바둑이: Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source for accurate facts. Anyone can data mine for specifics to support one's position (see Jules post below). It makes no difference if medical care is available to everyone unless the delivery of the medical care isn't substandard. In the US, cancer screening is far superior than to that of the UK. Perhaps that's why our cancer survivor rates are superior to those in the UK.

In the US, medical care is available to everyone, regardless of one's ability to pay. Basic health care is there for everyone. You can't legally turn away a person in need just because they can't pay. And there are many free clinics throughtout the US. Does the system need improving? But certainly not the overhaul that Obama is suggesting. He can't pay for it. All one needs is a quick peek at other government run public service systems. They are ALL bankrupt. The US government can't run anything properly because they get to muddled up in the rules. Then they pile on more administrators and get more rules and along the way, there are cost overruns, fraud, and long waiting lines.

If anything, the UK needs to begin to break away from their government's monopoly of the health care industry. But they employ so many people in this huge bureaucracy they can't afford to close it down. It would put too many out of work. Is it all bad? Probably not. But it's bad enough so that any thinking person would stay away from modeling a new system after the failed UK system.

(V): Just because you don't like the message it doesn't follow that it isn't true. Facts are facts. There's no wiggle room. The UK system is a huge mess. Waiting lists, underserving, poor equiptment, lack of trained professionals, the list goes on. There's not one public service that the Feds run that isn't bankrupt in the US. There's no efficient model anywhere in the world that's based on any government run system.

gogul: ummmmmmmmmm......I was being facetious.

Bernice: I mean to say that I see it from the side of who profitates, who earns money from those who need care, and maybe the question if it has gotten out of hand a little..

Bernice: Whose wages? In the US some players seem to earn more as everywhere else, yes: wages are higher in New York. Hmm.

Übergeek 바둑이: ??
does that mean that Americans are more unhealthy than Canadians or does it mean the wages are higher in the USA

Übergeek 바둑이: Th cost of healthcare in the USA is twice the GDP average of ours and other western countries. Yet, along with those who rely on Medicaid and the like, there are man, many millions with inadequate insurance.

Some reform to an more efficient system is needed, I think both camps in the USA agree with that, it's just a matter of how. And from what I've read the Pres is going to get a change in policy. Maybe not as much as he would like, but a step in the right direction.

The division and lack of even a countrywide insurance firm system (as in one that can be taken out by anyone in any state) is crazy. Bupa here is countrywide private insurance, which by the nature cuts costs and is more efficient.

All that admin in all those insurance companies!!!

Artful Dodger:

> In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within
> the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

I was looking at some statistical data on health care systems. I found a good article in Wikipedia which compares the healthcare systems in Canada and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

There is also an article that compares some healthcare statistics between Cuba and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

There is an article on the National Healthcare System in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

I included Cuba there because Cuba is atypical. It is a poor country with few resources, but they make healthcare their top national priority and it is covered 100% by the state. Canadaand the UK stand one step below. In Canada 70% of the healthcare system being paid from public (government) sources. In the US 49% of healthcare is paid by the government, the rest comes from private sources (mostly private insurance frims).

I find that the statistics show some things being better in Canada, others are better in the US, others are better in Cuba, etc. I see no real statistical differences in some measures like Cancer survival and incidence rates. Some Cancers are better in the US, others are better in Canada. Child and infant moratility rates are slightly better in Cuba than in the US, but just marginally.

I find the one big difference is that US is the only wealthy industrialized nation to have no universal healthcare system. Low income families receive Medicaid, and that is where the complaints seem to be coming from. Medicaid will not cover many services that are covered by private insurance firms, and waiting lists on Medicaid services are very long. Although 47 million people have only Medicaid coverage, the overall health of the population is not statistically different from most countries with good healthcare systems.

I think people can nitpick at details of different healthcare systems. I find that the bottom line is if the lower income people in a country have available healthcare, then the health of the population improves tremendously. I think that healthcare reform in the US might be perceived as socialist, but if Obama succeeds in improving healthcare services for low income families, then long term statistics in the US could be as good as those as Sweden, Norway or Austria. Healthcare in those countries seems to statistically much better than Canada or the US.

Artful Dodger: Honest.. He's an MEP if you are talking about the guy I think you are. The leader of the conservative party has disowned him on this, seeing as his child's life quality owed so much to the NHS staff.

Yes.. It's a kinda unwritten rule in the UK that kids do come first, even before OAP's... though that is a point that depends on the circumstances. But in a life and death, it's considered kids always come first.. One has a life to live, one has lived. I thought being a pro lifer, you'd understand such a principle. A person with a young child is always given right of way in queues and the like. As the old saying goes.. it's kinda wrong for children to die before their parents.

The prostate problem is to lack of reporting, men over here have been kinda going in and having checks made... it's a delicate area. But with advertising campaigns, such figures will improve. Our NHS likes to educate us people over matters that through self awareness can be detected earlier.

Fraud was rampant through those who worked to rebuild Iraq, fraud is rampant in your business, how many billions are owed through storing dosh in offshore accounts?? Reckless... Madoff.

Lesson.. no system is perfect.

As to staff... here is the official 2005 figures based on a headcount.

Approximately 1.3 million people were employed in the NHS in England in
September 2005 on a headcount basis. This represents an increase of 34,300
since 2004 and an average increase of over 38,000 per year since 1997.
• There were 679,157 professionally qualified clinical staff in the NHS, including
122,345 doctors, 404,161 qualified nursing, midwifery & health visiting staff
(including practice nurses), 134,534 qualified scientific, therapeutic & technical
(ST&T) staff and 18,117 qualified ambulance staff.
• There were a further 376,219 staff in support to clinical staff. These were in
three key areas – 310,441 support to doctors & nursing staff, 55,715 scientific,
therapeutic & technical support staff and 10,063 ambulance support staff.
• There were also 220,387 staff involved in NHS infrastructure support. This
includes 105,565 staff in central functions, 75,431 staff in hotel, property &
estates and 39,391 managers and senior managers.
• There were 89,190 GP practice staff, excluding practice nurses.

.. ain't you learned to double check your data first yet?

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/nhsstaff/NHSStaffNHSLeaflet240406_PDF.pdf


It's a 4 page PDF document with a staffing breakdown.

The 3rd largest employer in the WORLD is found in the UK health care system. And of the over 1 million people working in this system, they are all administrators. That number doesn't even account for the doctors or nurses.

In the UK, if you're old, you stand at the end of the line. Kids are serviced before the elderly. And there are horror stories.

Listen to an honest UK politician describe the UK system and you'll cringe. In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

There isn't any US social program that is fully successful. Money leaks out. Fraud is rampant. When the government spends the people's money, they are reckless.

So how come? The Wall Street keeps locking down recources to nutheads who chose heading like crash test dummies the wall. Stop the credit crunch for banks now! Take a look at the money you use and to whom it belongs. Let the Fed do it, better sooner than later. Is it raining money in the street kitchen?

(V): I searched for vain all-natural threat in a city that calls itself ecological this afternoon. Tonight is huntingtime with jazz music. Yay!

gogul: I wonder if Wonko the sane still has his house!!

(V): I wish I could talk offshore. Living in this world feels like living in the beast. Your only chance is to get farted out. At least I can see the intestines

gogul: Are we talking ... offshore.. Well, that's happening in the UK as well. Those who have them are being offered the chance to cough up or pay through the nose (extra costs such as fines, etc) before the UK gov gets hold of the bank account details and gets blunt..... U OWE US

gogul: The little lie "I did not know that this or that..." is ok within some days. But after years of the same ongoing lies of the elites, even being told different for decades, they should forget about the thought of being part of the solution.

(V): well, the establishment here knows too that they are busted. And the US-elites just did a similar mistake as the Swiss did few months ago. I'm talking about the session around judge Gold, the boring UBS and what's behind the bank accounts of the 250 now in possesion of the US: fodder for the monster US.

gogul: Aye... the Pirate Party say pretty much the same about pharmaceutical patents. But as much can be said about most 'new' products, the pricing on them is crazy at the start and in many cases (even down the years) due to name rather then costs. It's why a generic over the counter medicine costs peanuts while a named brand can cost 50% more or higher. The standards are the same, the chemicals involved are the same.. so.. is it the fancy box we are paying for??

Its interesting that for every little problem, there are those who call for some supranational solutions, as if history wouldn't show that this is the way into problems.

Why doesn't it move forward in the health care problems. As we know that it is the abuse of patent protection and intellectual property. The pharma companies sell at high price to cover "innovation" which is a lie. People who need medication pay for big buildings and disgusting salaries. But of course, puting the finger on patent protection, intellectual property and the market disturbing sizes of the big companies, makes you automatically to lawyer of the third world. Big money blinded statesmen and co. They refuse to see that pointing fingers on the problems in health care would create jobs and a bigger choice for consuments, hence competition, real science and information, real prices.

GTCharlie: Oh, yes, to confirm the same here.

>the conservative elitists just want the masses to work more for less
>the so called intelligent liberal elitists try to dictate what the masses should do

>you will never see tham give any of their power or money away

Yes, the "super" important fatally believe to be at the right place at the right time without having an idea how boring they are in giving the audience a bad example. Just to keep themself entertaining to me, I imagine them being sort of aliens, the hatch that never should have escaped a pyramid, demons in human shape. That makes them sort of funny. Also, that way I'm sure they rely on their doom.