View Full Version : The Dr Will See You (When The Money Is Available)
red states rule
10-05-2009, 07:57 AM
So this is what Dems want for all of us? This is what is happening to our military vets
Thanks to the Dems
The doctor will see you
(When and if we can find the money)
By Dr. Eric Novack
What happens in a government-run health care system when the money runs out for the year? Only two things can happen: Either the providers work for free or the patients wait until the new year.
But this only happens in Canada or England, or some other country, right? How about at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital in Arizona?
Two of my colleagues work part time at the Phoenix VA providing orthopedic services not adequately covered by the full-time doctors there. With the low productivity of the employed physicians (as compared to orthopedic surgeons in the area generally), the surge in returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the recession, the part-time doctors have been very busy.
But in August, they were notified that they had reached their quota on work and would not be paid for any more care provided in 2009.
Perhaps the patients could be seen outside the VA at private clinics and offices? Unfortunately, few veterans seeking care at the VA have any benefits for nonemergency treatment anywhere but the VA.
The physicians were told they could work for free, make the patients wait until 2010, or perhaps some money could be found if they were willing to take an 80 percent pay cut.
You see, when the bureaucrats make the rules, it is never the system's fault, or heaven forbid, a bureaucrat's fault, that health care will be delayed or denied.
If the doctor makes a rational decision not to give away his expertise and services for free for four months, some might call him "greedy" and more interested in money than patients. But think about it: How many of you would work for free from September through December this year? Is it really greedy to expect to be paid for work you do?
On the other hand, the doctor can decide to try to work something out so the patients can still get somewhat timely care by working for a massive discount. Again, the question would be: How many would be willing to work for only $2 when what is actually owed is $10?
If the doctor says, "See you in January," the bureaucrats blame the provider. If the doctor is willing to donate some time this year, what are the chances that next year's payments from the government will look a lot more like the reduced pay rate? Eventually, the doctor will leave the VA system for good, leaving the patients to fend for themselves either way. And the bureaucrats can claim their hands are clean.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/04/the-doctor-will-see-you/
What happens in a government-run health care system when the money runs out for the year? Only two things can happen: Either the providers work for free or the patients wait until the new year.
But this only happens in Canada or England, or some other country, right? How about at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital in Arizona?
Excuse me?
This would imply that this happens in the UK, and while i can not speak for Canada i can assure you it does not happen here.
I have never heard of a case where people are turned away by doctors because they have run out of money for the year, what a daft arguement.
red states rule
10-05-2009, 08:19 AM
Excuse me?
This would imply that this happens in the UK, and while i can not speak for Canada i can assure you it does not happen here.
I have never heard of a case where people are turned away by doctors because they have run out of money for the year, what a daft arguement.
Noir, I have posted many articles about the "great" healthcare system the UK has
I have no doubt it happens in your country - and it will happen here as the government runs out of money - as your country is
Noir, I have posted many articles about the "great" healthcare system the UK has
I have no doubt it happens in your country - and it will happen here as the government runs out of money - as your country is
Dude i'm under no illusion, the NHS isn't great and there's plenty we can do to make it better, i.e. more power to local health authorities ect,
However to claim that it can 'run out of money for the year' and then either have the workers work for free or provide no treatment whatsoever is simply a lie.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 08:32 AM
Dude i'm under no illusion, the NHS isn't great and there's plenty we can do to make it better, i.e. more power to local health authorities ect,
However to claim that it can 'run out of money for the year' and then either have the workers work for free or provide no treatment whatsoever is simply a lie.
What was 'out of money' was the hiring of supplementary doctors, above and beyond what the facility provided full-time. Due to heavy needs and limited staff, these supplementary physicians were busy, one assumes their regular benefits paid by their 'home hospital.' Unfortunately the supplementary funds were used up in September, so 'no money for those docs.' Docs had to either work for free, perhaps with 80% cut in pay, or leave. In any case, the patients would wait for some doctor, sometime.
What was 'out of money' was the hiring of supplementary doctors, above and beyond what the facility provided full-time. Due to heavy needs and limited staff, these supplementary physicians were busy, one assumes their regular benefits paid by their 'home hospital.' Unfortunately the supplementary funds were used up in September, so 'no money for those docs.' Docs had to either work for free, perhaps with 80% cut in pay, or leave. In any case, the patients would wait for some doctor, sometime.
Well then whoevers task it was to manage the budget should take the wrap, but that is his fault, not that of the systems,
and it still stands that i have never heard of anyone being told 'sorry, we're out of money, come back next year' as the story implies happens here.
red states rule
10-05-2009, 08:50 AM
Well then whoevers task it was to manage the budget should take the wrap, but that is his fault, not that of the systems,
and it still stands that i have never heard of anyone being told 'sorry, we're out of money, come back next year' as the story implies happens here.
They simply DENY treatment to patients. Socialism is great Noir, until you run out of other peoples money to spend
Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "out*rageous" and "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html
Indeed, there is intense debate currently ongoing over those that deserve treatment, for example an alcholic, do they deserve a new liver after they have chosen to ruin their own? What if they get a new one and ruin that too, do they deserve another one? ect ect, while such cases are rare they can be sexed up to look like 'NHS deny patient treatment'
As for the current debate over Old people, i find it most horrid that some would consider denying people treatment based on age, but i guess they believe they are right,
As far as i'm concerned the NH should stick to its three main princibles,
* that it meet the needs of everyone,
* that it be free at the point of delivery, and
* that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
It is talk of exclusion that gives the NHS a bad name, and will be exploited by its haters,
red states rule
10-05-2009, 08:58 AM
and then we have the condition of UK hospitals
Troubled U.K. Health Care: Moms Give Birth in Bathrooms, Elevators
Overcrowding at U.K. hospitals has women giving birth in some very peculiar places.
Births outside maternity units soared to nearly 4,000 last year, sparking increased fears about the already troubled U.K. health care system.
Some infants were delivered in hospital corridors, elevators, bathrooms and even hospital parking lots.
The number of mothers having babies outside maternity wards shot up 15 percent from 3,420 in 2007 to 3,948 in 2008.
It follows revelations that maternity units in England, which have seen beds cut by nearly a quarter since 1997, were forced to close their doors to women in labor 553 times last year because they were full.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543120,00.html
red states rule
10-05-2009, 08:59 AM
Indeed, there is intense debate currently ongoing over those that deserve treatment, for example an alcholic, do they deserve a new liver after they have chosen to ruin their own? What if they get a new one and ruin that too, do they deserve another one? ect ect, while such cases are rare they can be sexed up to look like 'NHS deny patient treatment'
As for the current debate over Old people, i find it most horrid that some would consider denying people treatment based on age, but i guess they believe they are right,
As far as i'm concerned the NH should stick to its three main princibles,
* that it meet the needs of everyone,
* that it be free at the point of delivery, and
* that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
It is talk of exclusion that gives the NHS a bad name, and will be exploited by its haters,
As with most socialist plans, it is the benefits of the collective before the needs of the individual
You can keep your system Noir, it not wanted here
Indeed, there is intense debate currently ongoing over those that deserve treatment, for example an alcholic, do they deserve a new liver after they have chosen to ruin their own? What if they get a new one and ruin that too, do they deserve another one? ect ect, ...,
I absolutely LOVE that line of reasoning! It eventually leads to my line of reasoning:
"Why bother treating anyone for ANYTHING; after all, they will just end up dead anyway (sooner or later)."
red states rule
10-05-2009, 09:39 AM
I absolutely LOVE that line of reasoning! It eventually leads to my line of reasoning:
"Why bother treating anyone for ANYTHING; after all, they will just end up dead anyway (sooner or later)."
The point is, in the UK (and at the Vets Hospital in AZ) the are not
More from the UK
Sentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned.
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.
They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 09:57 AM
Well then whoevers task it was to manage the budget should take the wrap, but that is his fault, not that of the systems,
and it still stands that i have never heard of anyone being told 'sorry, we're out of money, come back next year' as the story implies happens here.
The story didn't imply such, the poster did. I believe it's called hyperbole? In any case, while not said, it will take more time than should have, that's what happens with more patients and fewer doctors.
and then we have the condition of UK hospitals
Troubled U.K. Health Care: Moms Give Birth in Bathrooms, Elevators
Overcrowding at U.K. hospitals has women giving birth in some very peculiar places.
Births outside maternity units soared to nearly 4,000 last year, sparking increased fears about the already troubled U.K. health care system.
Some infants were delivered in hospital corridors, elevators, bathrooms and even hospital parking lots.
The number of mothers having babies outside maternity wards shot up 15 percent from 3,420 in 2007 to 3,948 in 2008.
It follows revelations that maternity units in England, which have seen beds cut by nearly a quarter since 1997, were forced to close their doors to women in labor 553 times last year because they were full.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543120,00.html
Indeed as i said things are by no means perfect, however, i am sure with a few minutes on google i could find equally dire stories for any country,
But at a glance down the WHO healthcare rankings paints a clear story
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
Now i don't truly believe that nationalizing healthcare is the best move for america, simply due to its size, my main objection to the content of this thread was, and still is, the daft remark in the OP about the NHS.
As with most socialist plans, it is the benefits of the collective before the needs of the individual
You can keep your system Noir, it not wanted here
Surly anything a country undertakes should be in the interests of the collective, as surly you believe it is in the interests of the collective that healthcare is not nationalized.
I absolutely LOVE that line of reasoning! It eventually leads to my line of reasoning:
"Why bother treating anyone for ANYTHING; after all, they will just end up dead anyway (sooner or later)."
You have taken the question out of context.
But i'm sure you know you have.
IF a person is going about thier life and is suddenly hit by a deadly virus and need a replacement liver to live, fair enough. If they have other problems in the future that require other liver transplants (very unlikly but possible) then they should get it. Simple.
HOWEVER
IF somone is an alcololic, and they ruin their liver and need a new one, Fair enough. BUT after recieving this life saving treatment, if they then go on to drink more, and thus ruin their new liver do they deserve another new liver so they may ruin it too? The key differene is that of personal choice and responsibility.
Tis a tough question, but please don't be so rude as to take it out of context as you did, to try and make it look like i said somthing that i didn't, thus causing me to have to type out this step by step retort to explain what i know you already knew i was said.
The story didn't imply such, the poster did. I believe it's called hyperbole? In any case, while not said, it will take more time than should have, that's what happens with more patients and fewer doctors.
Nay Kathi, the line "But this only happens in Canada or England, or some other country, right? How about at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital in Arizona?" Is in the story as written by Dr. Eric Novack
I agree with the >patients <Doctors, which is why i don't think America should have a fully nationalized healthcare system.
You have taken the question out of context.
But i'm sure you know you have.
IF a person is going about thier life and is suddenly hit by a deadly virus and need a replacement liver to live, fair enough. If they have other problems in the future that require other liver transplants (very unlikly but possible) then they should get it. Simple.
HOWEVER
IF somone is an alcololic, and they ruin their liver and need a new one, Fair enough. BUT after recieving this life saving treatment, if they then go on to drink more, and thus ruin their new liver do they deserve another new liver so they may ruin it too? The key differene is that of personal choice and responsibility.
Tis a tough question, but please don't be so rude as to take it out of context as you did, to try and make it look like i said somthing that i didn't, thus causing me to have to type out this step by step retort to explain what i know you already knew i was said.
I didn't attribute that line of reasoning to YOU but apparently you chose to take it that way. Also, if you don't like the way I post or what I choose to address in your posts, don't read my writings...put me on ignore. Alternatively, dont bother typing out a step by step retort...I don't care one way or the other!
You don't seem to have any problem determining who is deserving and who is not...perhaps you should offer your services to Obama. I would point out however, that there are many who think alcoholism is a disease and one that is difficult to treat.
Along those same lines, one who chooses to engage in dangerous activities (skiing for example) and subsequently breaks a limb should be treated ONCE and if they continue to ski and again break a limb should not be treated a second time according to that line of reasoning (which you may or may not believe).
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 12:06 PM
Nay Kathi, the line "But this only happens in Canada or England, or some other country, right? How about at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital in Arizona?" Is in the story as written by Dr. Eric Novack
I agree with the >patients <Doctors, which is why i don't think America should have a fully nationalized healthcare system.
I stand corrected. ;) I believe that was addressed to Americans that may not realize it's already happening here, regarding VA and probably true too of Medicaid.
I didn't attribute that line of reasoning to YOU but apparently you chose to take it that way. Also, if you don't like the way I post or what I choose to address in your posts, don't read my writings...put me on ignore. Alternatively, dont bother typing out a step by step retort...I don't care one way or the other!
When you quote my post and state "I absolutely LOVE that line of reasoning!" i don't think its too great a leap to assume that you are attributing that line of reasoning to me.
And the ignore function is for /r/tards.
And i will always retort when what i say is taken outa context to ensure its put back in.
You don't seem to have any problem determining who is deserving and who is not...perhaps you should offer your services to Obama. I would point out however, that there are many who think alcoholism is a disease and one that is difficult to treat.
I don't have any problem? Dude i said it was a tough choice, i honestly don't know which side of the coin i favour.
I know some say its a disease, that is however tosh in my opinion, it all comes down to personal choice, and you can chose not to pick up a bottle, you can not however choice to not catch swine flu or other real diseases.
Along those same lines, one who chooses to engage in dangerous activities (skiing for example) and subsequently breaks a limb should be treated ONCE and if they continue to ski and again break a limb should not be treated a second time according to that line of reasoning (which you may or may not believe).
Well to think that you would have to equate drug taking with skiing, which i do not.
I stand corrected. ;) I believe that was addressed to Americans that may not realize it's already happening here, regarding VA and probably true too of Medicaid.
Indeed it may well, however if those americans do not realize what is happening in their own country,it can be assumed that they know little of the UK healthcare system, and so such snide remarks about it will only further aid their ignorence of it.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 12:45 PM
Indeed it may well, however if those americans do not realize what is happening in their own country,it can be assumed that they know little of the UK healthcare system, and so such snide remarks about it will only further aid their ignorence of it.
Actually few Americans would think of UK or any other system unless this topic were up for discussion.
Actually few Americans would think of UK or any other system unless this topic were up for discussion.
And therein lies the problem, ignorence is no bliss in this world.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 12:49 PM
And therein lies the problem, ignorence is no bliss in this world.
Disagree. You think you know much more about how our system works than is the case. Same in return on many fronts.
Disagree. You think you know much more about how our system works than is the case. Same in return on many fronts.
True i don't know as much as i can, but atleast i am tryin to learn it in the first place, too many folk, whether american or european, know that they do not know anything about the others systems, and yet they will not try and educate themselves, that is true ignorence. I am not on here trying to come across as a snob who thinks he knows better simply because he knows more, but i am most certainly not as ignorent as many of those around me.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 02:38 PM
True i don't know as much as i can, but atleast i am tryin to learn it in the first place, too many folk, whether american or european, know that they do not know anything about the others systems, and yet they will not try and educate themselves, that is true ignorence. I am not on here trying to come across as a snob who thinks he knows better simply because he knows more, but i am most certainly not as ignorent as many of those around me.
I'll wager a guess that we are at least as informed of your system as you are of ours. The myth of American ignorance is in the main, a myth.
theHawk
10-05-2009, 02:51 PM
The myth of American ignorance is in the main, a myth.
I don't know about that. This country did elect Obama.
I'll wager a guess that we are at least as informed of your system as you are of ours. The myth of American ignorance is in the main, a myth.
I think not, i'd say the vast majority of Brits and Americans are as ignorent as eachother, from speaking to americans on other forums most of them take a while to understand that Northern Ireland and Ireland are different countires, i always for that annoying, until i came to england and realized how few english people understood anything about my country. (yet ofcourse they all (american and British) have a view on if it should be united or not)
Ignorence is spread far and wide methinks.
I don't know about that. This country did elect Obama.
Strong point there, but Obama got in on his skin color, take the blacks that don't normally vote and the Hispanics and what do ya have left ? Virgil and his crew :laugh2:
theHawk
10-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Strong point there, but Obama got in on his skin color, take the blacks that don't normally vote and the Hispanics and what do ya have left ? Virgil and his crew :laugh2:
Skin color is no excuse for ignorance.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 05:41 PM
I think not, i'd say the vast majority of Brits and Americans are as ignorent as eachother, from speaking to americans on other forums most of them take a while to understand that Northern Ireland and Ireland are different countires, i always for that annoying, until i came to england and realized how few english people understood anything about my country. (yet ofcourse they all (american and British) have a view on if it should be united or not)
Ignorence is spread far and wide methinks.
Well that would likely be because you ARE a snob. I'm not trying to insult, just calling an elitist what he is. Tell you a clue for me, while GM and Chrysler sales post-Clunker program are down nearing 50%, Ford is down 5%. Only American automaker not to take the bailout. People are still buying from them. No, we 'elitists' do underestimate our fellow citizens.
Well that would likely be because you ARE a snob. I'm not trying to insult, just calling an elitist what he is. Tell you a clue for me, while GM and Chrysler sales post-Clunker program are down nearing 50%, Ford is down 5%. Only American automaker not to take the bailout. People are still buying from them. No, we 'elitists' do underestimate our fellow citizens.
Just outa wondering why would you think i am a snob? It is a term i take great offence to.
And i would assume that if Ford did not need bailing out when others did that they were already the strongest automaker in america and have thus been able to take profit cuts rather than debt increases, though i don't know enough about the american auto-market to discuss it at length.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 05:54 PM
Just outa wondering why would you think i am a snob? It is a term i take great offence to.
And i would assume that if Ford did not need bailing out when others did that they were already the strongest automaker in america and have thus been able to take profit cuts rather than debt increases, though i don't know enough about the american auto-market to discuss it at length.
Ford was always #2, behind the 'Giant'. Your assumption that most are more ignorant and less well read, has something to do with my assumption of 'snob.' You were the one that alluded to that awhile ago, I just confirmed. BTW, I am often equally guilty of such, with much the same result of being often wrong. It's true we may 'understand' something, but that doesn't mean that others don't 'feel' something is wrong and react. I'd say their instincts are often more correct than many an 'educated' deduction.
Ford was always #2, behind the 'Giant'. Your assumption that most are more ignorant and less well read, has something to do with my assumption of 'snob.' You were the one that alluded to that awhile ago, I just confirmed. BTW, I am often equally guilty of such, with much the same result of being often wrong. It's true we may 'understand' something, but that doesn't mean that others don't 'feel' something is wrong and react. I'd say their instincts are often more correct than many an 'educated' deduction.
Gawd what a horrid way to look at it,
I would see a snob as someone who discards anothers opinion because they believe it is not 'worth' as much as theres, which i have never done, tough it has certainly been done to me plently, which is why i take such offence to the term.
As i have said i do not think i know better because i know more, i merely know more, big difference. Likewise i do not think that someone who knows more than me knows better, merely that they know more.
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 06:25 PM
Gawd what a horrid way to look at it,
I would see a snob as someone who discards anothers opinion because they believe it is not 'worth' as much as theres(sic), which i have never done, tough it has certainly been done to me plently, which is why i take such offence to the term.
As i have said i do not think i know better because i know more, i merely know more, big difference. Likewise i do not think that someone who knows more than me knows better, merely that they know more.
Ummm, you did just that with the last few posts.
Ummm, you did just that with the last few posts.
And who's opinion did i discard because i thought it was 'worth' less?
Kathianne
10-05-2009, 06:36 PM
And who's opinion did i discard because i thought it was 'worth' less?
Seriously, if you can't discern your attitude, I can't help you. First of all one must 'see' their faults, before correcting. Yes Noir, you are a bit of an elitist, if not a full-blown snob.
Seriously, if you can't discern your attitude, I can't help you. First of all one must 'see' their faults, before correcting. Yes Noir, you are a bit of an elitist, if not a full-blown snob.
Lame arguement is lame, i know aswell as you that if i had directly contradicted myself within a topic you would be quoting it even before i asked you for it.
So it was a bit silly to say in the first place, but what 'er floats your boat, and to try and add insult to injury you then imply that i am at fault for not seeing something that is not there. Srsly dude, wise the bap.
Actually, I was referring to your responses to my posts, but whatever floats your boat, sweetie.
red states rule
10-05-2009, 10:16 PM
Indeed as i said things are by no means perfect, however, i am sure with a few minutes on google i could find equally dire stories for any country,
But at a glance down the WHO healthcare rankings paints a clear story
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
Now i don't truly believe that nationalizing healthcare is the best move for america, simply due to its size, my main objection to the content of this thread was, and still is, the daft remark in the OP about the NHS.
Then why do so many people come to the US from other countries for their medical care
Why does the UK allow a WWII vet to lose the sight in one eye before they will treat him for age-related macular degeneration?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549469/Trust-to-let-man-go-blind-before-treating-him.html
Perhaps the lack of treatment?
Then why do so many people come to the US from other countries for their medical care
Why does the UK allow a WWII vet to lose the sight in one eye before they will treat him for age-related macular degeneration?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549469/Trust-to-let-man-go-blind-before-treating-him.html
Perhaps the lack of treatment?
Well I would have a guess and say that those who go to the US for treatment do so because the US can give them the best threatment...for those who can afford it.
And I already said it's pointless googling NHS horror stories, ypu can do that for any healthcare system in the world.
red states rule
10-06-2009, 05:53 AM
Well I would have a guess and say that those who go to the US for treatment do so because the US can give them the best threatment...for those who can afford it.
And I already said it's pointless googling NHS horror stories, ypu can do that for any healthcare system in the world.
I accept your surrender Noir. We both know the US has the best healthcare system in the world - and Obama and the libs want to lower to the same level as you have in the UK
I accept your surrender Noir. We both know the US has the best healthcare system in the world - and Obama and the libs want to lower to the same level as you have in the UK
Don't be sa silly as to think of it as surrender,
Yes the US healthcare *may* be the best in the worlld for those who can afford it...but what of those that can't?
That is were two core princibles of the NHS come in;
* that it be free at the point of delivery, and
* that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
and for that reason the UK is 18th in the WHO standings while the US is 37th.
I can only imagin what you would be saying if the UK was 37th and the US was 18th...
red states rule
10-06-2009, 06:50 AM
Don't be sa silly as to think of it as surrender,
Yes the US healthcare *may* be the best in the worlld for those who can afford it...but what of those that can't?
That is were two core princibles of the NHS come in;
* that it be free at the point of delivery, and
* that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.
and for that reason the UK is 18th in the WHO standings while the US is 37th.
I can only imagin what you would be saying if the UK was 37th and the US was 18th...
I can see why you are so touchy Noir. If my nations healthcare system had women giving birth in bathrooms, had it vets have to go blind in one eye before they got treatment, or denied care for people because they smoked or were overweight I would be to humilated to try and give a rtional defense as well
But this is classic Noir
Prisoners have a better diet than Health Service hospital patients, scientists warn
Patients in Health Service hospitals are far more likely to go hungry than criminals in jail, scientists warned yesterday.
They say frail and elderly patients do not get the help they need with meals, and nobody checks whether they get enough to eat.
Despite years of Government promises to tackle poor hospital nutrition, food still arrives cold, and patients often miss out because meal times clash with tests and operations.
Meanwhile, prisoners are enjoying carbohydrate-rich, low-fat foods which in many cases are better than they would have been eating on the outside
The Daily Mail has been highlighting the scandal of old people not being fed properly in hospital as part of its Dignity for the Elderly campaign.
Hospital meals are often taken away untouched, because they are either unappetising or are placed out of patients' reach.
The latest figures show 242 patients died of malnutrition in NHS hospitals in 2007 - the highest toll in a decade. More than 8,000 left hospital under-nourished - double the figure when Labour came to power.
The NHS throws away 11million meals every year, and many nurses say they are too busy to help the frail eat.
Earlier this year the Mail revealed that some hospitals spend less on meals than the average prison.
Ten hospitals spent less on breakfast, lunch and an evening meal than the £2.12 a day allocated for food by the prison service. One spent just £1.
Although most hospitals do spend more than £2.12, prisoners end up better nourished than patients, say experts from Bournemouth University. After studying the food offered to inmates and across the NHS, they found patients face more barriers in getting good nutrition.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210109/Prisoners-better-diet-Health-Service-hospital-patients-scientists-warn.html
This story has been brought up and discused before,
Look i've said plently of times that you can dig up as many scare stories as you like, EVERY system has them, but when it comes down to cold hard facts the UK was judged to be 17 Places higher by the WHO than the US, that is not from an interest group, or a newspaper, or a website, but from the WHO.
red states rule
10-06-2009, 07:07 AM
This story has been brought up and discused before,
Look i've said plently of times that you can dig up as many scare stories as you like, EVERY system has them, but when it comes down to cold hard facts the UK was judged to be 17 Places higher by the WHO than the US, that is not from an interest group, or a newspaper, or a website, but from the WHO.
I understand your fustration over having to defend your crappy government run healthcare system. It stinks having to get sick where the governemnt run hospitals do not have the resources to provide quality heathcare
But don't worry. If Obamacare fails and you need life saving medical treatment I will help you come over to the US for your care
Promise
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.