The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

[red states rule]

Could this actually happen in America? With Obamacare and the rationed healthcare that will follow if this tax bil is not repealed - the answer is YES





NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.

He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.

It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.

There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.

He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1zDg2TNEN

[ConHog]

Could this actually happen in America? With Obamacare and the rationed healthcare that will follow if this tax bil is not repealed - the answer is YES

I could EASILY make the case that doctors in fact EXTEND the natural life of patients, so in fact refusing treatment to them does NOT prematurely kill them.

[red states rule]

I could EASILY make the case that doctors in fact EXTEND the natural life of patients, so in fact refusing treatment to them does NOT prematurely kill them.


Go ahead but it is clear they are murdering the old folks under their version of Obamacare

[ConHog]

Go ahead but it is clear they are murdering the old folks under their version of Obamacare

oh come on..............

[red states rule]

oh come on..............


This is the same health care syatem CH that does not wash the bed sheets on a daily basis (they turn themm over) women giving bith in the hallways and janitor closets all due to lack of money

You can ignore the facts if you wish, but this is what happens when you are forced to live under government run heath care

[ConHog]

This is the same health care syatem CH that does not wash the bed sheets on a daily basis (they turn themm over) women giving bith in the hallways and janitor closets all due to lack of money

You can ignore the facts if you wish, but this is what happens when you are forced to live under government run heath care

Really? Would you like me to start linking to articles about patients being abused in private care facilities RSR, or will you stipulate that it does happen?

[red states rule]

Really? Would you like me to start linking to articles about patients being abused in private care facilities RSR, or will you stipulate that it does happen?

It did not take you long to go to the "they all do it" excuse

It is clear they are broke over there and their way of dealing with th problem is to NOT take care of the old and useless people

That happens when healthcare is rationed CH

[OCA]

It did not take you long to go to the "they all do it" excuse

It is clear they are broke over there and their way of dealing with th problem is to NOT take care of the old and useless people

That happens when healthcare is rationed CH

Its clear? Care to post some links with facts and pics instead of opinion pieces?

[ConHog]

It did not take you long to go to the "they all do it" excuse

It is clear they are broke over there and their way of dealing with th problem is to NOT take care of the old and useless people

That happens when healthcare is rationed CH

I didn't use any line RSR. I pointed out the fact that abuses happen in private care facilities to counter your argument that the abuses were due to rationing of health care. Now do you stipulate that I am right, or do I need to actually produce links of things we all know are facts?

[red states rule]

Its clear? Care to post some links with facts and pics instead of opinion pieces?

This is NOT an opinion piece it is a news article. and like every country with government run healthcare - they are broke

[red states rule]

I didn't use any line RSR. I pointed out the fact that abuses happen in private care facilities to counter your argument that the abuses were due to rationing of health care. Now do you stipulate that I am right, or do I need to actually produce links of things we all know are facts?

We are talking about MURDER CH. Murder due to a lack of money by government run hospitals

[OCA]

This is NOT an opinion piece it is a news article. and like every country with government run healthcare - they are broke

Its an opinion piece, how about some actual links to studies done on the NHS?

[red states rule]

Its an opinion piece, how about some actual links to studies done on the NHS?

http://www.rif.org/

Check out the link, follow instructions, and re-read the link

[Drummond]

I could EASILY make the case that doctors in fact EXTEND the natural life of patients, so in fact refusing treatment to them does NOT prematurely kill them.

You can't be serious !!

OK, try these links out for size ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8787803/Breast-cancer-drug-could-add-five-months.html


A new breast cancer drug could hold back the growth of cancer by five months while reducing dangerous side effects, early trial results suggest.

The treatment for women with HER2-positive breast cancer – an aggressive form of the disease which is diagnosed in 10,000 British women each year – slowed the progression of tumours by 40 per cent compared with conventional drugs.

Tests on 137 women showed that the new therapy, an injection combining the common treatment Herceptin with an antibody drug, appeared to temporarily halt the disease in its tracks.

Patients who were given the new treatment lived for 14 months without their cancer getting worse, compared with nine months for those on normal chemotherapy.

It also resulted in fewer patients suffering dangerous side-effects compared with standard treatments, doctors said.

Now see this ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9079213/Breast-cancer-sufferers-denied-two-drugs-on-NHS.html


Up to 2,000 women with a specific form of breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body should not be treated with two drugs, Tyverb and Herceptin, because they are too expensive, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said.

Although the drugs have been shown to reduce the growth of tumours, Nice experts ruled the benefit was too small to justify the additional £50,000 per patient per year cost.

It is not certain how much longer women would live if they were given the drugs compared to standard treatment, the rationing body said.

The draft guidance affects women with advanced breast cancer that has spread and whose cancer reacts with the hormones oestrogen and progesterone and also has high levels of the HER2 protein.

It was intended that Tyverb, also known as lapatinib and Herceptin, also known as trastuzumab, would be given in combination with other standard treatments.

Herceptin is already approved in breast cancer in certain situations but Tyverb has not yet been through Nice for any other use.

This dates back to the time of our last General Election, with Cameron giving a pledge to reverse the NHS's rationing under the Labour Party, our Socialists ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1263223/NHS-rationing-body-denies-15-life-saving-drugs-cancer-patients.html


David Cameron today vowed that the Tories will give cancer sufferers access to drugs refused approval by the NHS rationing body.

The Tory leader said he would use the £200million the NHS stands to save from his plan not to go ahead with Labour's National Insurance hike to pay for the drugs.

The money would be put into a new Cancer Drugs Fund to pay for any cancer medicine licensed since 2005 if doctors say patients need it, even if it has not yet been approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

The Conservatives want to reform drug pricing if they win the election, with drug companies paid according to the benefits of a drug rather than block contracts.

Mr Cameron announced the plans during a visit to cancer sufferers in Witney, his Oxfordshire constituency.

'We have a problem in Britain that other European countries are doing better than us at giving people longer, happier lives with cancer than we are,' he said.
'So we want to get more drugs to people more quickly and in the UK today there are some people, thousands of people, who want a certain cancer drug whose doctors tell them they should have a certain cancer drug who don't get it.

'So we are saying because we are not going ahead with this National Insurance increase, that will save the NHS money and we are going to put that money into a cancer drugs fund. So these thousands of people who want a drug whose doctors would like them to have a drug can get that drug.'

It came after it emerged thousands of cancer patients face an early death because NICE has rejected or only partially endorsed 15 new drugs.

The watchdog totally blocked a quarter of the cancer drugs made available since 2008 and heavily restricted others - despite Government promises to make more treatments available.

Medicines rejected include bowel cancer drug Avastin and Nexavar - the only treatment offering any chance of survival for patients with advanced liver cancer.

A fine pledge, from Mr Cameron.

However ... NHS rationing hasn't been easily curbed. If at all .....

http://www.activequote.com/news/NHS-trusts-experiencing-medication-shortages-for-life-threatening-diseases.aspx


NHS trusts in England and Wales are experiencing a shortage of life saving drugs for cancer, Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia and organ failure.

Huw Irranca-Davies, the Labour MP for Ogmore, submitted Freedom of Information Requests to 60 primary care trusts and health authorities across the country.

He found that up to 70 common drugs are unavailable in some areas, with patients facing delays of up to 6 months. He said: “We are talking about drugs for life-threatening illnesses, like cancer, coronary care, and diabetes.”

“My message to the Government is they need to stop taking a back seat on this issue. If nothing is done, it will get much worse.”

In Cornwall, patients had to be given specialist advice after pharmacies ran out of a drug for Parkinson’s disease. In Devon, a shortage of drugs for stroke patients led pharmacists to warn that “the consequences could be further hospital admissions or even fatalities”.

If you want to read a VERY long post of mine, challenge me to provide evidence on NHS healthcare rationing !!!

[jimnyc]

http://www.rif.org/

Check out the link, follow instructions, and re-read the link

Please just ignore him if you don't want to reply in a manner related to the thread.

[ConHog]

We are talking about MURDER CH. Murder due to a lack of money by government run hospitals

RSR , since you won't stipulate

1 out of 3 nursing homes across the country have been cited for nursing home abuse and other related infractions.
· 11% of nursing homes have been cited for unnecessary dispensing of prescription drugs.
· 1/4 of the aides prosecuted for abusing patients have previous criminal records and 5% of nursing home aides across the nation have criminal records.
· There are over 42,000 nursing home beds in North Carolina and an estimated 37,000 nursing home residents in North Carolina.
· 32 % of North Carolinians over 80 are nursing home residents.
· 1 to 2 million Americans over 65 have been abused, neglected or mistreated by their primary caregiver.
· 1 in 10 people over 65 will spend some of their lives in a adult care facility or nursing home.
· An estimated 50% of nursing home patients suffer from untreated pain.
· In 1999, 5,000 death certificates of nursing home patients listed dehydration, malnutrition, starvation, or bedsores as the cause of death.
· CNN reports that just over 90% of nursing home facilities are understaffed. These staff shortages lead to increased instances of health problems, neglect, and abuse.
· Only 16% of elder abuse cases are ever reported, according to the National Elder Abuse Incident Study.
· 20% of reported elder abuse cases involve emotional abuse.
· 16% involve physical abuse.
· 3% involve sexual abuse.
· 12% involve caretaker neglect.


http://www.brentadams.com/library/nursing-home-abuse-statistics-elder-care-neglect-stats.cfm


or do you dispute my source to?

[red states rule]

RSR , since you won't stipulate

1 out of 3 nursing homes across the country have been cited for nursing home abuse and other related infractions.
· 11% of nursing homes have been cited for unnecessary dispensing of prescription drugs.
· 1/4 of the aides prosecuted for abusing patients have previous criminal records and 5% of nursing home aides across the nation have criminal records.
· There are over 42,000 nursing home beds in North Carolina and an estimated 37,000 nursing home residents in North Carolina.
· 32 % of North Carolinians over 80 are nursing home residents.
· 1 to 2 million Americans over 65 have been abused, neglected or mistreated by their primary caregiver.
· 1 in 10 people over 65 will spend some of their lives in a adult care facility or nursing home.
· An estimated 50% of nursing home patients suffer from untreated pain.
· In 1999, 5,000 death certificates of nursing home patients listed dehydration, malnutrition, starvation, or bedsores as the cause of death.
· CNN reports that just over 90% of nursing home facilities are understaffed. These staff shortages lead to increased instances of health problems, neglect, and abuse.
· Only 16% of elder abuse cases are ever reported, according to the National Elder Abuse Incident Study.
· 20% of reported elder abuse cases involve emotional abuse.
· 16% involve physical abuse.
· 3% involve sexual abuse.
· 12% involve caretaker neglect.


http://www.brentadams.com/library/nursing-home-abuse-statistics-elder-care-neglect-stats.cfm


or do you dispute my source to?


What does this have to due with the Brits murdering old patients due to lack of hosital beds and taxpayer money?

Hey, if you don't get that is your problem

I only hope none of your family gets caught up in Obamacare and is on the receiving end of rationed healthcare

[Abbey Marie]

How many of these so-called "private" facilities do not receive Medicare or Medicaid funds? I don't know, but one could argue that to take such payments makes them quasi-governmental.

[ConHog]

What does this have to due with the Brits murdering old patients due to lack of hosital beds and taxpayer money?

Hey, if you don't get that is your problem

I only hope none of your family gets caught up in Obamacare and is on the receiving end of rationed healthcare

What it has to do is it proves that you can't directly correlate patient abuse and/or deaths to government ran health care.

You seriously won't even concede that small a point when I have so obviously shown you're wrong? Sad.

[OCA]

http://www.rif.org/

Check out the link, follow instructions, and re-read the link

Here I can post opinion pieces too:http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-5260808.html

[ConHog]

How many of these so-called "private" facilities do not receive Medicare or Medicaid funds? I don't know, but one could argue that to take such payments makes them quasi-governmental.

I don't know the answer to that Abbey, but there is noway anyone could possibly believe that such abuses only occur at nursing homes which are government ran or that accept government funding. It just defies logic.

[red states rule]

What it has to do is it proves that you can't directly correlate patient abuse and/or deaths to government ran health care.

You seriously won't even concede that small a point when I have so obviously shown you're wrong? Sad.

You have not shown me wrong CH. A poster form the UK posted more links and you still do n ot want to get it

Europe is broke and doing down the toilet and we now have Obamaccare which WILL lead to rationed care if it is not repealed

I also remember well how libs said how great the UK's health care system was

Seems they do not like to talk much about how "great" it is these days since they are going broke

[red states rule]

I don't know the answer to that Abbey, but there is noway anyone could possibly believe that such abuses only occur at nursing homes which are government ran or that accept government funding. It just defies logic.

It defies logic when some people try to change the subject and compare apples to oranges

[ConHog]

You have not shown me wrong CH. A poster form the UK posted more links and you still do n ot want to get it

Europe is broke and doing down the toilet and we now have Obamaccare which WILL lead to rationed care if it is not repealed

I also remember well how libs said how great the UK's health care system was

Seems they do not like to talk much about how "great" it is these days since they are going broke

I have not said anything about finances RSR. I am ONLY addressing your claims that socialized medicine is the absolute reason so many patients are abused or "murdered" and I have 100% shown you wrong on that one. The fact is you have no earthly idea why assholes abuse patients.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know the answer to that Abbey, but there is noway anyone could possibly believe that such abuses only occur at nursing homes which are government ran or that accept government funding. It just defies logic.

Of course crappy care is not the exclusive province of the government. Human nature being what it is, greedy, uncaring, and incompetent people are everywhere. I expect, though, that I will receive better treatment at a facility that must compete in the marketplace and depend on its reputation to turn a profit. Are VA Hospitals primarily examples of careful and thorough care, or shoddy care?
I have no direct experience with them; I've just heard negative stories.

[ConHog]

It defies logic when some people try to change the subject and compare apples to oranges

How did I change the subject? Is this



Could this actually happen in America? With Obamacare and the rationed healthcare that will follow if this tax bil is not repealed - the answer is YES

yuur post or not?

You VERY clearly laid the blame for abuse on socialized medicine. I very clearly proved that abuses happen everywhere.

[red states rule]

I have not said anything about finances RSR. I am ONLY addressing your claims that socialized medicine is the absolute reason so many patients are abused or "murdered" and I have 100% shown you wrong on that one. The fact is you have no earthly idea why assholes abuse patients.

Wow you are hopeless

I am talking about the UK hospital and how this is ANOTHER example of the results of government run healthcare

OK, I have had my fill with dealing your ignorance

Good night

[ConHog]

Of course crappy care is not the exclusive province of the government. Human nature being what it is, greedy, uncaring, and incompetent people are everywhere. I expect, though, that I will receive better treatment at a facility that must compete in the marketplace and depend on its reputation to turn a profit. Are VA Hospitals primarily examples of careful and thorough care, or shoddy care?
I have no direct experience with them; I've just heard negative stories.


RE: VA hospitals. It's a grab bag in my experience. For instance, the one in Fayetteville I wouldn't take my dog to, but the one in LR is the equal of the Children's Hospital in the same city (different patients of course)

But that brings back to RSR's claim that patients are abused and die because of socialized medicine. Patently false. As you admit.

[ConHog]

Wow you are hopeless

I am talking about the UK hospital and how this is ANOTHER example of the results of government run healthcare

OK, I have had my fill with dealing your ignorance

Good night

I humbly accept your capitulation.


Until the next time I bid thee adieu.

[Drummond]

Adding just one more link for now.

Anyone wanting more of the same, just post your request. When I return tomorrow, I don't doubt that I'll be able to oblige you ...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_e xtending_drug/


A CANCER patient denied a new drug by the NHS has reacted angrily after an official from the coalition Government told him steps are being taken to ensure better access to life-extending treatment.

Graeme Johnstone, 54, who has advanced kidney cancer, wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron to complain after his local primary care trust turned down his consultant’s application for a new cancer drug, Everolimus.

Mr Johnstone, from Middleton St George, near Darlington, has said that the present system for getting new drugs to patients who need them is totally inadequate and needed to be reformed.

Despite having a good track record in prolonging life and being widely available in Europe, NHS County Durham and Darlington turned down his request last month after guidance from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice).

Today, Nice will confirm it will not be recommending Everolimus on the NHS because it costs more than £20,000 a year per patient and does not represent good value for money in terms of the benefits it provided.

In the reply to Mr Johnstone, a Department of Health spokesman said the Government “has commited to reform the way the NHS pays for NHS medicines in the UK so that any cost-effective treatment can be made available through the NHS with drug providers paid according to the value of new treatments”.

The move to a “new valuebased approach” will take time, according to the letter, but the Department expects to be ready to implement this approach by the end of 2013.

In the meantime, the department will be taking steps to ensure patients have better access to drugs that can prolong or improve their lives.

Mr Johnstone, said: “A target of three years to change such a discredited system is totally unacceptable.

“Three months would be more realistic.”

Rose Woodward, of the James Whale Fund for Kidney Cancer, said patients would find this refusal to back Everolimus further proof that Nice is totally out of touch with NHS patients and the general public.

She said “I find it incomprehensible that Nice are fully aware that the mood of the Government and the general public is that terminally ill cancer patients should not be denied effective cancer treatment.”

[red states rule]

Adding just one more link for now.

Anyone wanting more of the same, just post your request. When I return tomorrow, I don't doubt that I'll be able to oblige you ...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_e xtending_drug/

Hey according to our resident "expert" - this has NOTHING to do with government run healthcare

But thanks for providing more proof for him to ignore

[ConHog]

Adding just one more link for now.

Anyone wanting more of the same, just post your request. When I return tomorrow, I don't doubt that I'll be able to oblige you ...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_e xtending_drug/

Google Search FDA Denies Access to drugs

About 8,590,000 results (0.27 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?q=fda%20denies%20drug%20to%20patient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np


It would appear that the USG is already taking part in deciding what drugs are available to patients.

[Abbey Marie]

RE: VA hospitals. It's a grab bag in my experience. For instance, the one in Fayetteville I wouldn't take my dog to, but the one in LR is the equal of the Children's Hospital in the same city (different patients of course)

But that brings back to RSR's claim that patients are abused and die because of socialized medicine. Patently false. As you admit.

No, I never "admitted" that. I said it was not their exclusive province. I also indicated that for-profit means better care than gov't.-run.

[ConHog]

No, I never "admitted" that. I said it was not their exclusive province. I also indicated that for-profit means better care than gov't.-run.

Correct you did, which is the same thing as admitting that RSR, or anyone else, can't make the claim that patients are abused in England, or anywhere else , OR "murdered" b/c of socialized medicine.

[red states rule]

No, I never "admitted" that. I said it was not their exclusive province. I also indicated that for-profit means better care than gov't.-run.


Amazing how he said you said that. Your post is in English yet it comes out different in CH's translation

The health care syatem, stinks in the UK yet some people refuse to acknowledge it

[Drummond]

Hey according to our resident "expert" - this has NOTHING to do with government run healthcare

But thanks for providing more proof for him to ignore

You're very welcome.

This is a particularly annoying subject for me, because in our domestic news we get a seemingly endless catalogue of stories of failures within the NHS to provide a standard of healthcare most would expect. Some of it is down to rationing, some down to sheer failure to work to provide minimal standards on a day-by-day basis.

The scandal of Stafford Hospital was an especially bad one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327766/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-scandal-left-1-200-dead-happen-again.html


One of the worst NHS hospital care scandals – in which up to 1,200 patients died – could happen again, campaigners warned yesterday.

As a full public inquiry opened into the appalling standards of care at the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, Julie Bailey said little had changed at the hospital and complaints were still being routinely ignored.

Mrs Bailey, whose mother was one of the hundreds who fell victim to a regime at Stafford Hospital that left patients ‘sobbing and humiliated’, said: ‘The hospital needs to close and reopen bit-by-bit until it’s fit for purpose.’

A secret inquiry held last year found between 400 and 1,200 patients died after suffering routine neglect by hospital staff between 2005 and 2009.

Staff put cost-cutting and Government targets before care, and patients were caused ‘unimaginable suffering’, it said in findings published in February. Mrs Bailey has since set up the Cure the NHS campaign group, which has been at the forefront of the campaign for a public inquiry.

Yesterday, Robert Francis QC, chairman of both inquiries, said what he wanted to know was, ‘Why did none of the many organisations charged with the supervision and regulation of our hospitals detect that something so serious was going on and why was nothing done about it?’

Our NHS was the first of its kind to ever be seen. Created in 1948 .. how come, after SIX decades and more, State-run healthcare, here, isn't proving itself to be 'something wonderful' .. IF it's such a 'marvellous' system ??

I cite our system as proof that State-managed healthcare is a fatally flawed concept.

[red states rule]

You're very welcome.

This is a particularly annoying subject for me, because in our domestic news we get a seemingly endless catalogue of stories of failures within the NHS to provide a standard of healthcare most would expect. Some of it is down to rationing, some down to sheer failure to work to provide minimal standards on a day-by-day basis.

The scandal of Stafford Hospital was an especially bad one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327766/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-scandal-left-1-200-dead-happen-again.html



Our NHS was the first of its kind to ever be seen. Created in 1948 .. how come, after SIX decades and more, State-run healthcare, here, isn't proving itself .. IF it's such a 'marvellous' system ??

I cite our system as proof that State-managed healthcare is a fatally flawed concept.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Drummond again.

[ConHog]

You're very welcome.

This is a particularly annoying subject for me, because in our domestic news we get a seemingly endless catalogue of stories of failures within the NHS to provide a standard of healthcare most would expect. Some of it is down to rationing, some down to sheer failure to work to provide minimal standards on a day-by-day basis.

The scandal of Stafford Hospital was an especially bad one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327766/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-scandal-left-1-200-dead-happen-again.html



Our NHS was the first of its kind to ever be seen. Created in 1948 .. how come, after SIX decades and more, State-run healthcare, here, isn't proving itself to be 'something wonderful' .. IF it's such a 'marvellous' system ??

I cite our system as proof that State-managed healthcare is a fatally flawed concept.

No one is saying otherwise. I merely contend that RSR's initial statement that patients are abused b/c of that system is wrong. I provided evidence of patients being abused in other systems to show that I am correct.

The system can be broken and not be the sole cause of abused patients.

[red states rule]

No one is saying otherwise. I merely contend that RSR's initial statement that patients are abused b/c of that system is wrong. I provided evidence of patients being abused in other systems to show that I am correct.

The system can be broken and not be the sole cause of abused patients.

Where the hell do your get your thoughts from CH? I never said that

Just like on the thread where I posted Bill Press hated the Start Spangled Banner you said I called him unpatriotic. I asked you to shw me wher I said that in the OP and you ran like wet cat

It is amazing watching a blowhard like you rattle off lie after lie as often as you take a breath

[jimnyc]

Where the hell do your get your thoughts from CH? I never said that

Just like on the thread where I posted Bill Press hated the Start Spangled Banner you said I called him unpatriotic. I asked you to shw me wher I said that in the OP and you ran like wet cat

It is amazing watching a blowhard like you rattle off lie after lie as often as you take a breath

Place CH on ignore if this is going to continue. The warnings are dwindling as thread bans are starting. Leave the personal crap for the cage.

[SassyLady]

But that brings back to RSR's claim that patients are abused and die because of socialized medicine. Patently false. As you admit.

I will admit that people die due to abuse in private medical facilities.

However, it is a fact that socialized medicine is also abusive to the point that denying treatment and medication, based on profits or whatever criteria they come up with, leads to death. I am not a big advocate of government agencies starving people to death as a way of euthanizing them.

I don't believe RSR stated that ONLY socialized medicine caused deaths, just that socialized medicine is definitely bottom line driven and will deny meds and care to those they believe are no longer worthy of treatment.

[SassyLady]

Adding just one more link for now.

Anyone wanting more of the same, just post your request. When I return tomorrow, I don't doubt that I'll be able to oblige you ...

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/nhsinjustice/8251183.Anger_as_Nice_denies_cancer_patient_life_e xtending_drug/

My sister has been battling cancer for over 9 years now and would not be alive without her Herceptin treatments (which is every week). She was told she would have to take this for the rest of her life ... imagine if a governmental panel decided that she had already outlived her usefulness because she's been on disability for the last nine years.

[ConHog]

I will admit that people die due to abuse in private medical facilities.

However, it is a fact that socialized medicine is also abusive to the point that denying treatment and medication, based on profits or whatever criteria they come up with, leads to death. I am not a big advocate of government agencies starving people to death as a way of euthanizing them.

I don't believe RSR stated that ONLY socialized medicine caused deaths, just that socialized medicine is definitely bottom line driven and will deny meds and care to those they believe are no longer worthy of treatment.

He accused socialized medicine of murdering people. Not true at all.

[SassyLady]

He accused socialized medicine of murdering people. Not true at all.

Not feeding them and giving them liquids is murdering them; it is starving them to death or dying from dehydration.

[ConHog]

Not feeding them and giving them liquids is murdering them; it is starving them to death or dying from dehydration.

Correct, and that shit happens here in the US to.

[Kathianne]

oh come on..............

and here's the spin towards justification:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/jun/26/bbc-john-simpson-euthanasia-pensioners?newsfeed=true

I've written quite a bit about my parents, my mom being sick for years. Both of them had made living wills, first giving each other power of attorney for medical in their 50's; later updated in their 60's to appoint my brother and I. They were explicit that if they lost their mental faculties, they wanted no extraordinary means taken and wanted a DNR when applicable.

They wanted pain meds if warranted, but that was it. No cutting off of sustenance. My mom didn't have her first stroke until near 70, but she was very fragile for the last 3 years of her life, she died at 81.

My father was in much better health, up until his last week of life. He golfed until he was 85, died at 87. Even in his last 6 months, most Wednesdays he went to lunch and movies with friends; Friday nights cards with friends. Summer of 2004 he, my brother, and I made the trek to DC to see the opening of the WWII Memorial, had a great time!


BBC's John Simpson: I'd rather take my own life than face illness in old age 'I don't want my son to have his main memories of me as a gibbering old freak,' says Simpson in pensioners documentary


Vicky Frost (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/vickyfrost)

The broadcaster John Simpson has spoken of his plans to take his own life should he be faced with serious illness in his later years, after participating in a documentary about the elderly in Britain.


"I'm not advocating [euthanasia] for anyone else. But just in my own case, I don't want my own six-year-old son to have his main memories of me as a gibbering, sad old freak," said Simpson, 67.


The BBC (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/bbc)'s world affairs editor was one of four celebrity pensioners who have examined the lives of older people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/older-people) in Britain as part of the When I'm 65 season (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/when-im-65.html), a series of programmes for prime-time BBC1 that broadcasts next week. "I'd rather take, in television terms, the early out, rather than to hang on purely for the sake of being alive and keeping on breathing and all the other functions," said Simpson.


For When I Get Older, the journalist joined Gloria Hunniford, 71, Tony Robinson, 65, and Lesley Joseph, 69, to live with elderly people in Britain dealing with the problems of isolation, poverty, grief and caring for an ill partner.


In the second episode of this unflinching look at old age, which will be broadcast on Wednesday and Thursday next week, the four move into a care home. "I don't think it's too over-dramatic to say that I think care homes, by and large, are prisons that people are sent to as a punishment for being old," said Robinson...

[SassyLady]

Correct, and that shit happens here in the US to.

Yes, it does. Do you want that compounded through US socialized medicine?

[Kathianne]

Correct, and that shit happens here in the US to.

Not without consent of family.

[ConHog]

Yes, it does. Do you want that compounded through US socialized medicine?

I dont advocate for socialized medicine sassy. In fact i oppose it. But i also oppose telling sensationalized lies for political points

[logroller]

You're very welcome.

This is a particularly annoying subject for me, because in our domestic news we get a seemingly endless catalogue of stories of failures within the NHS to provide a standard of healthcare most would expect. Some of it is down to rationing, some down to sheer failure to work to provide minimal standards on a day-by-day basis.

The scandal of Stafford Hospital was an especially bad one ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327766/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-scandal-left-1-200-dead-happen-again.html



Our NHS was the first of its kind to ever be seen. Created in 1948 .. how come, after SIX decades and more, State-run healthcare, here, isn't proving itself to be 'something wonderful' .. IF it's such a 'marvellous' system ??

I cite our system as proof that State-managed healthcare is a fatally flawed concept.
Financially, healthcare has problems. But show many any healthcare provider of last resort that doesn't suck. I've said it before, and I'll say it again--Look at the Swiss system. All private with mandatory insurance participation. It works there and it could work in the US.

Re: something wonderful--

By the way, most of the British are content with their health system. According to a survey in November 2005 from the CWF (Commonwealth Fund), lead by the german institute for quality and efficiency in the health system, only 13% of the people thought, that the System needed dramatic changes.http://www.ess-europe.de/en/uk_health_insurance.htm

Hmm. I wonder what the US disapproval is for US healthcare, even withstanding PPACA-- I'll bet it's higher than 13%. Anybody wanna check?

[Kathianne]

Financially, healthcare has problems. But show many any healthcare provider of last resort that doesn't suck. I've said it before, and I'll say it again--Look at the Swiss system. All private with mandatory insurance participation. It works there and it could work in the US.

Re: something wonderful--
http://www.ess-europe.de/en/uk_health_insurance.htm

Hmm. I wonder what the US disapproval is for US healthcare, even withstanding PPACA-- I'll bet it's higher than 13%. Anybody wanna check?

The US isn't Switzerland:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_swiss_health_care_model_wo.html

Might want to peruse.

[Nell's Room]

Can someone tell me what the point is of spending money on someone who will die soon anyway? If someone will die very soon because they are terminally ill, why waste taxpayers money on treating them, when that treatment is pointless?
Its sad, but there should come a point where treatment is withdrawn for those people who have only a few days of life left - the taxpayer shouldn't have to waste their money on people who will never survive.

[logroller]

The US isn't Switzerland:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_swiss_health_care_model_wo.html

Might want to peruse.
America isn't Switzerland?
Hmm, wells let's compare.


By spreading the wealth around I guess it works out for the Swiss. For those who prefer a better health care plan the premiums are rather "hefty," amounting to $13,600 in U.S. dollars for a family of four. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_swiss_health_care_model_wo.html

Ok, so that's for the "better" package. (I notice it makes no mention of the average, median or general package cost) I wonder what the US is like....gotta be less 'hefty'


The median annual insurance premium cost for a single employee, for example, was $5,052, and $13,140 for families, according to the 2011 Ohio Family Health Survey. http://mobile.cleveland.com/advcleve/pm_29204/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=TbASF3y3
I'm not one to scoff at $500; but what's that, less than five percent difference? Not exactly apples and cornicopias of assorted fruit.


Fundamentally, no federal health care system will work in the United States because of our unique constitutional system and complex collection of partially-sovereign states. Notably, the federal government has no jurisdiction to force citizens to purchase insurance by threat of penalty. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_swiss_health_care_model_wo.html

Right, it's not a "penalty," it's a "tax";);)


In Switzerland, many elderly citizens must sink or swim on government subsidies. There is no separate system of "Medicare" for the elderly in the land of the Alps.ibid.
So the elderly in "the good ol U S of A" are lucky they have States which provide insurance (Medicaid) funded partially by the federal government, instead of the government giving them a subsidy and a choice. Because old people can't make those decisions on their own; they need a public option or they'd, in all likelihood, "sink".:rolleyes:

Now maybe here's a difference between America and "homogeneous" Europe; see I think Americans, for the most part, are capable of making their insurance choices and don't need their employers or governments making that decision for them...perhaps I'm wrong. But I take issue with railroading attempts about a one size fits all model exemplifying the Swiss system, because it's arguably as bureaucratic as the American system. Sure price controls and such seem unfair; but I once paid $48 to get an injection, the drug itself cost a mere $7. That's obscene; of course, had they told me that, I wouldn't have had it done. I now ask, 'what does this cost' and they say, "don't you have insurance?" and that is the problem; insurance is seen as the magical payer with unlimited funds. These docs crank up their prices knowing insurance will barter them down and stick me with the remainder; but when I ask how much, they have no idea. So yeah, set a price rate for service; atleast then I'll know what it costs even if the doctor doesn't.

[logroller]

Can someone tell me what the point is of spending money on someone who will die soon anyway? If someone will die very soon because they are terminally ill, why waste taxpayers money on treating them, when that treatment is pointless?
Its sad, but there should come a point where treatment is withdrawn for those people who have only a few days of life left - the taxpayer shouldn't have to waste their money on people who will never survive.

Have you considered being a patients' rights advocate? Don't.:laugh2:

[taft2012]

I dont advocate for socialized medicine sassy. In fact i oppose it. But i also oppose telling sensationalized lies for political points

I recall Obama's cold-blooded town hall meeting about Obamacare. One questioner described his elderly mother's joy of life, and if she needed a heart operation would it be available.

Obama didn't say "yes".... he said something to the effect, "it might be better to just give her an aspirin."

The warning label was there all along for the American people. They bit, now we're hooked.

[taft2012]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/30/thairshaikh.uknews41


Woman, 108, must wait 18 months for hearing aid

The Guardian, Sunday 29 July 2007

A 108-year-old woman has been told she must wait at least 18 months before she receives a new hearing aid.

Olive Beal, who has failing eyesight and uses a wheelchair, finds it difficult to hear with her five-year-old analogue aid and needs a digital version that cuts out background noise and makes conversation easier.

Mrs Beal, a former piano teacher who was involved in the suffragette movement, would be 110 by the time she gets her new hearing aid. "I could be dead by then," she said yesterday.

Her family said they had been shocked to be told there was an 18-month waiting list by the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust. A digital hearing aid costs about £1,000 on the open market.

Maria Scott, 52, her granddaughter, said: "After having a hearing test on Wednesday they said, 'yes, she does need a digital hearing aid, but there is an 18-month waiting list'.

"I would have thought they would take her age into account as she probably has not got 18 months to wait.

"Olive has worked hard from the age of 16 to her late 60s and paid taxes. She has been healthy all her life and lived with her daughter until 15 years ago - she has never sponged off the state. I thought a 108-year-old deserved to be treated better than this."

Born in 1899, Mrs Beal grew up in Paddington, west London, and went to school with Christabel Pankhurst, daughter of suffragette leader Emily, and helped at suffragette demonstrations.

She had four children, two boys and two girls, but only her eldest son is still alive. He is in his 80s and lives in Dover. Her husband died in 1962.

A spokesman for the Royal National Institute for the Deaf said: "I am afraid this is a common problem. In some parts of the country there are over two year waiting lists, which is shocking."

A spokesman for Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust said: "We are reducing waiting times. The priority is given to patients who do not have an existing hearing aid, but we accept our service needs improving."

[logroller]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/30/thairshaikh.uknews41


Woman, 108, must wait 18 months for hearing aid

The Guardian, Sunday 29 July 2007

A 108-year-old woman has been told she must wait at least 18 months before she receives a new hearing aid.

Olive Beal, who has failing eyesight and uses a wheelchair, finds it difficult to hear with her five-year-old analogue aid and needs a digital version that cuts out background noise and makes conversation easier.

Mrs Beal, a former piano teacher who was involved in the suffragette movement, would be 110 by the time she gets her new hearing aid. "I could be dead by then," she said yesterday.

Her family said they had been shocked to be told there was an 18-month waiting list by the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust. A digital hearing aid costs about £1,000 on the open market.

Maria Scott, 52, her granddaughter, said: "After having a hearing test on Wednesday they said, 'yes, she does need a digital hearing aid, but there is an 18-month waiting list'.

"I would have thought they would take her age into account as she probably has not got 18 months to wait.

"Olive has worked hard from the age of 16 to her late 60s and paid taxes. She has been healthy all her life and lived with her daughter until 15 years ago - she has never sponged off the state. I thought a 108-year-old deserved to be treated better than this."

Born in 1899, Mrs Beal grew up in Paddington, west London, and went to school with Christabel Pankhurst, daughter of suffragette leader Emily, and helped at suffragette demonstrations.

She had four children, two boys and two girls, but only her eldest son is still alive. He is in his 80s and lives in Dover. Her husband died in 1962.

A spokesman for the Royal National Institute for the Deaf said: "I am afraid this is a common problem. In some parts of the country there are over two year waiting lists, which is shocking."

A spokesman for Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust said: "We are reducing waiting times. The priority is given to patients who do not have an existing hearing aid, but we accept our service needs improving."

Here's a pair for £875.00 including the hearing test, custom fitting and programming. All said and done in 7 days in Cleckheaton. Plus, 60 day, no questions asked full refund. Phonak Milo Plus Hearing Aids x2 Custom Fitted, Expert ... (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Phonak-Milo-Plus-Hearing-Aids-x2-Custom-Fitted-Expert-Counselling-Programming-/180912867497?pt=UK_Health_Beauty_Mobility_Disabili ty_Medical_ET&hash=item2a1f3f48a9)

[Drummond]

I will admit that people die due to abuse in private medical facilities.

However, it is a fact that socialized medicine is also abusive to the point that denying treatment and medication, based on profits or whatever criteria they come up with, leads to death. I am not a big advocate of government agencies starving people to death as a way of euthanizing them.

I don't believe RSR stated that ONLY socialized medicine caused deaths, just that socialized medicine is definitely bottom line driven and will deny meds and care to those they believe are no longer worthy of treatment.

.... and that's exactly what the UK experience has been. They either argue that the benefit of a treatment they want to prohibit is too small for it to be 'cost effective', or that it's just too costly to introduce.

[Drummond]

My sister has been battling cancer for over 9 years now and would not be alive without her Herceptin treatments (which is every week). She was told she would have to take this for the rest of her life ... imagine if a governmental panel decided that she had already outlived her usefulness because she's been on disability for the last nine years.

Oh, they'd find a very 'nice' way of putting it. But don't imagine it couldn't happen.

The British experience should show what abuses are truly possible.

[Drummond]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/30/thairshaikh.uknews41


Woman, 108, must wait 18 months for hearing aid

The Guardian, Sunday 29 July 2007

A 108-year-old woman has been told she must wait at least 18 months before she receives a new hearing aid.

Olive Beal, who has failing eyesight and uses a wheelchair, finds it difficult to hear with her five-year-old analogue aid and needs a digital version that cuts out background noise and makes conversation easier.

Mrs Beal, a former piano teacher who was involved in the suffragette movement, would be 110 by the time she gets her new hearing aid. "I could be dead by then," she said yesterday.

Her family said they had been shocked to be told there was an 18-month waiting list by the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust. A digital hearing aid costs about £1,000 on the open market.

Maria Scott, 52, her granddaughter, said: "After having a hearing test on Wednesday they said, 'yes, she does need a digital hearing aid, but there is an 18-month waiting list'.

"I would have thought they would take her age into account as she probably has not got 18 months to wait.

"Olive has worked hard from the age of 16 to her late 60s and paid taxes. She has been healthy all her life and lived with her daughter until 15 years ago - she has never sponged off the state. I thought a 108-year-old deserved to be treated better than this."

Born in 1899, Mrs Beal grew up in Paddington, west London, and went to school with Christabel Pankhurst, daughter of suffragette leader Emily, and helped at suffragette demonstrations.

She had four children, two boys and two girls, but only her eldest son is still alive. He is in his 80s and lives in Dover. Her husband died in 1962.

A spokesman for the Royal National Institute for the Deaf said: "I am afraid this is a common problem. In some parts of the country there are over two year waiting lists, which is shocking."

A spokesman for Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust said: "We are reducing waiting times. The priority is given to patients who do not have an existing hearing aid, but we accept our service needs improving."

.... and this is courtesy of one of our LEFT WING newspapers ...

This sort of issue isn't life and death, so would be prioritised down the list.

[Drummond]

I recall Obama's cold-blooded town hall meeting about Obamacare. One questioner described his elderly mother's joy of life, and if she needed a heart operation would it be available.

Obama didn't say "yes".... he said something to the effect, "it might be better to just give her an aspirin."

The warning label was there all along for the American people. They bit, now we're hooked.

I wonder just how unwieldy the American version of 'Obama' healthcare will become, once it's built upon. The UK version has been around for over six decades, and is only meant to cover a population about 20 percent the size of yours. Yet, our NHS is a massive tax burden, and still produces disastrous failings.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...gs-on-NHS.html






Up to 2,000 women with a specific form of breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body should not be treated with two drugs, Tyverb and Herceptin, because they are too expensive, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) said.

Although the drugs have been shown to reduce the growth of tumours, Nice experts ruled the benefit was too small to justify the additional £50,000 per patient per year cost.

It is not certain how much longer women would live if they were given the drugs compared to standard treatment, the rationing body said.

Would irt be accurate to refer to this group of "Nice experts" (or "rationing body") as a Death Panel?

The kind that liberals keep assuring us doesn't exist?

If that's not a Death Panel, what is?

[Drummond]

Can someone tell me what the point is of spending money on someone who will die soon anyway? If someone will die very soon because they are terminally ill, why waste taxpayers money on treating them, when that treatment is pointless?
Its sad, but there should come a point where treatment is withdrawn for those people who have only a few days of life left - the taxpayer shouldn't have to waste their money on people who will never survive.

You clearly have a future in the UK as one of our NHS's top executives !! Apply now, before the next scandal hits us !! :death: :death:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wonder just how unwieldy the American version of 'Obama' healthcare will become, once it's built upon. The UK version has been around for over six decades, and is only meant to cover a population about 20 percent the size of yours. Yet, our NHS is a massive tax burden, and still produces disastrous failings.

My guess is that it will make the UK version look like a walk in the park. And all the right dem political supporters will make tens of millions as payback for campaign donations to the dem party! Socialism and corruption go hand in hand. -Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

My guess is that it will make the UK version look like a walk in the park. And all the right dem political supporters will make tens of millions as payback for campaign donations to the dem party! Socialism and corruption go hand in hand. -Tyr

A formula which has worked well for the public unions for decades...

[Drummond]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...gs-on-NHS.html






Would irt be accurate to refer to this group of "Nice experts" (or "rationing body") as a Death Panel?

The kind that liberals keep assuring us doesn't exist?

If that's not a Death Panel, what is?

I agree. The label fits.

If that was tried in the UK, though, there'd be howls of protest about it. Especially from the Left ... of course ...

And as ridiculous as this is, most Brits are still in favour of our NHS as it currently is. Most of our people, you see, have no experience of anything else.

'NICE' (or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, as it has the gall to call itself) isn't the only problem, though, that's just a relatively 'small' part of it. The NHS has long been weighed down by bureaucracy .. but also by an apparent sheer inability to do its job generally.

See (this from a LEFTIE newspaper ..) ..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/28/quarter-health-care-providers-failing


More than one in four health and social care providers in England are failing to meet essential standards of quality and safety, the health watchdog has found.

The Care Quality Commission said it had to take action to improve standards in 27% of locations it inspected.

The CQC report, which is based on findings from unannounced inspections of 14,000 health and social care providers in England, said it had to instruct 3,687 organisations to improve services. In extreme cases, services had to be shut down, while others were given improvement plans.

It said 77% of NHS services were providing the essential standards, compared with 72% locations in adult social care and 82% in independent healthcare.

The CQC said the key problems were the mismanagement of medicines, staffing numbers and record-keeping. Almost two in five locations failed to meet the essential standard of medicine management.

"Our inspectors are seeing a worrying number of examples where safe management of medicines is being compromised, often by a lack of information given either to those taking the medicines, or those caring for them," the authors of the report said.

One in 10 organisations failed to meet the appropriate staffing levels and 15% of locations had poor record-keeping.

[Nell's Room]

You clearly have a future in the UK as one of our NHS's top executives !! Apply now, before the next scandal hits us !! :death: :death:

I'm just saying...its okay if youor the family can afford your treatment, but if you can't...why keep someone on life support for months when they will never wake up? Reminds me of the Terri Schivio case...she was never going to recover, yet how much time was waste on her, when that bed and treatment could have been given to someone who would have lived?

[Nell's Room]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/30/thairshaikh.uknews41


Woman, 108, must wait 18 months for hearing aid

The Guardian, Sunday 29 July 2007

A 108-year-old woman has been told she must wait at least 18 months before she receives a new hearing aid.

Olive Beal, who has failing eyesight and uses a wheelchair, finds it difficult to hear with her five-year-old analogue aid and needs a digital version that cuts out background noise and makes conversation easier.

Mrs Beal, a former piano teacher who was involved in the suffragette movement, would be 110 by the time she gets her new hearing aid. "I could be dead by then," she said yesterday.

Her family said they had been shocked to be told there was an 18-month waiting list by the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust. A digital hearing aid costs about £1,000 on the open market.

Maria Scott, 52, her granddaughter, said: "After having a hearing test on Wednesday they said, 'yes, she does need a digital hearing aid, but there is an 18-month waiting list'.

"I would have thought they would take her age into account as she probably has not got 18 months to wait.

"Olive has worked hard from the age of 16 to her late 60s and paid taxes. She has been healthy all her life and lived with her daughter until 15 years ago - she has never sponged off the state. I thought a 108-year-old deserved to be treated better than this."

Born in 1899, Mrs Beal grew up in Paddington, west London, and went to school with Christabel Pankhurst, daughter of suffragette leader Emily, and helped at suffragette demonstrations.

She had four children, two boys and two girls, but only her eldest son is still alive. He is in his 80s and lives in Dover. Her husband died in 1962.

A spokesman for the Royal National Institute for the Deaf said: "I am afraid this is a common problem. In some parts of the country there are over two year waiting lists, which is shocking."

A spokesman for Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust said: "We are reducing waiting times. The priority is given to patients who do not have an existing hearing aid, but we accept our service needs improving."

Its a hearing aid, not a matter of life or death. Her case is hardly urgent, which is why she has to wait. Sounds fair to me.

[red states rule]

I'm just saying...its okay if youor the family can afford your treatment, but if you can't...why keep someone on life support for months when they will never wake up? Reminds me of the Terri Schivio case...she was never going to recover, yet how much time was waste on her, when that bed and treatment could have been given to someone who would have lived?

Germany did the same thing back in the 30's. You prove the statement that thiose who fail to learn form history are doomed to repeat it





At the beginning of World War II the Nazi regime began killing individuals with physical disabilities, people who were mentally retarded, and the terminally ill. The killings were called ‘euthanasia’, i.e. ‘mercy killings’.

According to the Nazi policy of racial hygiene, people with physical and mental disabilities were “useless” in German society, and they were a threat against the Aryan purity. They were deemed unworthy to live.

The so-called Euthanasia Programme (‘Operation T4’) cost approximately 270,000 people their life.



http://www.holocaust-education.dk/images/billeder/76511.jpg


http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp

[Nell's Room]

I don't have an issue with mercy killings. I think they are compassionate.

[red states rule]

I don't have an issue with mercy killings. I think they are compassionate.

I was referring to your post that you think treating people with a terminal illness is a waste of time and money

The Nazi's did as well

Maybe you could be put in charge of a city here in the US and under Obamacare you could round up those who are a drain on the State and send them off to the Mercy Killing Processing Center

[SassyLady]

I don't have an issue with mercy killings. I think they are compassionate.

So, who gets to sit on the Death Panel in your scenario? Doctors, lawyers, family members, bureaucrats of the government, or an employee of the insurance company?

[red states rule]

So, who gets to sit on the Death Panel in your scenario? Doctors, lawyers, family members, bureaucrats of the government, or an employee of the insurance company?

Only left leaning elitists need apply SL

[Drummond]

Its a hearing aid, not a matter of life or death. Her case is hardly urgent, which is why she has to wait. Sounds fair to me.

The POINT is that the NHS is a 'service' that's been around for over SIXTY years. If it's such a 'wonderful' system, how come waits such as this are so commonplace ?

What worries me about your posts is that, by not clearly challenging that lack of satisfactory service, you're indicating an acceptance of it. And it's that acceptance amongst others which helps guarantee that there will be no improvement.

The State feeds on complacency, and the dependency culture it manufactures.

That all said ... since the whole NHS principle is a deeply flawed one, it would probably cost literally billions of pounds sterling to see any appreciable improvement. Not exactly likely, in these days of austerity economics.

You really should apply for any top NHS executive posts that become available ! What they really need is people who'll happily administer the current status quo, not 'naughty' types who might have it in mind to institute improvements !

[Drummond]

I don't have an issue with mercy killings. I think they are compassionate.

Who gets to decide who lives, and who dies ? And would the criteria shift according to expedience ?

Note the point already made about what the Nazis got up to.

Leave such power in the hands of the all-powerful State, and that power is ripe for abuse.

Care to make a comment on this following issue .. ?

Currently, if the British NHS wants to use a deceased person's organs for transplant, that person must have 'opted in' to the facility to give permission for that to occur. People content to have their bodies harvested for transplants, carry a donor card which proves that permission exists.

Well .. the Welsh Assembly, acting for Wales, is trying hard to take powers to itself to reverse that principle. By 2015, the intention is to have a system in place where the State can harvest what organs it chooses from the newly deceased, UNLESS a person has specifically REFUSED such consent. See ...

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/news/20927


First system of its kind in the UK could be in place by 2015
The detail of how a soft opt-out system for deceased organ and tissue donation in Wales would work was outlined by the Welsh Government today.

Wales will be the first UK country to introduce such a system, designed to increase the number of organ and tissue donors, if legislation is approved. Currently, people have to opt to join the NHS organ donor register if they want to donate their organs and tissues after their death.

A soft opt-out system for Wales means unless an individual makes an objection their organs and tissues will be available for donation after their death. After death relatives will be involved in the decision making process around donation.

Say that a person newly deceased has no living relatives (or anyone who can be readily traced and contacted). Say, also, that the person had strong objections to donating organs (religious, personal) but had forgotten to 'officially opt out', or just hadn't got around to it. Or that, thanks to a records-mixup, record of objection had been misfiled or mislaid. Like a pack of scavengers, the almighty State would treat that person's body as raw material for its own needs, trampling on that person's 'rights' (.. on the principle that the person NO LONGER HAD THOSE RIGHTS !).

Who, here, would like to see their Government take such powers to itself ?

[Gaffer]

Who gets to decide who lives, and who dies ? And would the criteria shift according to expedience ?

Note the point already made about what the Nazis got up to.

Leave such power in the hands of the all-powerful State, and that power is ripe for abuse.

Care to make a comment on this following issue .. ?

Currently, if the British NHS wants to use a deceased person's organs for transplant, that person must have 'opted in' to the facility to give permission for that to occur. People content to have their bodies harvested for transplants, carry a donor card which proves that permission exists.

Well .. the Welsh Assembly, acting for Wales, is trying hard to take powers to itself to reverse that principle. By 2015, the intention is to have a system in place where the State can harvest what organs it chooses from the newly deceased, UNLESS a person has specifically REFUSED such consent. See ...

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/news/20927



Say that a person newly deceased has no living relatives (or anyone who can be readily traced and contacted). Say, also, that the person had strong objections to donating organs (religious, personal) but had forgotten to 'officially opt out', or just hadn't got around to it. Or that, thanks to a records-mixup, record of objection had been misfiled or mislaid. Like a pack of scavengers, the almighty State would treat that person's body as raw material for its own needs, trampling on that person's 'rights' (.. on the principle that the person NO LONGER HAD THOSE RIGHTS !).

Who, here, would like to see their Government take such powers to itself ?

I would be even more concerned with the govt hurrying along the deaths in order to harvest the body parts.

[Nell's Room]

So, who gets to sit on the Death Panel in your scenario? Doctors, lawyers, family members, bureaucrats of the government, or an employee of the insurance company?

Doctors, first and foremost as they are treating the patient and would know if they would survive. Family also, but some families have religious beliefs they want to force onto their relatives. If the doctors agree there is no chance for survival, then pull the plug. As I said, it is a waste of money keeping someone alive on a machine when that person is brain dead anyway.


Who gets to decide who lives, and who dies

America has the death penalty. American juries decide the fate of people every day. How is my view any different?

[SassyLady]

Doctors, first and foremost as they are treating the patient and would know if they would survive. Family also, but some families have religious beliefs they want to force onto their relatives. If the doctors agree there is no chance for survival, then pull the plug. As I said, it is a waste of money keeping someone alive on a machine when that person is brain dead anyway.



America has the death penalty. American juries decide the fate of people every day. How is my view any different?

Well, I can think of a huge difference - the jury isn't deciding to end the life due to monetary considerations. Can you not see the difference between voting to end a life because the perpetrator took a life, rather than ending a life because "it's financial more feasible"?

[red state]

I've tried to read all the posts BUT I may have missed one somewhere down the line. So, has anyone brought up the name Terri Schiavo? This is a very good point as her case was very controversial. For one, she was ANYTHING but brain dead and communicated quite well except for her limited condition. She was given the death penalty from her husband although she was very innocent and it sickens me to think about her case or some liberal comparing a CONVICTED criminal to one who is suffering in a hospital!!! Yet, that is an argument that I hear from liberals all the time. In fact, and to no surprise, they are the same liberals who condone abortion yet try to save the worst among our society. In going a bit further, liberals are the very same group of people who preach that their bodies are their own and should have the right to abortion YET they would force so-called health insurance on ALL of us. THEY are full of double standards...if they have any at all.

Now, getting back on topic a bit more and without straying too far on the looping end of things by the last comment comparing the death penalty to the sick & dying; The difference in Gov. health care is that SOMEONE ELSE decides what is a "lost cause"...not the family. YES, there are terrible hospitals and retirement homes with poor service but there are also good ones and to compare a few establishments that are negligent to an over all bureaucratic mandate that takes it upon itself (with purpose) to determine whether this person takes too much TAX money or not to treat is absurd. I don't think I need to go any further with this because the sensible will understand perfectly what I am talking about while the insane, indifferent or mentally/morally challenged will never get it. It is a loss of freedom and I'll have nothing to do with it (if I can help it). We absolutely MUST get this occupier out of OUR White House and make for certain that we get a conservative or mildly conservative at the helm cuz we have three to four VERY old Justices and we'll need to make sure we keep someone on our side for the next 8 years (whether that is Mittens or not). You folks across the big pond can keep your big brother who tells you whether your worth the trouble or not....I prefer to make my own decisions, thank you very much! I plan to keep my guns, speak out against tyranny and spend as much or little as I want or can. I don't know of anyone going anywhere but the good ole USA for REAL, quality treatment so we've been doing something <RIGHT>. So, stuff you inferior health care and those US Citizens who like Europe so much....take a hike and a swim! We don't need you. We didn't need you when WE THE PEOPLE established this great Nation and we don't need you now. Heck, if it had been left up to the liberals, we'd still be speaking King George English right now....or German!!!

[red state]

Well, I can think of a huge difference - the jury isn't deciding to end the life due to monetary considerations. Can you not see the difference between voting to end a life because the perpetrator took a life, rather than ending a life because "it's financial more feasible"?


Good one SassyLegs...you beat me to it!!!! The answer is NO....they simply can't see, don't wanna see and prefer to be lemmings. Yep, we'd definitely be speaking King George English or German had it all been left up to liberals.

[red states rule]

Doctors, first and foremost as they are treating the patient and would know if they would survive. Family also, but some families have religious beliefs they want to force onto their relatives. If the doctors agree there is no chance for survival, then pull the plug. As I said, it is a waste of money keeping someone alive on a machine when that person is brain dead anyway.



America has the death penalty. American juries decide the fate of people every day. How is my view any different?


So you compare the sick to the guility now? You are getting desperate

You would be perfect to work for the Obama administration Nell. You go work in a health care facility and anyone you deem no longer worthy of life saving treatment you could put a large star on their chart indicating they are to die. The Feds could reward you for your service by paying you a percentage of the savings you saved the State. You would make money, serve the State, and have fun - all at the same time

As far as the death penalty, thanks to bleeding heart liberals many states no longer have the death penalty and those states that still have it, the CRIMINAL ends up doping life on Death Row

and the taxpayer foots the bill

[logroller]

Its a hearing aid, not a matter of life or death. Her case is hardly urgent, which is why she has to wait. Sounds fair to me.
That's cruel irony.

[red states rule]

http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ObamaCare.jpg

[Drummond]

America has the death penalty. American juries decide the fate of people every day. How is my view any different?

I don't really need to answer you, because other answers here have already done a good job of responding to you.

But let me put it as simply as I can. America has the death penalty, specifically, for people whose crimes have been so bad that they've earned that penalty.

But within the Socialist construct that is the British NHS, people incur this .. why, exactly ?

Because they're murderers, maybe ? Because a court of law has judged them deserving of a death penalty ?

NO. Those being killed prematurely, due to loss of availability of the treatments that would prolong their lives, HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME. They are VICTIMS of a system that, supposedly, is meant to AID their health, not KILL them !!

But there is a 'court' .. of sorts. A form of 'death panel' that considers it has the right to determine who is 'fit' to live, and who is not. It's not based on whether those they will kill deserve to die. It's all about costcutting ... for now ...

... until other criteria may come into play. And who can guarantee that they won't ?

In a Socialist system, people are merely raw material to be used, and moulded to fit, as the State sees fit. In that system, its citizens are 'owned' by it.

This is how the belief comes about that it's 'right' to kill people because their existence has become 'fiscally inconvenient'. Or, how it's believed right to create a system where organ harvesting is a practise where the citizen has to deliberately FEND OFF such intentions, in order to stop it from happening !!!!

[jimnyc]

America has the death penalty. American juries decide the fate of people every day. How is my view any different?

WTF? You're comparing someone being put to death for a heinous crime to an elderly person being 'killed' due to financial reasons or healthcare reasons?

[red states rule]

I guess being sick and terminally ill is a bigger crime to Nell then murder, treason, or other capital crimes

[jimnyc]

NO. Those being killed prematurely, due to loss of availability of the treatments that would prolong their lives, HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME. They are VICTIMS of a system that, supposedly, is meant to AID their health, not KILL them !!

But there is a 'court' .. of sorts. A form of 'death panel' that considers it has the right to determine who is 'fit' to live, and who is not. It's not based on whether those they will kill deserve to die. It's all about costcutting ... for now .

Well stated. I'm baffled at someone that would even place the death penalty due to crimes and being found guilty in court - on the same level as a sick elderly person. The ONLY similarity is that perhaps both end up dead.

[red states rule]

Well stated. I'm baffled at someone that would even place the death penalty due to crimes and being found guilty in court - on the same level as a sick elderly person. The ONLY similarity is that perhaps both end up dead.

I suspect in Nell's liberal world the sicka nd dying are a drain on "vital government funds" and they should die off a quickly as possible

Instead of "wasting" those funds on sick people, the funds can be used to fund abortions, provide fooid stamps, housing, and medical care to young healthy VOTERS who can then show their gratitude by voting for libs and leeping them in power. thus keeping the freebies flowing

Until the system implodes due to the taxpayers going broke and not having nay more money to be taken by the government

[Drummond]

Well stated. I'm baffled at someone that would even place the death penalty due to crimes and being found guilty in court - on the same level as a sick elderly person. The ONLY similarity is that perhaps both end up dead.

That makes (at least) two of us, then.

I suppose this teaches us that, to a Left winger's outlook, human life is cheap enough that the reason for its 'disposal' isn't really seen to matter very much. Just so long as someone can dream up a reason for it, they're apparently happy ...

[Drummond]

I suspect in Nell's liberal world the sicka nd dying are a drain on "vital government funds" and they should die off a quickly as possible

Instead of "wasting" those funds on sick people, the funds can be used to fund abortions, provide fooid stamps, housing, and medical care to young healthy VOTERS who can then show their gratitude by voting for libs and leeping them in power. thus keeping the freebies flowing

Until the system implodes due to the taxpayers going broke and not having nay more money to be taken by the government

Good points ... especially the one on abortion, which I'd missed. YES .. this is one way that the NHS manages to order its funds to kill in two distinct ways .. the one helping to afford the other !

How's that for a 'healthcare' system that's supposed to exist to work for health BETTERMENT ?

[red states rule]

Good points ... especially the one on abortion, which I'd missed. YES .. this is one way that the NHS manages to order its funds to kill in two distinct ways .. the one helping to afford the other !

How's that for a 'healthcare' system that's supposed to exist to work for health BETTERMENT ?

As Mike said in Godfather II - try to think like the people around you think

So if you want to undersatnd what a lib realy means - you must try to think like a liberal

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/liberals-brain.gif

[red states rule]

Doctors, first and foremost as they are treating the patient and would know if they would survive. Family also, but some families have religious beliefs they want to force onto their relatives. If the doctors agree there is no chance for survival, then pull the plug. As I said, it is a waste of money keeping someone alive on a machine when that person is brain dead anyway.





http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DFnlKMSrl9E/TCU-sJ6p-gI/AAAAAAAAAtk/EDuY2V_G_eA/s1600/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ObamaCare.jpg

I told folks when he was elected that he planned on taking everything they had except the CHANGE they may have in their pockets and HOPE they would still kiss his ass for relieving them of their previous heavy burden of wealth... He is well on his way and look at the sheeple that still kiss his ass every day , every way.. -TZ

[red states rule]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8Yp_TkHBc24/S9L0BppfHZI/AAAAAAAAAnU/PdJSO-UJiHw/s1600/ObamaCare2.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well stated. I'm baffled at someone that would even place the death penalty due to crimes and being found guilty in court - on the same level as a sick elderly person. The ONLY similarity is that perhaps both end up dead.

My friend, the leftist/socialist/dem mind works in mysterious ways. Too bad most of those mysterious ways include evil actions to be an easy ,simple solution while valuing life is always placed well below advancing their insane agendas!
They seek to kill 'em young(abortion) , kill 'em old(death panels) , my God they plan on having many celebrations of their brilliance and great enlightenment! -Tyr

[red states rule]

My friend, the leftist/socialist/dem mind works in mysterious ways. Too bad most of those mysterious ways include evil actions to be an easy ,simple solution while valuing life is always placed well below advancing their insane agendas!
They seek to kill 'em young(abortion) , kill 'em old(death panels) , my God they plan on having many celebrations of their brilliance and great enlightenment! -Tyr

Obamacare is a dream come true for libs

Just think, the nations health care system will have the efficiency of the US Postal Service

The sustainability of Social Security

and the compassion of the IRS

What more could a lib ask for?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obamacare is a dream come true for libs

Just think, the nations health care system will have the efficiency of the US Postal Service

The sustainability of Social Security

and the compassion of the IRS

What more could a lib ask for?


A triple play, for they have managed to do that which would make Stalin , Mao and Hitler all proud..-Tyr

[red states rule]

A triple play, for they have managed to do that which would make Stalin , Mao and Hitler all proud..-Tyr

Well Obama did promise we would see a surge in shovel ready jobs

I gues the Grave diggers in America will be working OT

[Gaffer]

All this talk reminds me of a guy that need would have loved to hang out with back in the 80's. He had all the liberal traits. He was a queer, he worked in the nursing profession, he believed old people and critically sick people should not be allowed to suffer and take up bed space. He had only good intentions. He was the ultimate true liberal. His name was Donald Harvey. He killed over 50 people over a course of years by injecting them with various poisons. He was being compassionate and doing them a favor, even though many of them would have recovered. A real liberal poster boy.

[red states rule]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UOyTh47Hj4M/TpOk_EfJZwI/AAAAAAAABak/iHPo52SF-TA/s1600/11-obamacare2.png