If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Socialized medicine goes "whoops" again: Girl denied solid food for seven years turns out to be suffering merely from tonsillitis   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 370
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

21434 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2005 at 8:45 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



370 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-25 12:56:04 AM  
I already did, and in the original German.

/the second independent clause in the above sentence is false
 
2005-02-25 12:57:04 AM  
Ok, because I'm bored tonight and I'll be awake for a little bit more: Steve French WTF are you talking about? If you could attempt to express an attitude that doesn't involve degrading the US you may not be labelled as a troll. Name calling is not sarcasm. Look up the definition of internet troll, then look at your posts. On pretty much every thread you post in. I'm still thinking you're a shrill made by an admin.
 
2005-02-25 12:57:22 AM  
X3Mavericks guide to healty living:

Step 1. Bring 'em on!
Insurance companies continue to raise premiums by 15-30% per year, less people can afford health care and become uninsured. Trial Lawyers continue to Troll the medical records looking for the "Big Haul" making it unaffordable for doctors to practice.

Step 2. Trickle down Ecomomics.
People who can't afford healthcare will now wait longer to go to the doctor. Cheaper, preventative medicine now gets replaced by expensive ER visits and expensive last ditch surgical procedures. The hospitals absorb the cost and eventually pass the bill onto the insured customers.

Step 3. Mission Accomplished
Trauma centers close due to lack of doctors willing to pay exorbitant malpractice premiums. OB/GYNS Flee sue happy states. The born into poverty dies due to lack of access to medical services.

Step 4. Profit!
 
2005-02-25 12:57:35 AM  
I skipped just about the entire thread because it was obviously not going to be productive to read it. Im just happy to hear that she's apparently fine and on the way to a normal life. The good news is, she ought to be all set just in time for Easter!
 
2005-02-25 01:01:23 AM  
mordred42, don't forget to add in how the health care providers are shifting the cost of their expensive, risky, and most of the time failing investments and outrageous executive salaries onto the consumer.
 
2005-02-25 01:03:41 AM  
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Thomas Jefferson 1809
 
2005-02-25 01:04:52 AM  
mordred42:

"Insurance companies continue to raise premiums by 15-30% per year, less people can afford health care and become uninsured."

Thanks for clearly not reading (or udnerstanding?) my very Boobies in this thread.

"Trauma centers close due to lack of doctors willing to pay exorbitant malpractice premiums."

I love this! Malpractice wouldn't even be an issue today if physicians were allowed to contract for limited-liability for (negligence, not intentional) torts.

/because if we deny them long enough, the laws of probability will be repealed and undesirable medical outcomes will never happen
 
2005-02-25 01:09:12 AM  
Big Al:

I've agreed with everything you have said up until the last comment. You don't believe that after 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, then 4 years of making minimum wage as a resident, and incurring 200k of debt I shouldn't make 6 figures?
 
2005-02-25 01:10:49 AM  
X3Maverick

If you want to read what plan I advocate visit:

www.pnhp.org

Anyways I am going to bed. I gots to take care of babies in the morning (thank goodness for medicaid providing healthcare to poor moms).

Peace out.

Patients, not money, should ALWAYS come first.
 
2005-02-25 01:11:52 AM  
mordred42:

If good old T.J. said it (in bold no less!) it must be true.
Anyway, it's easy to throw quotations around.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

/not that that proves anything
//quotes are merely rhetorical devices
 
2005-02-25 01:13:33 AM  
drgloryboy

I think he was referring to hospital administrators and other executives.

under the plan proposed on pnhp.org you and i would still get our 6 figured salaries.
 
2005-02-25 01:13:39 AM  
peterthx:

Loose = opposite of tight.
Lose = opposite of win, or a posession taken away, stolen, or misplaced.



Ricky Ricardo surrenders.

"Loos-ey! I'm home! Now you be good or I might loose my job!"
 
2005-02-25 01:14:39 AM  
drgloryboy:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bourgeois socialism is so funny.

"But I'm different! I EARNED my 6-figure salary, unlike those useless CEOs!"

/no, you both earned them
 
2005-02-25 01:14:55 AM  
Namecalling isn't trolling either, it's ad hominem.
Who hates the US?
Moi?
Oh, nevermind.
 
2005-02-25 01:16:53 AM  
mordred42:

"under the plan proposed on pnhp.org you and i would still get our 6 figured salaries."

Mmm, interest-group socialism.
I guess some animals (selfless doctors?) are more equal than others.
 
2005-02-25 01:19:54 AM  
X3.. obviously you don't know what you are talking about.. the plan on pnhp.org is not socialism so go back and get out your handy websters and look up the def.
but thanks for playing anyways :)
 
2005-02-25 01:20:56 AM  
How come poor and homeless people die of preventable minor illness while the rich people use up doctor services getting plastic surgery for their pets?
Heheh, great system.
We're looking for the best of the best of the best, to operate on our dogs.
 
2005-02-25 01:23:32 AM  
mordered42:

"the plan on pnhp.org is not socialism"

from pnhp.org: "Revenue from an increase in federal personal income taxes would replace household out-of-pocket expenditures for medically necessary services and payments for insurance premiums... no American or American employer would need to buy health insurance or face out-of-pocket charges for any medically indicated health care."
 
2005-02-25 01:28:43 AM  
"Namecalling isn't trolling either, it's ad hominem."

You'd better look up that definition as well.
 
2005-02-25 01:29:07 AM  
Facts about National Health Insurance (NHI) You Might Not Know

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canadas single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesnt depend on your job. Whether youre a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, youre provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but its also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to todays system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the USs same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients dont receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.
 
2005-02-25 01:30:44 AM  
Yep. It's much better to pay through the nose for a misdiagnosis, like we do in the States!
 
2005-02-25 01:39:51 AM  
"In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canadas single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint"

The word of the capitalist is worth less than nothing*!
*except this time

"Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately."

As defined by countries with NHI.
 
2005-02-25 01:42:20 AM  
I want my (total revenue of government boondogle, divided by total population) dollars back!
 
2005-02-25 01:43:06 AM  
X3Maverick:


"Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately."

As defined by countries with NHI.


Here in Australia, if an emergency is not dealt with immediately by the health services, there is massive community outrage, and then more money gets put into the public system...
 
2005-02-25 01:49:12 AM  
Steve French:
re: I like to know my enemies
What for? By your own admission you've already decided socialism is the enemy.


Only someone who is incapable of changing his mind would make that argument. I am currently of the opinion that socialism is bad, but I'm not above changing my mind. I wish to be as well-informed as possible.

rhiannon:
And you may want to expand your thought a little.

Indeed I do. Would you care to lend a hand by posting a link to information you agree with or making some kind of argument?
 
2005-02-25 02:09:21 AM  
Universe Man:

I dont have sources of information for you, but my opinion is in plentiful supply :).

The whole socialism/capitalism debate is not an issue of right and wrong, black and white.

Socialism has a problem in that human nature always corrupts such a system eventually. Capitalism has the same problem. I dont think there is a perfect system, but I reckon compromise is the way to go. Combine the two systems, and maybe you will end up with something that is workable.

Socialism is not all bad, nor is a free market. However, both have their bad sides. In the last 50 years, it has been a good balance between the two ideologies, however, lately (imho after 9/11) the world has shifted dramatically towards being more capitalist (Right wing).

I think that is why the left is so upset, as they feel it is no longer a matter of compromise between capitalist and socialist solutions to problem, but a complete domination by the right.

Democracy is not infalliable. Nor is capitalism. Nor is socialism.

I just dont think there is enough compassion in commerce and capitalism, and I dont think vital issues such as health, the environment, security and education should be decided by people who are in it for profit only. Decisions will be made for the wrong reasons.
 
2005-02-25 02:10:43 AM  
I believe that the US is could provide outstanding healthcare to every one of its citizens if the insurance lobby didn't have so much influence in Washington.
They pretty much write all the reform legislation that gets proposed by the current administration.
 
2005-02-25 03:02:46 AM  
"Universe Man

Indeed I do. Would you care to lend a hand by posting a link to information you agree with or making some kind of argument?"


Yeah, sure. Try here:

http://canada.gc.ca/
 
2005-02-25 03:12:44 AM  
And as an aside, I actually had typed out a hugely large post to you originally. I erased it, and went with that. My first draft sounded too whiny. So I did what I found funny (for myself), as I always do.
 
2005-02-25 03:25:50 AM  
rhiannon

Exactly what i tried to do here...
 
2005-02-25 03:31:07 AM  
Ch4r7ie
on the other hand she has the best teeth in great britain

*golf clap*
 
2005-02-25 03:35:54 AM  
Life expectancy at birth - total population

USA - 77.43 years
UK - 78.27 years
France - 79.44 years
Germany - 78.54 years
Canada - 79.96 years
Sweden - 80.3 years
Australia - 80.26 years
New Zealand- 78.49 years

In fact, the USA is 46th for life expectancy

Source: CIA World Factbook
 
2005-02-25 07:31:21 AM  
FlightDeck:

Piss on you. This isn't moveon.org or democraticunderground.com or yellowtimes.org and as such it doesn't have to play a little violin for your precious, precious socialist ideology.


Well said!

BTW, what happened with all the liberals who couldn't stand living here in the ass-backwards, gun-loving, mixed-sex marriage, non-socialist, mean ole USA moving to Canada? If you'd actually followed through, you could be enjoying the small bitter (but evenly distributed) fruits of socialism right now!
 
2005-02-25 07:34:17 AM  
I haven't read the whole thread, so this has probably been pointed out already, but the US actually spends more tax dollars per taxpayer on its healthcare system than other countries with socialised medicine, such as the UK. So basically you are already paying more for healthcare than you would here, even if you don't have health insurance. Our system isn't perfect, but at least a medical condition here won't cripple your finances as well as your health.
 
2005-02-25 08:01:01 AM  
Having worked in the healthcare industry as a nurse, I don't see how socialized medicine could possibly work in the US. I saw so many patients who wanted to be treated like they were in the waldorf astoria while in the hospital. They griped and complained over small things like not being able to have their MRI done the same day they went to the Dr (unless its an emergency of course). They went nuts when an ER doc gave attention to another patient first, even if that other patient was much more sick or hurt. I saw so many people biatch to administration and threaten to go to our competitors over nonsense. There's no way Americans would stand for the fewer options and long long wait for procedures. They would be screaming at the top of their lungs to their congressman if they passed socialized medicine legistalation. Thats why hillarycare died, politicians recognized that it was political suicide.
 
2005-02-25 08:06:17 AM  
Some interesting comparisons, using the link I posted above:

Health care funding - Public per capita
1. United States $2,051 per capita
2. United Kingdom $1,429 per capita

Health care funding - Private per capita
1. United States $2,580 per capita
2. United Kingdom $335 per capita

Health care funding - Total per capita
1. United States $4,631 per capita
2. United Kingdom $1,764 per capita

Life expectancy at birth - Total population
1. United Kingdom 78.16 years
2. United States 77.14 years


We're paying less, yet living longer. I'll stick, thanks.
 
2005-02-25 08:21:51 AM  
-Binnster-

Stop confusing them with facts.
 
2005-02-25 08:39:35 AM  
consdubya

I just dont think there is enough compassion in commerce and capitalism

Hense, the error in your thought process.

"Commerce" and the way a society operates commercially should never be regulated by emotions like..."compassion", because no two people have the same degree of it, and no matter how ..."compassionate"...you are, there will always be someone else is thinks they have more of it than you.

You want to assign emotional bullshiat to a system of commerce, which holds that system back from being prosperous in the first place.
 
2005-02-25 08:50:54 AM  
Ya, somehow the US spends more $/person than most socialized system countries yet the people live shorter lives, still go bankrupt. Most socialized countries fix the prices for procedures, if your little Johnny gets an immunization in Canada it's gonna be billed at the same cost, no matter who the doctor is, of course the people never see the bill, they just get told "If anything happens call me, anything serious go to emergency, look out for a little purple bump."

Of course with free healthcare people do abuse it, idiots go to emergency with colds and the flu, slowing the system down. Me, I only end up in emerg late at night, when I can't breathe from asthma or something. But even in Canada my inhalers cost >$100 for Advair.
 
2005-02-25 09:07:04 AM  
Mike_71

You want to assign emotional bullshiat to a system of commerce, which holds that system back from being prosperous in the first place.


You want to assign proseperty to a system of healthcare, which holds that system back from being compassionate in the first place.

Look at my previous posts; you are already paying more tax dollars for healthcare than socialised systems do, and it isn't even covering the same percentage of your population. Weird huh?
 
2005-02-25 09:42:53 AM  
binnster

You want to assign proseperty to a system of healthcare, which holds that system back from being compassionate in the first place.

No I don't.

Healthcare is NOT a "right". Its a P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E!

Just like driving a Mercedes versus a Yugo.

Besides, alotta doctors BECOME doctors because medicine interests them and they can make alotta money!

Your whole idea that healthcare exists because of "compassion" is bullshiat, because if that were true, then the doctors themselves would exercise compassion by NOT CHARGING YOU FOR THEIR SERVICES!

Look at my previous posts; you are already paying more tax dollars for healthcare than socialised systems do, and it isn't even covering the same percentage of your population. Weird huh?

Where in the hell are you getting that? Excluding Medicare and Medicade, healthcare is a PRIVATE service.

My tax dollars are paying for wasteful and redundant government programs, NOT for someone else's healthcare!

You have us confused with Canada.
 
2005-02-25 09:49:52 AM  
You pro-socialized medicine people are arguing, yet forgetting the first major flaw:

Is it ethical to take one persons money away from them, to give to someone else?

To me this sounds like Robin Hood, and I don't think it is at all ethical.

I think it would be great if we could just magically snap our fingers and we would have world peace, a cure for cancer and aids, an education for every child blah blah blah, but the point is, you can't do it! The reason you can't do it isn't because it isn't possible, it is because to fix those things you have to take what is someone elses.

I love liberals in the sense that they have so much compassion towards the unlucky working man, but I think you hurt your own cause by trying to fix it through government. The church USED to be very good about this, but at least through history shows that it can be done.

My hometown has a clinic that is free. It is groups of all kinds of doctors and nurses who sacrifice their own time to run this clinic. If you show up with a paystub they will treat you for free. This to me is liberalism, and love at its highest. This is the kind of action we need to make America better, not the government taxing more for every social problem we encounter!
 
2005-02-25 09:59:26 AM  
Wow what a flame war
 
2005-02-25 10:01:00 AM  
Submitter = moran
 
2005-02-25 10:04:04 AM  
I'll join the chorus:

I think the submitter is a cowardly, uninformed right-winger.

Cowardly, because they refuse to stand up in the comments and take credit for all this.
 
2005-02-25 10:09:54 AM  
*clap* Great headline!
 
2005-02-25 10:27:59 AM  
Yes, socialized medicine is to blame, just like the kind that led Libby Zion to have a drug prescribed for her in New York, which interacted with the MAOI she was receiving, and subsequently killed her, or the kind that caused Willie King to have the wrong leg amputated in Florida. In fact, in Florida (hardly the most socialistic state in the US), the problem of doctors operating on the wrong body part had become so bad, that the state has passed a "three strikes" law. But socialized medicine is to blame for all medical mistakes.
 
2005-02-25 10:35:44 AM  
2005-02-24 10:29:47 PM doctechnical
The thing that scares me most about socialized medicine is the idea of the government making the decisions about my health care. Consider this scenario:

You hurt your leg in some way... hit by a car, a fall down stairs, whatever. There are two treatments:

a) Treatment one costs only $1,000 and gets you back on your feet, you can walk just fine, hold down a job, etc - but you'll have a limp. For the rest of your life. Well, canes are pretty cheap.

b) A very complicated set of procedures can restore your leg back to it's old self, no limp, good as new. Downside: This will cost $200,000.

So which does the government choose for you? The argument for "A" is that you're keeping costs down which is less of a burden to the taxpayers and frees monies for people who really need it (say, the kid that was born with a spare head), and after all, is a limp all that much to have to put up with?


So, which option does your for-profit health insurance company choose? the one which costs them less.
 
2005-02-25 10:36:54 AM  
Mike_71


Healthcare is NOT a "right". Its a P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E

Just like driving a Mercedes versus a Yugo.


In your country yes. That is a no-brainer, and the whole crux of the debate.

In my country healthcare is a right, not a privilege. If someone wants a better standard of healthcare (or drive that Mercedes instead of a Yugo, as you put it), and can afford to pay for it, then they have that option also. They are not mutually exclusive.


Besides, alotta doctors BECOME doctors because medicine interests them and they can make alotta money!

I know two medical doctors in this country. They are both rich. Just because we have a National Health Service doesn't mean our Doctors pick through garbage for dinner.


Your whole idea that healthcare exists because of "compassion" is bullshiat, because if that were true, then the doctors themselves would exercise compassion by NOT CHARGING YOU FOR THEIR SERVICES!

That is not my whole idea. Nice assumption. You're just making this stuff up as you go along aren't you?


Where in the hell are you getting that? Excluding Medicare and Medicade, healthcare is a PRIVATE service.

I posted a link so you could check the figures yourself. Read this.
 
2005-02-25 10:37:53 AM  
tmim16

You pro-socialized medicine people are arguing, yet forgetting the first major flaw:

Is it ethical to take one persons money away from them, to give to someone else?

To me this sounds like Robin Hood, and I don't think it is at all ethical.



Do you pay taxes?
 
Displayed 50 of 370 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report