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.

(Daily Mail)   British hospitals prepare to euthanize 60,000 old people. Minister calls this "fantastic step forward"   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 238
    More: Obvious, Royal College of Physicians  
•       •       •

21773 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2012 at 12:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-31 01:47:11 AM

maddermaxx: Ask for better book keeping then, that's all good.


I'd think doing the paperwork they are already required to do would be sufficient. Only new requirement would be "do the job, or be fired." Start with administrators and other upper management, it'll filter down.

And I've seen a lot of noise in the thread about Daily Mail and Fox News. It's fallacial arguing, find counter-evidence or otherwise present a rational argument, as you did. But the whining over the source is childish and pointless.
 
2012-12-31 01:51:26 AM
images.cafepress.com
 
2012-12-31 01:51:37 AM

LesserEvil: The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost.

There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody. Until that gets fixed, health care will always be hopelessly broken.


I think part of that issue is that there are many, shall we say "lower class" patients who occupy hospital facilities with all range of illnesses real and imagined and never have any intention of paying. The money that pays for those people comes from the rest of you.
 
2012-12-31 01:52:11 AM

NewportBarGuy: Last time I checked, private health insurance was available for purchase in the UK. If the public system is not enough, sell your assets and buy it. Or die. You have an option.


That's a great idea until you consider that the high tax rates everyone is forced to pay in order to fund the public plan will prohibit a large portion of the middle class from obtaining that private insurance they may otherwise been able to afford.

This is just collectivism at it's finest, the individual subjects have no rights, so killing an old person who no longer is capable of producing for the royal class to keep a young person with many years of slave-like labor left makes perfect sense.

I'm sure if the subjects feel overly oppressed they can revolt using whatever pointy objects they are still allowed to own.
 
2012-12-31 01:54:40 AM

ZAZ: The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.

Happens in America too, and may be standard for certain types of people in hospice care.


The difference is that with hospice care, the person who is dying chooses that option. In the UK death panels, some bureaucrat makes the decision, not the patient or their family.

Also I find it ironic that those who protested in favor of legalized abortion 40 and 50 years ago are now at the age where they will be subject to this policy.
 
2012-12-31 01:55:44 AM

zerkalo: [images.cafepress.com image 350x350]


Hope you complete soon
 
2012-12-31 01:57:30 AM

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: Ask for better book keeping then, that's all good.

I'd think doing the paperwork they are already required to do would be sufficient. Only new requirement would be "do the job, or be fired." Start with administrators and other upper management, it'll filter down.

And I've seen a lot of noise in the thread about Daily Mail and Fox News. It's fallacial arguing, find counter-evidence or otherwise present a rational argument, as you did. But the whining over the source is childish and pointless.


Rational arguments are the right course, yes, but I disagree about complaining about the source. The Daily Mail continually distorts, misinforms or simply makes shiat up, and if there is any correct redeeming information, it's always hidden in the bottom paragraph, a long way down the page from the sensationalist headline and hyperbolic introductions that they always use.

When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are. Like a stopped clock, or perhaps like the boy who cried wolf, they can be right on occasion - doesn't stop them from being a bullshiat source, and doesn't stop me from calling them that. Much better to get your news from a reliable source, rather than raking the dregs of the worst bullshiat hoping to find diamonds.
 
2012-12-31 02:02:49 AM
We still seem to be a bit light on Futurama references.

/"You are now dead, please take your receipt."
//Not helpful.
 
2012-12-31 02:03:02 AM

maddermaxx: When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are.


All news sources do that. Every last one of them. So now your option is to reject them all out of hand, or look around and compare stories and see what adds up. The blind partisan does the first to all except those that confirm their biases, the rational critical thinker does the second. Sometimes news providers don't cover something because it makes their arguments look weak. It's cowardly and reprehensible, but again, they all do it, no exceptions.

Says something about the quality of people who become journalists. Or maybe just the quality of people.
 
2012-12-31 02:03:50 AM

Xaneidolon: brandent: Bucky Katt: The Daily Fail is making shiat up again.

Yes it is.

FTA: "The national audit by Marie Curie and the RCP examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture."

It's pretty indefensible math to get to 60K for sure.

Here's the question for me, though. What's the threshold? If it's ONLY about economics, you could sure make some good arguments about how expensive it is to keep other types of people around. Somewhere you could make the argument that if you or your family cannot afford to pay, you cannot afford to live. There are those in the past who have successfully argued that those who don't produce are not worth keeping around...

Note here I'm asking you to identify the threshold, not yammer on about a slippery slope.


gooooo on....
 
2012-12-31 02:04:20 AM

justtray: It can cost upwards of $15,000 or MORE per MONTH to keep old people in assisted living. How much do you think it costs to to keep them alive in hospice care? Less??


For my Mum it was $1836 per day she was there for 39 days
 
2012-12-31 02:05:33 AM
All of you that think this article is actually right, let me ask you a question... if the person died within 3 days most commonly, where the hell was their family not to have noticed these people dying? I know that when my Grandfather passed he was not left alone in the hospital for longer than it took to get a meal and he was in there for almost a month solid. Someone was around him every day, whether my Grandmother or a grandchild or a daughter. He was NEVER alone for more than the over night (when my Grandmother couldn't sleep there) or the meal during the day.

While this is a CSB, where were the families that should have been notified? The only way it makes sense is that there was not a family to notify or no one from the family was willing to talk to the doctors. For whatever reason. But please stop taking a source known for making things up at face value.
 
2012-12-31 02:05:37 AM

NewportBarGuy: Babwa Wawa: We place the decision in the hands of those mostly likely to make poor decisions.

I refer to that as the natural "Hold ma beer and watch this" selection we've placed upon our society. It's fun and sad to watch at the same time.

You raise a good point. We had to have that talk with my mom when grandma was on the way out. She just kept thinking we needed to try something else, but it was clear to everyone else the end was near. It was a difficult time, but I like to think we all got a little closer as a result of it. Also, we've all discussed how we'd like similar situations handled with all of us.


My 95 year old grandmother was in a car accident (actually her SECOND in two years) but we didn't know at the time that she had a DNR, so they treated her immediately while my dad made the ~11 hour drive to Indy. After we found out, she was seemingly making progress so he had them keep trying some stuff, but over the course of two weeks it was so up and down that finally we all agreed to stop, so I drove out too (I had just started a new job so was hoping not to have to travel so soon). The night I got there I went straight to the hospital and we spent several hours with her, after they'd moved her out of the regular areas and to more of a hospice type room, with just morphine. I don't know if she ever really knew I was there, but I think maybe. We went to the house at 3 am, and got the call at 5. I feel bad that we caused her to have to hang on and be in pain for so long, but I was grateful to get to see her that last time.

A friend's grandfather got very sick and ended up in the ICU, but her family had no concept of terminal medical situations, plus he had previously expressed the wish they keep trying before he could no longer respond. They went for weeks on the same roller coaster, with my friend the only person having any idea that this was probably it. She got SO much shiat from the rest of the family for advocating they end treatment, it was unbelievable. They couldn't even claim she was trying to get his money or anything, since she was at the far end of the inheritance line, if at all, but they still gave her hell. It took a hospital specialist to finally convince them they were only prolonging the inevitable and making it more painful for him.

I thought I had a point here but I'm not really sure what it was. Maybe just, try and be realistic, and talk to your family before you end up unable to do so. That, and make a will...
 
2012-12-31 02:08:29 AM

GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.


This. The idea that 60,000 people are being medically terminated in Britain without their consent and nobody seems to give a rat's ass sounds HIGHLY unlikely to me.
 
2012-12-31 02:09:42 AM

Pribar: Sorry but when your Health Secretary looks like this:

[i135.photobucket.com image 634x418]">

You are going to have problems, probably zombies too.


I had a flashback to the movie "They Live " When I saw his picture.
 
2012-12-31 02:11:31 AM

Gyrfalcon: GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.

This. The idea that 60,000 people are being medically terminated in Britain without their consent and nobody seems to give a rat's ass sounds HIGHLY unlikely to me.


60,000 per year, from 130,000 per year put on "the pathway" total. As noted, it's more that the required paperwork to go with the notifications wasn't done, but then there's no evidence at all that they did them.

Also, argument from incredulity. A favorite for creationists. Ad hominem and shoot the messenger get tired and leave?
 
2012-12-31 02:12:32 AM

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: When a source has shown they will stoop to lying and distortion to get the angle they want, it's quite fine to call them a bullshiat source - because that's what they are.

All news sources do that. Every last one of them. So now your option is to reject them all out of hand, or look around and compare stories and see what adds up. The blind partisan does the first to all except those that confirm their biases, the rational critical thinker does the second. Sometimes news providers don't cover something because it makes their arguments look weak. It's cowardly and reprehensible, but again, they all do it, no exceptions.

Says something about the quality of people who become journalists. Or maybe just the quality of people.


Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?

No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT. While any paper/media outlet can fark up, you can still sort the ones that deliberately fark up all the time from the ones that are mostly reliable and useful sources that fark up on occasion.

So while I'll still look at multiple sources to find what's happening (and I read widely, trust me), I'm not going to read the Daily Fail and say "oh look, it's just as good as any other news source because all news sources are made equal, and I'll give it equal credit'. No, I'll call it a bullshiat source, because, as I said, it is one.

And from this Bullshiat source comes this bullshiat story, with a headline and opening lines meant to deliberately mislead, and the pertinent information, that paper work needs to be improved and pamphlets need to be handed out more often, are lost in the very bottom lines. This is why I call it the Daily Fail.
 
2012-12-31 02:18:06 AM

unamused: Better than them being gun deaths.


Maybe I am crazy but I would much prefer a clean shot through the head rather than dehydrate to death. horrid.
/time to find a cave far away.
//insane, the whole of humanity is insane.
 
2012-12-31 02:19:01 AM
Soylent Green is people!
 
2012-12-31 02:20:23 AM

maddermaxx: No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT.


I was counting major news sources, there are always conspiracy nut sites but they don't even get stopped clock status. But yes I've seen the BBC and NYT heavily slant coverage in favor of a side. And Fox, and CNN, and the WaPo, and CBS, and NBC, MSNBC, and on and on.

maddermaxx: Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?


Not what I said at all. Got a link to BBC's article on the subject? Be interesting to see what they have to say, especially if they have evidence Daily Mail manufactured the entire story.

I took a journalism course way back, just to fill out some credit hours, and the part that stuck with me was the effort to avoid any bias in your writing, straight from the AP playbook. And then we couldn't find a single example of any story above neighborhood level where those rules weren't violated. From slanting to loaded words to burying the lede, every single story we picked through had it. It's hard to be a good journalist, and apparently they gave up.
 
2012-12-31 02:21:25 AM

Boojum2k: Gyrfalcon: GAT_00: This is the Daily Fail.  At least one key piece of information is missing here, assuming this wasn't totally distorted.

This. The idea that 60,000 people are being medically terminated in Britain without their consent and nobody seems to give a rat's ass sounds HIGHLY unlikely to me.

60,000 per year, from 130,000 per year put on "the pathway" total. As noted, it's more that the required paperwork to go with the notifications wasn't done, but then there's no evidence at all that they did them.

Also, argument from incredulity. A favorite for creationists. Ad hominem and shoot the messenger get tired and leave?


So you're telling me that 60,000 notifications for euthanasia just didn't get done and somehow that's not a problem either? It's not the deaths themselves I find unlikely, it's the general lack of hue&cry. 60K is a lot of people to be killed and no one--not the public, not the doctors, not the FAMILY members--to be even a little bit upset. Not even one quote from a bereaved daughter or son that granny was killed and they didn't get the proper notice in the mail?

I have to call b/s on this one until there's another article from a better source than the Daily Mail, which isn't exactly known for it's unbiased quality writing. An argument from incredulity isn't invalid if the claim being presented is so incredible it can be rejected out of hand.
 
2012-12-31 02:24:59 AM
I'll also note I have family in Britain, and I'm not worried about their medical care or end-of-life arrangements, and some of them are pretty old. The system there works well, but if they are failing to document their notifications, that implies other failures and it needs to be straightened out.

I'll take some of the heat of the various journalists I've been slamming by noting that maybe sometimes you have to push something hard just to get the small correction needed. Maybe. Probably be better for a scathing editorial than a slanted article purporting to be straight reporting.
 
2012-12-31 02:29:22 AM

LesserEvil: j
The bigger problem is: WHY THE FARK ARE HOSPITALS SO DAMN EXPENSIVE?!?!?!??!?

Why does my Mom's overnight stay cost $3000, for... let's see, an on-call doctor (shared between her and 100 other patients), 3 duty nurses (for each 8 hour shift), shared between 20 patients in 10 rooms, 3 aides (again, 3 shifts) shared between 10 patients. So, approx $120 goes to pay those people... call it another $20 for support people "shared" by all the patients. Forget the meds and stuff, that's billed extra (and exorbitantly, why do a handful of aspirins cost $150?!?). The hospital has been standing for almost 20 years, so beyond maintenance, I can't see anything justifying $3000/night. She had no MRIs or CAT Scans (those are also billed on their own).

Hospitals are a huge rip-off. Most "second world" countries provide similar quality hospital stays at a fraction of the cost. There is simply no reason why it should cost that much to care for somebody.



You have to pay for all the broke bastards with no insurance, that's why.

Many California hospitals went out of business and closed cos of all the broke ass illegals pouring in.
 
2012-12-31 02:29:45 AM

Gyrfalcon: So you're telling me that 60,000 notifications for euthanasia just didn't get done and somehow that's not a problem either? It's not the deaths themselves I find unlikely, it's the general lack of hue&cry. 60K is a lot of people to be killed and no one--not the public, not the doctors, not the FAMILY members--to be even a little bit upset. Not even one quote from a bereaved daughter or son that granny was killed and they didn't get the proper notice in the mail?


60,000 notifications weren't properly recorded, and possibly not done. Given British attitudes, the lack of outrage is unsurprising. And the article is definitely slanted, it's basically an end of care not outright euthanisia.

My takeaway on it is that one, the have a requirement to document that they've provided proper notification to those on the pathway and their families, and they aren't meeting that requirement in a sizable percentage. How do you get them to correct the mistakes and improve?
 
2012-12-31 02:30:42 AM

Boojum2k: My takeaway on it is that one, the have a requirement to document that they've provided proper notification to those on the pathway and their families, and they aren't meeting that requirement in a sizable percentage. How do you get them to correct the mistakes and improve?


There was going to be a "two" there but the statement covered it all. I'm not the best writer at this time of night.
 
2012-12-31 02:33:08 AM
a.tgcdn.net
 
2012-12-31 02:35:26 AM

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: No, I'll call bullshiat on the idea that each source is as bad as the next, unless you think infowars and storm front are just as reliable and accountable as the BBC or NYT.

I was counting major news sources, there are always conspiracy nut sites but they don't even get stopped clock status. But yes I've seen the BBC and NYT heavily slant coverage in favor of a side. And Fox, and CNN, and the WaPo, and CBS, and NBC, MSNBC, and on and on.
maddermaxx: Both sides are bad so vote Daily Mail?

Not what I said at all. Got a link to BBC's article on the subject? Be interesting to see what they have to say, especially if they have evidence Daily Mail manufactured the entire story.

I took a journalism course way back, just to fill out some credit hours, and the part that stuck with me was the effort to avoid any bias in your writing, straight from the AP playbook. And then we couldn't find a single example of any story above neighborhood level where those rules weren't violated. From slanting to loaded words to burying the lede, every single story we picked through had it. It's hard to be a good journalist, and apparently they gave up.


On the contrary, that's exactly what you're saying. I'm saying not every news source is equal, and if one is continually and deliberately distorting stories and making up bullshiat, you can call it out on that. You're saying calling a bullshiat source bullshiat is wrong, because other sources can be biased on occasion. I very much disagree. The BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corp, and NYT are not perfect, no one is, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Daily Mail.

As for whether they're following this story? Not that I can see as of yet. However, this isn't the first time they've been loose with the truth in relation to the Liverpool Care Pathway apparently:

Daily Mail article on LCP 'highly misleading' says BMJ editor - update December 11 2012

The editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Dr Fiona Godlee, has released a public letter to the Daily Mail claiming that it is "misleading readers by publishing a highly inaccurate article on the care of severely disabled newborn babies".

The Daily Mail's front page story - Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor's haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan - was based on a piece from the 'personal view' section of the BMJ entitled How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies.

In her letter Dr Godlee voices concern that the Mail's report did not reflect that the anonymous doctor who wrote the piece in the BMJ does not practise in the UK or in Europe. She highlights also that the doctor did not mention the Liverpool Care Pathway.

The Mail's article included the following quote: "One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone". In fact, the doctor in question said that such situations were "very rare", having occurred 10 times in 13 years of practice in a large specialist hospital.

The doctor who wrote the BMJ article is quoted as saying: "To juxtapose the article with pictures of healthy babies misrepresents the clinical situation entirely. Some babies are born without intestines or with other abnormalities that make oral feeding physically impossible. Others have such catastrophic medical conditions that continued artificial hydration would only prolong the dying process. One would never undertake a decision to forgo artificial feeding if it could in any way benefit the child. Parents request cessation of this treatment, and the health team deliberates about this extensively before any action is taken, not the other way round."
 
2012-12-31 02:36:17 AM

the_chief: Just because you have a right to live, doesn't mean you should.


I like this. Let's practice on liberals. We seem to have a few too many around. You can toss in a few rapeublicans as well for good measure.
 
2012-12-31 02:41:41 AM

Delecrious: Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the (Boomer) drain on the economy?



You mean the economy that the Boomers built?

/god forbid that any of it should be spent on them by their ungrateful kids when they are old.
 
2012-12-31 02:43:14 AM

PacManDreaming: Why does the UK want to be like Texas?


Blessed Lady Eir. I had  no  idea. That's a bit scary to me. I was in a bad car accident when I was 13 and didn't wake up for over two weeks. I'm in my 40's now. If that had been around in California back then, I'd be dead. I may not always be walking on sunshine or anything, but I do enjoy my life to a large degree.

Yikes.
 
2012-12-31 02:45:38 AM

maddermaxx: The BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corp, and NYT are not perfect, no one is, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Daily Mail.


Only one of those I haven't seen slant a story just as badly is Austrailian Broadcasting Corp., and that's possibly because I don't usually check them. The list for both the BBC and the NYT in a google search, ignoring WND, blogs, and other such drivel, about matches your list for the Daily Mail. There are likely many more you haven't listed, but my point still stands that journalists are pretty terrible at reporting.
 
2012-12-31 02:49:47 AM
cant trust people to check there mirrors/blind spots when there turning right, left. and you think you can trust them to make sure your not a vegetable.

let alone that australian article i read on fark where the mental patient walked out, the police arrested someone who looked like him, and the staff said "yep thats the guy" until he had a bad reaction to the meds they gave him, sent him to hospital, and the original mental health patient returned.

not to mention the umpteen fark ups that occur in hospitals world wide on a daily basis.

wow lol, just wow. how can you trust someone to make a decision like that. let alone so many of them! statistically you know they farked up atleast once! wow!
 
2012-12-31 02:50:25 AM
Well if it's in the Daily Mail, it must be true!
 
2012-12-31 02:50:37 AM

Boojum2k: maddermaxx: The BBC, Australian Broadcasting Corp, and NYT are not perfect, no one is, but they're a hell of a lot better than the Daily Mail.

Only one of those I haven't seen slant a story just as badly is Austrailian Broadcasting Corp., and that's possibly because I don't usually check them. The list for both the BBC and the NYT in a google search, ignoring WND, blogs, and other such drivel, about matches your list for the Daily Mail. There are likely many more you haven't listed, but my point still stands that journalists are pretty terrible at reporting.


And my point, that the Daily Mail reporters are far worse on average than other major news sources, with more blatant deception, bias and sensationalism, still stands as well.
 
2012-12-31 02:52:54 AM

maddermaxx: And my point, that the Daily Mail reporters are far worse on average than other major news sources, with more blatant deception, bias and sensationalism, still stands as well.


You know what, I'll concede that point. News in general sucks, but Daily Mail sucks more.
 
2012-12-31 02:56:31 AM

Delecrious: crabsno termites: Uchiha_Cycliste: I know, let's spend hundreds of millions of dollars so that they can live a few more months.
Money well spent.

On a more serious note we need a serious discussion about end of life care in the US that we are not having, and we need to have it before the Boomers bankrupt us all. Just because something can be done for a patient doesn't mean it should.

Absolutely correct. That said, I find your youthful arrogance disgusting.

/Boomer
//Will leave my children much more than my parents left me.
///Plans in place for my demise.
////So fark you.

Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the drain on the economy? If we don't figure out something, everything you leave your children will be for nothing.


That's pretty much the problem. The only reasonable solution that I can think of is that the end of life care shouldn't be on the shoulders of insurance companies or the public. If you personally can afforc to spend several million dollars to extend your life a few months great, but the public shouldn't be drained to do so.  It's an awful solution I know, but what better is there? Lots of people are going to die anyway, and dropping that money into a pit to keep them alive a tiny bit longer doesn't really benefit anyone.
 
2012-12-31 02:57:20 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: But if what TFA said is true, and people are being euthanized simply because they're old


Funnily, that's not what the article says at all. Despite the Daily Fail's attempt to spice the issue up, what it actually says is:

It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

For 22 per cent, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered.


What this means is that's it's more likely a failure of paperwork than an actual failure. It seems some people have forgotten that in a bureaucracy you document everything if for no other reason that to cover your own butt. In healthcare, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. A nurse may have checked the catheter, but if she didn't write down that she checked the catheter, it didn't happen. Especially if something goes wrong.

It sounds like this is a new hospice-style process rolled out in hospitals and the staff aren't used to making sure they have appropriately documented the process. I'm sure some sort of itemised check list will be issued to fix it.
 
2012-12-31 03:02:00 AM
Kinda ironic that this picture is at the bottom of the article. i.mol.im
 
2012-12-31 03:02:50 AM

Alleyoop: Kinda ironic that this picture is at the bottom of the article. [i.mol.im image 154x115]


Hope she gets better soon. She deserves a break.
 
2012-12-31 03:03:58 AM

mizchief: NewportBarGuy: Last time I checked, private health insurance was available for purchase in the UK. If the public system is not enough, sell your assets and buy it. Or die. You have an option.

That's a great idea until you consider that the high tax rates everyone is forced to pay in order to fund the public plan will prohibit a large portion of the middle class from obtaining that private insurance they may otherwise been able to afford.

This is just collectivism at it's finest, the individual subjects have no rights, so killing an old person who no longer is capable of producing for the royal class to keep a young person with many years of slave-like labor left makes perfect sense.

I'm sure if the subjects feel overly oppressed they can revolt using whatever pointy objects they are still allowed to own.


It is really not that difficult to see how much a good public health insurance system is both ethically superior and more cost-efficient, and provides therefore better results for a lower cost to both individuals and society as whole. It is very simple economics.

As some people pointed out, you end up paying for the people with no insurance anyway unless you have no problems with letting them rot on the street. You can either choose for the American system where hospital bills /insurance premiums are incredibly high so in order to pay for the people that show up without insurance.

In system A, a large proportion of the population doesnot contribute anything to the system because they cannot afford the high insurance prices, so they have to rely on either the goodwill of hospital or others, or indebt themselves to pay for medical bills. This creates a vicious circle where more and more people cannot afford insurance causing premiums to rise further. And I doubt that those without insurance get really the best care available. So you have a system that is cost-inefficient and creates a stark differences between haves and have nots and only the insurance companies end up profiting.

Or you can have a system like in most civilized countries, where everybody can afford basic insurance (or where basic insurance is covered by taxes) In system B, almost everybody is able to contribute a part of their income, also the poor who in system A wouldnot have been able to afford healthcare, so the participation rate is much higher, making overall costs of hospitals and insurance lower and making basic healthcare available for everyone. Those who can afford it are free to pay more for extra care.
 
2012-12-31 03:06:21 AM

mraudacia: cant trust people to check there mirrors/blind spots when there turning right, left. and you think you can trust them to make sure your not a vegetable.

let alone that australian article i read on fark where the mental patient walked out, the police arrested someone who looked like him, and the staff said "yep thats the guy" until he had a bad reaction to the meds they gave him, sent him to hospital, and the original mental health patient returned.

not to mention the umpteen fark ups that occur in hospitals world wide on a daily basis.

wow lol, just wow. how can you trust someone to make a decision like that. let alone so many of them! statistically you know they farked up atleast once! wow!


When my dad died many years ago, I was, and still am, convinced he died needlessly. They said he had lung cancer and I'm pretty sure their diagnosis came from the fact that he was a smoker as the docs put that opinion out there without even doing a biopsy first. We found out later, while he was still alive, he did not have lung cancer, he had a very bad case of pneumonia and one of his lungs had hardened (calcified, I think they called it) and had to be removed. He died of post surgical complications. If he had been treated for the appropriate malady right away, he'd probably still be alive, but NOOOO. They had to dick around with the whole "he smokes, so it's lung cancer" BS.

I'm sure my very strong aversion to doctors isn't doing me any favors, but I just don't trust them for the most part, especially since I'm pretty sure they killed my Dad.

/had one ask me how long I'd been doing heroin after seeing my blood work
//I've  never done heroin, EVAR
///I just avoid them now unless I have absolutely no other choice
 
2012-12-31 03:07:02 AM

BronyMedic: The stupidity in this thread will be spectacular once it hits the main page. I predict this becoming a legendary thread. My amazing psychic powers also predict people with no idea of what end of life care REALLY means will be happy to tell us how it REALLY is.
...


You make some good points. In multiple threads I see you hold forth from on high.

But you're 27 yo. You don't know anything like what you think you know. Could you please focus on being a little less of an asshole?
 
2012-12-31 03:07:45 AM
Having worked in acute healthcare and having elderly relatives in nursing homes, I fully understand the article and agree more attention needs to paid to advance directives and end-of-life care. But when I first read that article I thought it was from the Onion.
 
2012-12-31 03:33:15 AM

The Man Who Laughs:

I think part of that issue is that there are many, shall we say "lower class" patients who occupy hospital facilities with all range of illnesses real and imagined and never have any intention of paying. The money that pays for those people comes from the rest of you.


No, that is a tiny portion, the money goes to profit for the corp running the hospital and the corp running the insurer. Dont fall for their bullshiat.
 
2012-12-31 03:56:45 AM
The whole end of life argument will never die down until people will drop the right to life belief. I've always thought that sometimes death is a better method depending on the quality of life for some instead of keeping them alive because death is evil and the attachment to life is too much to give up.

People forget cases like Terri Schivo in situations like this.
 
2012-12-31 04:13:41 AM

RabidJade: The whole end of life argument will never die down until people will drop the right to life belief. I've always thought that sometimes death is a better method depending on the quality of life for some instead of keeping them alive because death is evil and the attachment to life is too much to give up.

People forget cases like Terri Schivo in situations like this.


Actually, I've been yelled at before for bringing her up all these years later. Some of us don't forget, but some others don't seem to care that if you're not there, you're not there. "Right to life" only can take you so far. "Right to death" is just as valid, IMO. Why people ignore that is beyond me.

/has seen too many friends and family suffer, considering I'm only in my 40's
//I made it even after I was unplugged, but if I hadn't, would have been better than being Schiavo'd.
 
2012-12-31 04:27:53 AM

Delecrious: Don't take it personally. It's nice you have plans for after death but you can't possibly deny the drain on the economy? If we don't figure out something, everything you leave your children will be for nothing.


The best thing about this is, when the smoke clears and the Generation Whiners realize to their shock that the Baby Boomers they just euthanized were actually the source of their wealth instead of a drain on it, they will be so fundamentally incapable of admitting that they made any mistake that they'll simply turn on each other, blaming every other member of their own generation and all the generations that come after for the fact that killing the geese that laid the golden eggs never produced the expected flood of new wealth.

/your slacker, hipster friends will be on your doorstep with shotguns, screaming that since all the Boomers are dead, YOU must have stolen all the money
//at least, the ones you haven't killed yourself, for stealing all the money
 
2012-12-31 04:45:32 AM
Elspeth Chowdharay-Best of Alert?

Ouch.
 
2012-12-31 04:57:12 AM
Put them in the movies

Bill Hicks
 
2012-12-31 05:21:19 AM

duffblue: Now if we could only get the Baby Boomers to off themselves we'd be in business.


As long as we can take a couple of dozen of you Gen Nothings with each of us, I'm OK with that. Shiathead.
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report