the major problems I have and most of my friends have with the bho obamacare is that abortions are required coverage, which will force Catholic and other Christian hospitals and health care facilities to close. Catholic and other Christian hospitals and doctors have historically been on the forefront of service provided to those who can and cannot pay. This loss and the forced legislation of what to many (including myself) is murder on demand is a shameful thing and bodes no good.
THe promised 'stimulus' package has funded planned parenthood and to add forced abortions into further obamacare is not careful of the good of the country,in my opinion.
A young mother's premature baby died in her arms after doctors refused to help because it was born just before 22-week cut-off point for treatment.
Sarah Capewell, 23, gave birth to her son Jayden when she was 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy.
Although doctors refused to place the baby in intensive care, Jayden lived for two hours before he passed away at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk, last October.
(snip)
Miss Capewell, of Great Yarmouth, said: 'When I asked about my baby's human rights, the attitude of the doctors seemed to be that he did not have any.
'They said before 22 weeks he was just a foetus.'
(snip)
The medical guidance for NHS hospitals, limiting care of the most premature babies, was drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2006.
The guidelines are clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated.
And, before anybody says anything, I realize that we are not in the UK and what is being proposed is not the NHS. However, when business rules are set up to control costs, they will make arbitrary decisions...if not an arbitrary decision like this one, some arbitrary decision that will upset somebody. Right now, there is a bogey man: the insurance companies. When the government-run "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" (HR 3200 Title 1 sec 123) makes its recommendation on coverages (sec 121), there may be some wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tough decisions have to be made.
our doctors read this all people should treaded with respect
this is wrong
Obama should understand how wrong this is
and all doctors should know what said about this and I know all doctors do not do this
love Roy
Roy,
I'm terribly sorry that I didn't make myself adequately clear above.
This did not happen in the USA. This happened in England.
The point I was getting at was that in order to cut costs, some rules will have to be set up on what they will pay for and what they won't. Sometimes those rules might have to be rules that most of us don't understand or like. The rules that they will have to set up may or may not be like this one, where they just refuse to treat a 21-week gestation baby. Or the rules may be that they don't provide chemotherapy to a 90 year old with cancer. Or the rules may be that they won't treat a smoker for lung cancer or a drinker for cirrhosis of the liver. Regardless, they will have to put some kind of rule in place.
Why do they have to put those kinds of rules in place? Well, take the example from the article I posted above. They say that only 16% of infants survive that are born after only 21 weeks of pregnancy. So they figure that it's just not cost effective to treat those babies when 84% of them will die anyway. They could make the same argument for providing some kind of treatments for old people or for people with bad habits like smoking, drinking, or being fat.
They have to make some kind of rules on what they will pay for, otherwise, the costs will be totally out of control. Insurance companies do it right now. And the government will have to do it as well. I don't know what those rules will be nor does anybody else, but there will have to be rules, I can 100% guarantee that.
But once again, this article shows an example of a rule that they have in place for the nationalized health care in England. Neither Obama nor any doctor in the US had anything to do with that baby dying.
Why do they have to put those kinds of rules in place? Well, take the example from the article I posted above. They say that only 16% of infants survive that are born after only 21 weeks of pregnancy. So they figure that it's just not cost effective to treat those babies when 84% of them will die anyway.
That isn't really fair or accurate. Those are medical guidelines and are not purely cost effective measures. There are other reasons they do not resuscitate a baby born before 22 weeks or give them intensive care treatment.
What happened was wrong. . . . but, that it is strictly a cost effective measure is a very big assumption. NHS spends a billion dollars a year on preemie care for 40,000 infants.
The guidelines were drawn up by a council on Bioethics. They are not compulsory. They are guidelines. The Doctors could and should have treated Jayden. It sounds like the hospital was wrong and are now passing the blame onto the NHS guidelines.
And, before anybody says anything, I realize that we are not in the UK and what is being proposed is not the NHS. However, when business rules are set up to control costs, they will make arbitrary decisions...if not an arbitrary decision like this one, some arbitrary decision that will upset somebody. Right now, there is a bogey man: the insurance companies. When the government-run "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" (HR 3200 Title 1 sec 123) makes its recommendation on coverages (sec 121), there may be some wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tough decisions have to be made.
Mark, you may not have knowledge of UK newspapers, but the Daily Mail is a UFO loving tabloid and has been sued numerous times for libel and such. They are on the same level as the National Enquirer. If I wanted to, I could also pull out some articles where they make Bush look like a total retard, but even my dislike of him doesn't make me believe what they say. The fact is, the article you posted probably isn't true, so I would not suggest using it as an example to make your point.
As far as the NHS making arbitrary decisions, they do not cut care for people to control costs. You may be able to find a case or two of malpractice, but you can't find any pattern or policy of them letting people die to cut costs.
In the U.S., however, many people do die to cut costs so the investors in the insurance companies can make a higher profit. Every insurance company out there has a whole department whose jobs are to find ways to drop people and refuse treatment, and as a result many Americans die or suffer horribly.
As far as what is in HR 3200 that you are throwing about as what appears to be a reference to Palin's "Death Panels", they will simply define what care is covered in general and what is not. This is the same type of thing that happens in any system including private companies. If you read the actual proposed bill, it states under the duties section:
1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘Secretary’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
I don't know about you, but I personally would like them to consider covering more treatments as time goes on and new discoveries are made. For example, within the next few years, we are likely to see cancer treatment options include nanobots with bee venom that are used to attack tumors. Insurance companies may not like that treatment when it's new and reject it, while it would become commonplace in Europe, Asia, etc. because of the costs associated with new technology.
From my perspective, I've seen the NHS work in the UK. I have family members alive because of it. They focus more on prevention than we do here, but when they need something, such as cancer treatment, they get it. Most people over there are happy with it and think it works great. You can quote from tabloids and right-wing scaremonger sites all you like, but the fact is, the NHS works mostly well. As a strong believer in how great this country is, I see no reason why our nation couldn't do as good as or exceed what the U.K. is capable of. There's simply no reason why we can't do it, unless we let greed, selfishness, or ignorance get in the way.
That isn't really fair or accurate. Those are medical guidelines and are not purely cost effective measures. There are other reasons they do not resuscitate a baby born before 22 weeks or give them intensive care treatment.
What happened was wrong. . . . but, that it is strictly a cost effective measure is a very big assumption. NHS spends a billion dollars a year on preemie care for 40,000 infants.
The guidelines were drawn up by a council on Bioethics. They are not compulsory. They are guidelines. The Doctors could and should have treated Jayden. It sounds like the hospital was wrong and are now passing the blame onto the NHS guidelines.
BTW I sat in a NICU for 3 months with a preemie.
My daughter was in NICU for a while too and when I read what Mark posted I got angry, until I clicked the link and saw he was using the British equivalent of the National Enquirer as a reference. The whole story was likely fabricated, and if not, it's likely that the baby was dead and there was nothing they could do. I seriously doubt any person who took the Hippocratic oath would simply allow a baby that had survived for a few hours to die.
How about the Telegraph? That is a broadsheet, so it ought to satisfy even a news snob such as yourself.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics had stepped gingerly into an area which was already the topic of fierce debate.
During a two-year inquiry, its working party took evidence not just from doctors and nurses in neonatal medicine, but from professors of philosophy, and religious leaders.
But however carefully the debate was handled, the categorical nature of its final recommendations had an incendendiary effect.
The guidelines were clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated.
If a child was born between 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy it should not be standard practice to offer medical intervention, which should only be given if parents requested it, and following a through discussion about the likely outcomes, the document said.
Or how about this, from the Times, another broadsheet (different topic, same NHS)
Almost 2,000 critically ill patients were discharged early from NHS intensive care units last year because of a shortage of beds, the Conservatives have claimed.
Data from eight out of ten hospital trusts in England suggests that a further 20,000 patients had their discharge from intensive care delayed because there were no suitable beds in other wards to which they could be transferred.
You can get mad all you want. Facts are facts. I hope the Telegraph is a good enough source to meet your high standards of journalism.
By the way, P-Mosh, you should look up HR 1 section 804 (FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH) on http://thomas.loc.gov
And in the appropriation part of the bill for HHS (Title VIII), you will see the following text:
In addition, $400,000,000 shall be available for comparative effectiveness research to be allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ('Secretary'):
Provided,
That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions; and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data
In most cases, you will note that this will be a matter of saying: "Treatment 'A' works better than Treatment 'B'"...but they also can make a determination that "Treatment A" is just not cost effective in certain clinical situations (i.e., an old fart or a smoker) and shouldn't be done.
Just like the Nuffeld Protocol described in the Telegraph article earlier. Or a slightly over-active government use of the Liverpool Care Pathway.
Over ten years ago CBS 60 minutes did a segment entitled "The French Paradox." It focused on the differences of lifestyle French and Americans with noted the paradox of the French engage in riskier behaviors linked to heart disease than do Americans, yet they are much less likely to develop or die from coronary disease. They smoke more, eat more fatty foods and even tend to be a little more overweight. But they also drink five times more red wine than Americans.
Studies have shown that red wine contains a powerful antioxidant reservatrol, which has been shown in studies to increase good cholesterol (HDL) while reducing bad (LDL). Not only that it has been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers, rheumatoid arthritis and delays the onset of dementia.
A votre sante.
With that said, they only spend about 11% of their GDP on healthcare compared to our 17% and have far better outcomes. France usually ranks in the top five nations in health indices such as healthy life expectancy and lowest preventable deaths per 100,000 population. France experiences half the rate of infant mortality than does the USA which is an index closely tied to the availability of pre-natal care.
I believe a months supply of trans-resveratrol (200 mg a day) is now about $20. Great. Problem solved.
How about the Telegraph? That is a broadsheet, so it ought to satisfy even a news snob such as yourself.
I'm a news snob for taking you to task for posting an article from a tabloid? The Telegraph isn't much better, as they are a partisan paper in favor of the Tories. However, from the article you posted yourself, it said:
If a child was born between 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy it should not be standard practice to offer medical intervention, which should only be given if parents requested it, and following a through discussion about the likely outcomes, the document said.
That says that if a baby is born prematurely and is dead, they won't try to resuscitate it without the parents asking for it. The medical industry has made advances to a point where they are able to save premature babies at younger ages. The recommendations given by the NHS to doctors will change over time as medical science advances. As far as the case you originally posted, it said that the mother asked the doctors to save her baby and they refused, despite the baby supposedly already breathing and everything. That goes completely against what this article in the conservative paper said. Which is it, is the NHS forcing doctors to murder living babies as you first claimed, or are they passing out recommendations that require the parents to ask for care if they are below 23 weeks of gestation? You can't have it both ways.
Or how about this, from the Times, another broadsheet (different topic, same NHS)
Patients are kicked out of emergency rooms in the U.K., according to conservatives? How is that factual? The Republicans did some research too, and found that Obama was really born in Kenya, that FDR magically caused the great depression before he ran for President, and that Obama brainwashes schoolchildren into becoming communists by telling them the importance of personal responsibility and staying in school.
Even if it were true, and it very well could be, we do exactly the same thing in our privatized system. I know it happens here in Conservative Texas as well as in "Liberal" California.
You can get mad all you want. Facts are facts. I hope the Telegraph is a good enough source to meet your high standards of journalism.
You are presenting misleading, biased information and calling it facts. Here are some facts for you to face:
According to the CIA factbook, here are a few of the more interesting life expectancy rankings by nation:
8 Canada
9 France
10 Sweden
32 Germany
36 UK
50 USA
Those socialized systems that people here seem to claim don't work do seem to support people living longer than here. But let's look at the beginning of life too. Since you are focusing on babies, let's talk about the infant mortality rate. In this one, the lower the rank the better, because the higher the number the more babies that die per 1,000.
180 United States
189 Canada
193 UK
210 Germany
217 France
222 Sweden
We were barely beat out by Cuba, who has less babies die per year in their totalitarian state than in our much greater nation. Of course, the only place we are #1 in when it comes to our health is in how much we pay. I would provide a direct link to it, but the World Health Organization statistics page is a bit tough to work with in that way, you'll have to go yourself and do a search under the Health System Resources category and select "Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate" to see it for yourself. Of course, another interesting side effect of our privatized system is that healthcare costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country.
So the facts are, we have some of the worst health when it comes to industrialized (first world) nations, yet we pay more than anyone else on Earth. It's pretty clear that our system is broken, and the facts show that the systems you and others are so afraid of do work better, save more lives, and increase the overall quality of life that their people have. We as Americans deserve better, and are capable of much better than what we have now. Maybe you don't agree, but the facts are pretty clearly on my side here.
God first
hi geisha779 and Mister P-Mosh and markomalley and Bolshevik
i think we are will be sorry in the end
because we are powerless over this miss the government got us into
the government will go broke and there that you or me can do
love Roy
Roy,
I think your first mistake is viewing the government as being a separate entity from the people of this nation. They work for us, one way or another, and we need to enforce that. The second mistake is in assuming that the government is to blame for our economic problems. In reality, I do think that the government allowed it to happen and both parties share the responsibility to some degree, but the biggest problem are the huge corporations, specifically in the financial sector, that created huge risks with our money (as their customers), and ripped us off. I think the ultimate blame lies with the big corporations that seem to have more rights and more access to the government than us private citizens do.
And recently I was reading in 1Kings and was so blessed to see that when the Lord sums up the life of a king, he is not bashful about saying so-and-so did wickedly in the sight of the Lord.
I expect the Lord will be able to accurately sum up the lives of the leadership in the 20th century as well.
Which is it, is the NHS forcing doctors to murder living babies as you first claimed, or are they passing out recommendations that require the parents to ask for care if they are below 23 weeks of gestation? You can't have it both ways.
Which one is scarier? Which one makes NHS look evil? Non compulsory medical guidelines by a panel on bioethics. . . or they are killing babies to save money?
I'm a news snob for taking you to task for posting an article from a tabloid? The Telegraph isn't much better, as they are a partisan paper in favor of the Tories. However, from the article you posted yourself, it said:
That says that if a baby is born prematurely and is dead, they won't try to resuscitate it without the parents asking for it. The medical industry has made advances to a point where they are able to save premature babies at younger ages. The recommendations given by the NHS to doctors will change over time as medical science advances. As far as the case you originally posted, it said that the mother asked the doctors to save her baby and they refused, despite the baby supposedly already breathing and everything. That goes completely against what this article in the conservative paper said. Which is it, is the NHS forcing doctors to murder living babies as you first claimed, or are they passing out recommendations that require the parents to ask for care if they are below 23 weeks of gestation? You can't have it both ways.
So I guess now the standard is only a partisan paper published by Labour is an adequate British source. Got it.
The quote said that no baby under 22 weeks should be resuscitated. With or without parents' request.
Likewise, the only murder of a live baby is the murder in your own mind. Neither the Mail article nor the Telegraph article asserted that, nor did I in my initial comment.
Some around here are probably capable of comprehending the difference between not resuscitating a patient and murdering a patient, regardless of age.
In fact, the only quote that I made in this entire thread that came close to that was this one (from post #29)
The rules that they will have to set up may or may not be like this one, where they just refuse to treat a 21-week gestation baby. Or the rules may be that they don't provide chemotherapy to a 90 year old with cancer. Or the rules may be that they won't treat a smoker for lung cancer or a drinker for cirrhosis of the liver. Regardless, they will have to put some kind of rule in place.
Perhaps you can point out to me where I gave any indication of murdering patients, whether they be 21 week babies or 90 year old cancer patients.
Patients are kicked out of emergency rooms in the U.K., according to conservatives? How is that factual? The Republicans did some research too, and found that Obama was really born in Kenya, that FDR magically caused the great depression before he ran for President, and that Obama brainwashes schoolchildren into becoming communists by telling them the importance of personal responsibility and staying in school.
Even if it were true, and it very well could be, we do exactly the same thing in our privatized system. I know it happens here in Conservative Texas as well as in "Liberal" California.
You are presenting misleading, biased information and calling it facts. Here are some facts for you to face:
According to the CIA factbook, here are a few of the more interesting life expectancy rankings by nation:
Those socialized systems that people here seem to claim don't work do seem to support people living longer than here. But let's look at the beginning of life too. Since you are focusing on babies, let's talk about the infant mortality rate. In this one, the lower the rank the better, because the higher the number the more babies that die per 1,000.
We were barely beat out by Cuba, who has less babies die per year in their totalitarian state than in our much greater nation. Of course, the only place we are #1 in when it comes to our health is in how much we pay. I would provide a direct link to it, but the World Health Organization statistics page is a bit tough to work with in that way, you'll have to go yourself and do a search under the Health System Resources category and select "Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate" to see it for yourself. Of course, another interesting side effect of our privatized system is that healthcare costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country.
So the facts are, we have some of the worst health when it comes to industrialized (first world) nations, yet we pay more than anyone else on Earth. It's pretty clear that our system is broken, and the facts show that the systems you and others are so afraid of do work better, save more lives, and increase the overall quality of life that their people have. We as Americans deserve better, and are capable of much better than what we have now. Maybe you don't agree, but the facts are pretty clearly on my side here.
Actually, you are making my point (though I realize that this is the last thing you would ever want to do).
Yes, patients get kicked out here. Through insurance company guidelines for a standard of care. I have personal, first-hand experience with this in fact.
It will be worse once we go over to nationalized medicine. Why? Because they are doing nothing to fix the problem, they are just shifting who will be accountable to pay for the problem.
"Oh, but Mark, the government will not allow insurance companies to force patients to be kicked out."
OK, then that means that premiums will go up.
"Oh, but Mark, no they won't. The government won't allow it."
In which case the insurance companies will no longer do medical insurance. If you force somebody to lose money, they will not stay in a business.
"Oh, but Mark, we need to be on single-payer anyway, so who cares if some money-hungry insurance company goes out of business?"
In which case subsidies will have to go up. Meaning that either Geithner has to print more money (since China won't buy up all of our debt anymore), or taxes will go up, or your premiums to the single payer will go up.
Allow me to let you in on a secret: I actually hope the health care plan goes through. The most radical possible version of it."
And my favourite (British spelling in honor of The Times): USA versus the NHS (Aug 16, 2009)
When Bobbie Whiteman moved to the United States from Britain, she did not give medical insurance a thought. She had no cover for six months and it was only when she was offered a job at Variety, the Hollywood newspaper, that it became an issue. It was part of her salary package and she had to decide between several schemes the company had on offer.
Seven years later, in 2007, the value of the scheme she chose became all too evident. Suffering from persistent backache – which doctors initially attributed to being “unfit” - she was given an MRI scan which showed she had a string of cancerous tumours down her back.
Instead of heading for home and the National Health Service, she had treatment in America - and is glad she did. “Every time you go for any treatment here, they want to see your insurance card and check every detail they have about you and that is wearisome,” said Whiteman, 49. “But I’ve had some terrific treatment.”
Little expense was spared in having the necessary scans, tests, radiation treatment and drugs. So far her cancer is stabilised: “There are all sorts of things you have to be aware of: some treatments you part-pay for and you have to choose a doctor who is approved by your insurer. But it’s not all about money here. The doctors are doctors - they really want to help you.”
(snip)
“Most doctors in Britain, if they’ve worked overseas, will admit that somewhere like America has the best of the best. What it doesn’t have is the breadth of coverage,” he said.
“Ours is an equitable, morally cogent way of doing things. But looking at the amount and quality of research into my cancer, there was a clear difference between Britain and the United States.”
Thanks to the vast sums poured into the US system, those Americans with insurance undergo more x-rays and other diagnostic tests than British patients, which appears to have some impressive spin-offs. America’s superior survival rate from prostate cancer – 92% after five years compared with 51% here – is probably down to diagnoses being made earlier.
Indeed, in the United States the complaint is sometimes too much healthcare, not too little. “Overconsumption or overprovision of healthcare is a huge problem in the States,” said James Gubb, director of the health unit at Civitas, the British think tank. “You get paid in some cases for each x-ray you carry out or each operation and clearly, if that’s happening, then there’s a big incentive to overtreat.
“There is unquestionably more of a sense of customer service in the States – that it is important to look after the patient as a customer and provide the services they want – than there is in the NHS.”
(remainder snipped)
Yup, I think we ought to switch to Obamacare...100% /s
What odd thing for a man that believes in God to say after my President gives and tells he going to do good things for us. But in truth he is lying and he knows it a plan for all means all not all that are legal here look it up.
Yes I am calling President a dirty lie because that what he did because will we not close our borers to Mexico and other people who might come from any country. Apostle Paul set in jail because of the truth will the government do it today I do not know but its heading that way.
The truth might put me in prison but that only effects this body not spirit one that I will sing about the truth as long I live this life and past. God is talking about the future when nothing shall make you imprison but you are from this world and there are lying Presidents.
Has this President this been the only one no do you remember words “read my lips” from a past President that we had. Obama knows the truth and I can do nothing about him or can I?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
22
5
14
Popular Days
Sep 8
11
Sep 7
11
Sep 10
9
Sep 6
9
Top Posters In This Topic
HAPe4me 6 posts
year2027 22 posts
Mister P-Mosh 5 posts
markomalley 14 posts
Popular Days
Sep 8 2009
11 posts
Sep 7 2009
11 posts
Sep 10 2009
9 posts
Sep 6 2009
9 posts
Popular Posts
HAPe4me
Roy- I hope you watch shows other than Fox now and then. It is amazing the different ideas that are on other networks.
oenophile
Hogwash, Kit. Another scare tactic and misinformation campaign pandered by special interests, i.e. big Pharma and insurance companies that will have to face real competition if healthcare reform goes
Mister P-Mosh
Mark, you may not have knowledge of UK newspapers, but the Daily Mail is a UFO loving tabloid and has been sued numerous times for libel and such. They are on the same level as the National Enquirer.
markomalley
Kit,
What do you think about this:
From today's (9/8) UK Mail:
And, before anybody says anything, I realize that we are not in the UK and what is being proposed is not the NHS. However, when business rules are set up to control costs, they will make arbitrary decisions...if not an arbitrary decision like this one, some arbitrary decision that will upset somebody. Right now, there is a bogey man: the insurance companies. When the government-run "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" (HR 3200 Title 1 sec 123) makes its recommendation on coverages (sec 121), there may be some wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tough decisions have to be made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Mark
our doctors should ashame of their self
our doctors read this all people should treaded with respect
this is wrong
Obama should understand how wrong this is
and all doctors should know what said about this and I know all doctors do not do this
love Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Roy,
I'm terribly sorry that I didn't make myself adequately clear above.
This did not happen in the USA. This happened in England.
The point I was getting at was that in order to cut costs, some rules will have to be set up on what they will pay for and what they won't. Sometimes those rules might have to be rules that most of us don't understand or like. The rules that they will have to set up may or may not be like this one, where they just refuse to treat a 21-week gestation baby. Or the rules may be that they don't provide chemotherapy to a 90 year old with cancer. Or the rules may be that they won't treat a smoker for lung cancer or a drinker for cirrhosis of the liver. Regardless, they will have to put some kind of rule in place.
Why do they have to put those kinds of rules in place? Well, take the example from the article I posted above. They say that only 16% of infants survive that are born after only 21 weeks of pregnancy. So they figure that it's just not cost effective to treat those babies when 84% of them will die anyway. They could make the same argument for providing some kind of treatments for old people or for people with bad habits like smoking, drinking, or being fat.
They have to make some kind of rules on what they will pay for, otherwise, the costs will be totally out of control. Insurance companies do it right now. And the government will have to do it as well. I don't know what those rules will be nor does anybody else, but there will have to be rules, I can 100% guarantee that.
But once again, this article shows an example of a rule that they have in place for the nationalized health care in England. Neither Obama nor any doctor in the US had anything to do with that baby dying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Mark
rules can never be made right
I say try if there a 01. per cent change of living if the person wants to try
the doctor says he will do no harm
there always right and wrong
I think take slow
because you almost have me total against it all the way
but right say try to pass something but lets take it slow
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
That isn't really fair or accurate. Those are medical guidelines and are not purely cost effective measures. There are other reasons they do not resuscitate a baby born before 22 weeks or give them intensive care treatment.
What happened was wrong. . . . but, that it is strictly a cost effective measure is a very big assumption. NHS spends a billion dollars a year on preemie care for 40,000 infants.
The guidelines were drawn up by a council on Bioethics. They are not compulsory. They are guidelines. The Doctors could and should have treated Jayden. It sounds like the hospital was wrong and are now passing the blame onto the NHS guidelines.
BTW I sat in a NICU for 3 months with a preemie.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Mark, you may not have knowledge of UK newspapers, but the Daily Mail is a UFO loving tabloid and has been sued numerous times for libel and such. They are on the same level as the National Enquirer. If I wanted to, I could also pull out some articles where they make Bush look like a total retard, but even my dislike of him doesn't make me believe what they say. The fact is, the article you posted probably isn't true, so I would not suggest using it as an example to make your point.
As far as the NHS making arbitrary decisions, they do not cut care for people to control costs. You may be able to find a case or two of malpractice, but you can't find any pattern or policy of them letting people die to cut costs.
In the U.S., however, many people do die to cut costs so the investors in the insurance companies can make a higher profit. Every insurance company out there has a whole department whose jobs are to find ways to drop people and refuse treatment, and as a result many Americans die or suffer horribly.
As far as what is in HR 3200 that you are throwing about as what appears to be a reference to Palin's "Death Panels", they will simply define what care is covered in general and what is not. This is the same type of thing that happens in any system including private companies. If you read the actual proposed bill, it states under the duties section:
I don't know about you, but I personally would like them to consider covering more treatments as time goes on and new discoveries are made. For example, within the next few years, we are likely to see cancer treatment options include nanobots with bee venom that are used to attack tumors. Insurance companies may not like that treatment when it's new and reject it, while it would become commonplace in Europe, Asia, etc. because of the costs associated with new technology.
From my perspective, I've seen the NHS work in the UK. I have family members alive because of it. They focus more on prevention than we do here, but when they need something, such as cancer treatment, they get it. Most people over there are happy with it and think it works great. You can quote from tabloids and right-wing scaremonger sites all you like, but the fact is, the NHS works mostly well. As a strong believer in how great this country is, I see no reason why our nation couldn't do as good as or exceed what the U.K. is capable of. There's simply no reason why we can't do it, unless we let greed, selfishness, or ignorance get in the way.
My daughter was in NICU for a while too and when I read what Mark posted I got angry, until I clicked the link and saw he was using the British equivalent of the National Enquirer as a reference. The whole story was likely fabricated, and if not, it's likely that the baby was dead and there was nothing they could do. I seriously doubt any person who took the Hippocratic oath would simply allow a baby that had survived for a few hours to die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
How about the Telegraph? That is a broadsheet, so it ought to satisfy even a news snob such as yourself.
Or how about this, from the Times, another broadsheet (different topic, same NHS)
You can get mad all you want. Facts are facts. I hope the Telegraph is a good enough source to meet your high standards of journalism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
By the way, P-Mosh, you should look up HR 1 section 804 (FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH) on http://thomas.loc.gov
And in the appropriation part of the bill for HHS (Title VIII), you will see the following text:
In most cases, you will note that this will be a matter of saying: "Treatment 'A' works better than Treatment 'B'"...but they also can make a determination that "Treatment A" is just not cost effective in certain clinical situations (i.e., an old fart or a smoker) and shouldn't be done.
Just like the Nuffeld Protocol described in the Telegraph article earlier. Or a slightly over-active government use of the Liverpool Care Pathway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I believe a months supply of trans-resveratrol (200 mg a day) is now about $20. Great. Problem solved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi geisha779 and Mister P-Mosh and markomalley and Bolshevik
i think we are will be sorry in the end
because we are powerless over this miss the government got us into
the government will go broke and there that you or me can do
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I'm a news snob for taking you to task for posting an article from a tabloid? The Telegraph isn't much better, as they are a partisan paper in favor of the Tories. However, from the article you posted yourself, it said:
That says that if a baby is born prematurely and is dead, they won't try to resuscitate it without the parents asking for it. The medical industry has made advances to a point where they are able to save premature babies at younger ages. The recommendations given by the NHS to doctors will change over time as medical science advances. As far as the case you originally posted, it said that the mother asked the doctors to save her baby and they refused, despite the baby supposedly already breathing and everything. That goes completely against what this article in the conservative paper said. Which is it, is the NHS forcing doctors to murder living babies as you first claimed, or are they passing out recommendations that require the parents to ask for care if they are below 23 weeks of gestation? You can't have it both ways.
Patients are kicked out of emergency rooms in the U.K., according to conservatives? How is that factual? The Republicans did some research too, and found that Obama was really born in Kenya, that FDR magically caused the great depression before he ran for President, and that Obama brainwashes schoolchildren into becoming communists by telling them the importance of personal responsibility and staying in school.
Even if it were true, and it very well could be, we do exactly the same thing in our privatized system. I know it happens here in Conservative Texas as well as in "Liberal" California.
You are presenting misleading, biased information and calling it facts. Here are some facts for you to face:
According to the CIA factbook, here are a few of the more interesting life expectancy rankings by nation:
Those socialized systems that people here seem to claim don't work do seem to support people living longer than here. But let's look at the beginning of life too. Since you are focusing on babies, let's talk about the infant mortality rate. In this one, the lower the rank the better, because the higher the number the more babies that die per 1,000.
We were barely beat out by Cuba, who has less babies die per year in their totalitarian state than in our much greater nation. Of course, the only place we are #1 in when it comes to our health is in how much we pay. I would provide a direct link to it, but the World Health Organization statistics page is a bit tough to work with in that way, you'll have to go yourself and do a search under the Health System Resources category and select "Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate" to see it for yourself. Of course, another interesting side effect of our privatized system is that healthcare costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country.
So the facts are, we have some of the worst health when it comes to industrialized (first world) nations, yet we pay more than anyone else on Earth. It's pretty clear that our system is broken, and the facts show that the systems you and others are so afraid of do work better, save more lives, and increase the overall quality of life that their people have. We as Americans deserve better, and are capable of much better than what we have now. Maybe you don't agree, but the facts are pretty clearly on my side here.
Roy,
I think your first mistake is viewing the government as being a separate entity from the people of this nation. They work for us, one way or another, and we need to enforce that. The second mistake is in assuming that the government is to blame for our economic problems. In reality, I do think that the government allowed it to happen and both parties share the responsibility to some degree, but the biggest problem are the huge corporations, specifically in the financial sector, that created huge risks with our money (as their customers), and ripped us off. I think the ultimate blame lies with the big corporations that seem to have more rights and more access to the government than us private citizens do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Hi Mister P-Mosh
yes I agree it is the huge corporations that done this
but not just the Banks that did it
but every corporations that saw they could get fast money now and pay later
corporations is still bringing in the money and Obama into it all
the only thing left is civil war but I believe that will not work
we are going broke and all countrys will go broke by 2015 AD
it will get bad before its gets better if it can
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Hey Roy!
We can always pray!!!!!!!!!
And recently I was reading in 1Kings and was so blessed to see that when the Lord sums up the life of a king, he is not bashful about saying so-and-so did wickedly in the sight of the Lord.
I expect the Lord will be able to accurately sum up the lives of the leadership in the 20th century as well.
This will be nice to see. :)
In hope, always with hope,
Kit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Kit
yes we can always pray
it never to late for pray
thanks friend
yes hope always
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Which one is scarier? Which one makes NHS look evil? Non compulsory medical guidelines by a panel on bioethics. . . or they are killing babies to save money?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
So I guess now the standard is only a partisan paper published by Labour is an adequate British source. Got it.
The quote said that no baby under 22 weeks should be resuscitated. With or without parents' request.
Likewise, the only murder of a live baby is the murder in your own mind. Neither the Mail article nor the Telegraph article asserted that, nor did I in my initial comment.
Some around here are probably capable of comprehending the difference between not resuscitating a patient and murdering a patient, regardless of age.
In fact, the only quote that I made in this entire thread that came close to that was this one (from post #29)
Perhaps you can point out to me where I gave any indication of murdering patients, whether they be 21 week babies or 90 year old cancer patients.
Actually, you are making my point (though I realize that this is the last thing you would ever want to do).
Yes, patients get kicked out here. Through insurance company guidelines for a standard of care. I have personal, first-hand experience with this in fact.
It will be worse once we go over to nationalized medicine. Why? Because they are doing nothing to fix the problem, they are just shifting who will be accountable to pay for the problem.
"Oh, but Mark, the government will not allow insurance companies to force patients to be kicked out."
OK, then that means that premiums will go up.
"Oh, but Mark, no they won't. The government won't allow it."
In which case the insurance companies will no longer do medical insurance. If you force somebody to lose money, they will not stay in a business.
"Oh, but Mark, we need to be on single-payer anyway, so who cares if some money-hungry insurance company goes out of business?"
In which case subsidies will have to go up. Meaning that either Geithner has to print more money (since China won't buy up all of our debt anymore), or taxes will go up, or your premiums to the single payer will go up.
Allow me to let you in on a secret: I actually hope the health care plan goes through. The most radical possible version of it."
Signed,
The evil one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi everybody
who cares if insurance companies go under I care because there no need
If we would insurance across the board there need for public insurance company
and there few other things we can do like make a state insurance company like Kentucky has now
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, and here are some tidbits from the "approved" UK news source (The Times):
Fatal or serious NHS medication errors double in two years (Sep 7, 2009)
Hundreds report poor care suffered by NHS patients (Aug 28, 2009)
Shortage of NHS midwives is barrier to safety of mothers and babies (Aug 25, 2009)
Nurses 'left elderly patients lying in urine' (Aug 27, 2009)
<h1 class="heading"></h1>Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions (June 1, 2009)
The NHS is enormous, expensive and still growing (Sep 3, 2009)
NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay (Jun 1, 2008)
Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape' (Sep 20, 2005)<h1 class="heading"></h1>
And my favourite (British spelling in honor of The Times): USA versus the NHS (Aug 16, 2009)
Yup, I think we ought to switch to Obamacare...100% /s
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
The truth shall set you in prison!
09-10-2009
What odd thing for a man that believes in God to say after my President gives and tells he going to do good things for us. But in truth he is lying and he knows it a plan for all means all not all that are legal here look it up.
Yes I am calling President a dirty lie because that what he did because will we not close our borers to Mexico and other people who might come from any country. Apostle Paul set in jail because of the truth will the government do it today I do not know but its heading that way.
The truth might put me in prison but that only effects this body not spirit one that I will sing about the truth as long I live this life and past. God is talking about the future when nothing shall make you imprison but you are from this world and there are lying Presidents.
Has this President this been the only one no do you remember words “read my lips” from a past President that we had. Obama knows the truth and I can do nothing about him or can I?
Love Roy William Perry III
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Obama did not lie, in all versions of the bill in any committee, credits and Federal health care funds to illegal immigrants is forbidden.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1921455,00.html
Wilson is wrong, not Obama, on this issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi HAPe4me
Time will tell because Fox A different thing
But that why I did put but boards because debate it peaceful
I love you
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Roy- I hope you watch shows other than Fox now and then. It is amazing the different ideas that are on other networks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Hi HAPe4me
Yes I watch others news and shows
Fox News seem like the underdog of News
I like the history channel a lot
I used to never watch News but now I find into some
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Not to derail (or anything like that), but I'm getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of folks denigrating news sites that DON'T
agree with their personal perspective on the world situation.
I'm not singling you out Hap, but yours was the last post I read here about this,
so I'm using it for convenience's sake. I see this as an "on-going problem".
So what if someone gets "news" from a source you don't care for personally??
Debunk the info therein, rather than the site that offers it. If you can - - - great.
If you can't, don't attack the news site rather than the content being offered. This should apply to both sides of the topic-at-hand:
Poster A quotes from one news source ---- Posters B through (ad infinitum) ridicule Poster A for even subscribing to the views mentioned there.
Before you know it, it's the veracity of the news source in question rather than the topic at hand,
and any and all discussion about the "problem" grinds to a halt, while accusations of the source escalate.
Too many are fixated on ridiculing another's source of info, and "dissing" (whichever) news network that info came from.
Keep it up, eh? Sounds like all the old arguments revisited between Corps and Wow as to which was better and why,
with neither faction listening to the other, each convinced they followed the "correct path" to "spirituality".
Now - - - back to topic, if possible.
:blink: <_<
Oh - - - edited for speeling misteaks, in kase you wundered.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.