NHS In The Corridor

[amicus]

[B]Sorry if I've jumped on your bandwagon Liar, but I had to reply.[/B]

There is a news item of recent, about a kidnapped girl child located 18 years later.

Do you have an opinion on that? Do you think it would be, could be, should be an universal opinion?

Depriving someone of their freedom is wrong. If there is universal acceptance of your constitution, it must be accepted as wrong universally, isn't freedom one of the basic tenets of it?

There is an opinion against the death penalty in capital crimes, usually held by the left and some deviant religious cults. What is your opinion?

If killing people is wrong, how can it suddenly become right for the state to kill people? Not in my name! I might add that I am liberal and atheist.

What you, and some others, object to in my posts, is a statement of absolutes which most shy away from, especially on social issues.

It is absolute and I know it and express it; that to take the life of an unborn child for any reason other than to save the mother's life, is a crime and wrong and should be treated as premeditated murder by both the mother and the physician.

That is only an absolute under your moral standard, not everyone else's. According to my moral standard abortion is fine up to 18 weeks as the foetus has no possibility of becoming viable. It's wrong to perform abortions, but fine to kill adults is that it?

That is what you don't like about my posts; you are unwilling to even contemplate moral absolutes.

When are you going to realise that there are no moral absolutes? Morality is learned from the people around us and the society we live in. Some of us have the intellect to develop our own moral standards and live by them.

In this current debate concerning socialized medicine, most seem willing and ready to sacrifice the rights of others, doctors in particular, for the 'greater good' of free health care for all.

With rights comes responsibilities, though I'm not sure how the doctor's rights are being infringed they have the responsibility to treat the sick, whether they can pay or not. Even lawyers do pro bono work!

I postulate that it is an absolute moral axiom that you cannot force another to do your bidding and still claim to be human.

There are thousands of dead plantation owners and slavers who would disagree with you, many built churches on the backs of slaves! By their moral standards slavery was a good thing.

It is not difficult to understand my philosophy, Liar, and you know that. The problem is, that so many others have built a layered world view on sacrificing the individual to the group, that to acknowledge even one small part of the primacy of the individual would destroy your entire philosophical foundation.

It isn't difficult to understand your philosophy, it is totally egocentric! If people don't believe what you believe they are wrong. Everyone should adhere to your moral standards because they are, in your opinion, the only moral standards. Where is the individual sacrificed to the group? Where does contributing to the common good infringe on your individuality?

That is why some are irritated by my posts; I remind them that they have the capacity to be human and somewhere along the way, lost it.

The final sentence says it all, you are so bloody arrogant you believe that everyone who doesn't conform to your world view is sub-human. No wonder you irritate people.

~~~

Hello, Teloz the Virgin, and welcome to the Author's Hangout, a place for writer's and others to exchange opinions and points of view.

And, thank you for the opportunity to expose your shallow dogmatism.

"...Depriving someone of their freedom is wrong. If there is universal acceptance of your constitution, it must be accepted as wrong universally, isn't freedom one of the basic tenets of it?"

The bolded portion of your statement above is a moral absolute.

The rest of your paragraph is vague and confused and rather meaningless. The Constitution of the United States did not 'create' the concept of individual human freedom, it merely acts to protect it. Individual human freedom is an universal self evident truth by definition and is not granted; it is innate.

"...If killing people is wrong, how can it suddenly become right for the state to kill people? Not in my name! I might add that I am liberal and atheist."

"If killing people is wrong..." You mean to say you don't know, that to take an innocent human life is wrong/immoral?

The following exposition of values includes the use of concepts and abstractions which most Liberal Atheists seem unable to cope with.

It is not carved in stone, handed down from some fuzzy faced God that human life is sacred; it is, rather, an intellectual process which begins with the acknowledgement of the self evident axiom that, "I exist", I am.

Values, morals, ethics, are involved with those things that are beneficial or harmful to support the initial axiomatic observation, which is, "life exists, I have life, I am living, thus that is and must be my basic and primary value; that of human life.

There are conflicts between those who possess life, even wars, somewhat of a 'given' through all of human history. Why?

One who possesses, 'life' has a corollary right to protect and defend that life one has. When another threatens that life, that person 'forfeits', no longer has, that right to life. I will assume you are capable of extrapolating that 'individual' imperative to protect his own right, to that of a mutual association who delegate the responsibility of protecting and defending life, to those best suited to do so.

They would be called, guards, policemen, soldiers; certainly you must have run across reference to them somewhere in your reading?

That should dispose of your doubt about what life is, why it is the fundamental value in any moral system and why one has the innate right to protect and defend that right.

Now what other drivel did you spout?

Ah, yes, you are confused about the concept of universals and absolutes; typical.

"...That is only an absolute under your moral standard, not everyone else's. According to my moral standard abortion is fine up to 18 weeks as the foetus has no possibility of becoming viable. It's wrong to perform abortions, but fine to kill adults is that it?"

Aargh..talk about ego maniacs; your moral standard, stated in absolute terms of course, permits you to kill a human child in the womb for the first 18 weeks of life. How generous of you! Izzat arbitrary on your part? Scientifically noted to be not viable? A whim? Guess work?

Here is the clear and absolute definition of human life: a new, totally unique in all of time and space, human being, begins life at the instant of conception. If that is too complex for a Liberal Pussy to comprehend, then pray tell, what is created at that instant if not human life? A Pollywog? A computer chip? A DNA regenerated dinosaur. An alien? A blade of grass?

No, my slow witted acquaintance, it is and can be but one thing and one thing only, A is A, it is what it is: a human life.

This will be the last of your inanities that I address:

With rights comes responsibilities, though I'm not sure how the doctor's rights are being infringed they have the responsibility to treat the sick, whether they can pay or not. Even lawyers do pro bono work!

I know this will be difficult for you to comprehend, but imagine you are a medical doctor. You spent vast amounts of money, yours, others or stolen by taxes, and ten years of difficult studies, then perhaps an internship before you have a service others are willing to purchase.

Now, suppose I, in my omniscient and omnipotent beneficence(hope I spelled that right), decide that I need your services two thousand miles from your home in a dusty Reservation for Native Americans.

You will work the hours I determine, you will provide only the services I approve and will dispense only the medication I accept.

Are you still not sure how your rights are being infringed upon?

The second of the Constitutional rights protected, after Life, is Liberty, and if you do not understand the word, it means individual freedom to live your life as you choose without infringing upon the rights of others.

Like one of the characters along the yellow brick road, "If you only had a brain..." (I paraphrase)

the always amiable Amicus

 

[Liar]

I just read,in IBD, that Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist, caught pneumonia in 1985, had to have a tracheotomy and required 24/7 nursing care. The NHS offered him seven hours of nursing care per week. According to Hawking biographers Michael White and John Gribben, the only reason Hawking survived was that his then wife Jane, wrote letter after letter to the international scienfic community and got private funding to provide the needed nursing care. Jane was very bitter that, after a lifetime of paying into NHS, Hawking was essentially abandoned by NHS.

Well NHS supporters, true or false?

No idea, but if it's true, he doesn't seem very pissed about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-I-would-not-be-alive-without-the-NHS.html

 

[Teloz]

Amicus, dear boy, I could almost like you if you didn't spout such unutterable claptrap. Your arguments are devoid of reason and drenched in dogmatism. When you don't like the argument you descend to name calling and insult.

I can't be bothered to rebut your drivel point by point, someone as arrogant as you would ignore it anyway. I'm sure that with your attitude and your intelligence quotient akin to your shoe size, evolution will catch up with you in the end.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I just read,in IBD, that Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist, caught pneumonia in 1985, had to have a tracheotomy and required 24/7 nursing care. The NHS offered him seven hours of nursing care per week. According to Hawking biographers Michael White and John Gribben, the only reason Hawking survived was that his then wife Jane, wrote letter after letter to the international scienfic community and got private funding to provide the needed nursing care. Jane was very bitter that, after a lifetime of paying into NHS, Hawking was essentially abandoned by NHS.

Well NHS supporters, true or false?

False.

As he's said himself, he's been an NHS patient all his life; and he has nothing but praise for the NHS. But don't listen to me, listen to the man - his statement on this is all over the net.

 

[john-the-author]

Some of the things the gov. paid for seemed ridiculous then, and still do, at least to me, such as trimming toenails and transportation by special vehicles to medical appointments, etc. I'm quite sure no private insurance co would have paid for many of these things, considering them to be unnecessary, and the individuals would have passed them if they would have had to pay for them themselves.

One point here is there are things that *do* seem ridiculous that are nevertheless essential from a preventive POV. As a diabetic, having your toenails trimmed regularly and safely is critical to one's survival. If you don't trim them or you trim them badly and you also have peripheral neuropathies and peripheral circulatory degeneration, you can develop life-threatening infections very quickly.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Some of the things the gov. paid for seemed ridiculous then, and still do, at least to me, such as trimming toenails and transportation by special vehicles to medical appointments, etc. I'm quite sure no private insurance co would have paid for many of these things, considering them to be unnecessary, and the individuals would have passed them if they would have had to pay for them themselves.

One point here is there are things that *do* seem ridiculous that are nevertheless essential from a preventive POV. As a diabetic, having your toenails trimmed regularly and safely is critical to one's survival. If you don't trim them or you trim them badly and you also have peripheral neuropathies and peripheral circulatory degeneration, you can develop life-threatening infections very quickly.

The specific diagnosis that required foot washing and toenail trimming was "mycotic nails" and, according to commercial I see on TV for medications, I have the condition, which is very common. I trim my own nails, and have no problem doing it.

I am also aware that sometimes a person will need transportation to medical care if that person is bed bound or confined to a wheelchair. I have no problem with that. However, sometimes I have been on a bus and have seen people board using a wheeled walker or a quad cane or some other serious aid. I always offer my seat to such a person, if there are none available in the front, but what I am thinking is if that person can take a bus using a device like that, MediCAL recipients in the same condition should have been able to do the same.

That was a long time ago, and things may have changed since then, but I believe government payer insurance will be much like that was then.

 

[john-the-author]

Quote:
The specific diagnosis that required foot washing and toenail trimming was "mycotic nails" and, according to commercial I see on TV for medications, I have the condition, which is very common. I trim my own nails, and have no problem doing it.

Makes sense and from what I gather, it is fairly common. There are a lot of people who actually can't do it themselves for a variety of reasons: too fat to get to them (which'd fit with the diabetic condition), can't bend that far, all sorts of other things. So I can see this as a real need in cases.

Just to clarify, it doesn't sound like we're talking a mani/pedi for everyone, is that right?

 

[freshface]

The specific diagnosis that required foot washing and toenail trimming was "mycotic nails" and, according to commercial I see on TV for medications, I have the condition, which is very common. I trim my own nails, and have no problem doing it.

Mycotic nails (fungal infections) are common, but as with many medical conditions, one size does not fit all. Some infections are superficial and require no special care. Other go full thickness through the nail, causing secondary infections, brittle nails, pain, separation from the nail bed, etc. These need a podiatrist and long term care to heal. It's not just "toenail trimming." Treatment might include months of antifungals, antibiotics, medicated foot soaks, and/or debridement of the infected nail. Since the antifungals can cause liver damage, this patient also needs periodic blood screening. If a mycotic infection is allowed to go deep in a diabetic foot, the person could lose the foot. As John pointed out, any problem in the diabetic foot can become life threatening. Prevention is really important with these people.

I am also aware that sometimes a person will need transportation to medical care if that person is bed bound or confined to a wheelchair. I have no problem with that. However, sometimes I have been on a bus and have seen people board using a wheeled walker or a quad cane or some other serious aid. I always offer my seat to such a person, if there are none available in the front, but what I am thinking is if that person can take a bus using a device like that, MediCAL recipients in the same condition should have been able to do the same.

Proximity is key here. Is the bus stop close to where the person lives? Is the bus stop close to where the doctor works? My parents live a mile away from the closest bus stop. That bus comes once an hour and there's no bench at the stop. I would say that a person using a wheeled walker or cane would not be able to walk a mile and then stand to wait for the bus. I know for certain that when my father was still able to use a wheeled walker, there was no way that he could walk a mile, stand to wait for a bus, change buses downtown, walk around the block to the next bus before it left, wait the 20-30 minutes for the next bus, ride that bus to the doctor's office, walk the half a mile from the bus stop to the office, and then repeat the whole odyssey to get home. Every step was really painful for his diseased hip and he'd have run out of energy half way to the first bus stop.

 

[NoJo]

I just read,in IBD, that Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist, caught pneumonia in 1985, had to have a tracheotomy and required 24/7 nursing care. The NHS offered him seven hours of nursing care per week. According to Hawking biographers Michael White and John Gribben, the only reason Hawking survived was that his then wife Jane, wrote letter after letter to the international scienfic community and got private funding to provide the needed nursing care. Jane was very bitter that, after a lifetime of paying into NHS, Hawking was essentially abandoned by NHS.

Well NHS supporters, true or false?

I work in an NHS hospital, and have had a lot of experience with this issue with less illustrious people. I don't know the details of the news item, but I'd guess she wanted him to have 24/7 care, but he only needed 7 hours - probably an hour a day wound dressing. Hawking is on record saying that the NHS saved his life.

 

[Liar]

The whole scarecrow made out of "national health care is rationed health care" is such epic weak sauce.

OF COOOOOOUUUUURSE it rationed. So fucking what? EVERYTHING tax financed is rationed. You wouldn't want it to be anything but. It's called FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Spend the monies on the right things, and spend as little of it as possible to get the job done. It won't get everyone every operation and CAT scan and drug and 24 hour nurse team on alert that they WANT. That would be plain idiocy and irresponsible waste of tax payer money. But, if done right, it will get everyone the operation and CAT scan and drug and nursing that they medically NEED. And not an iota more.

(For free, that is. Of course, with the option of paying for more via private insurance or out of pocket. Money is money.)

That's one problem with private health care systems whether paid via insurance companies or via a single-payer tax financed program. The doctors and hospitals have an incentive to over-provide and pass the bill along to the government, or the insurer. Who in turn shafts consumers or tax payers. But thats one step removed from where the medical desicion is made.

The one who SHOULD be "rationing" health care (as in making sure people get only the care they need, not the care they imagine they need), the doctor, does not. Why would he, if neither he nor his patient is affected negatively by over-providing? The payer does the rationing, someone who is niether the doctor nor the patient.

So the question is not whether this-of-that system will ration health care. Every system does, one way or the other. The only real question is, which system puts the rationing in the hands of someone who have the knowledge to ration wisely? That would be the doctor, who, you know, knows medicine and stuff.

Totally free market health care paid out-of-pocket without insurers comes close. But that's not quite acceptabe, because of the assymetric financial load on the patients is unreasonable. Poor people would have to beg for charity or die. Even the working middle class would have to forget about sending their kids to college if one patent broke a leg. And a dishonest doctor can still squeeze a gullible patient for cash. So some oversight would be in order, although I do believe that the mechanics of a free market would keep the number of bullshitters fairly low.

And public health care, if done right so that doctors and hospitals are not rewarded for excess but for excellence and effectoiveness. Big goverment programs often create their own internal micro economies of payers, accounts, providers, politics and incentives, that gets the system into the same quagmire of bad incentives once again. So that's something to look out for.

 

[R. Richard]

Doctors are very skilled, highly trained people. I trust a doctor to make rational decisions on my heath care, I more or less have to. I don't trust a politician to make rational decisions on my heath care.

I don't say that doctors are all ethical and I definitely don't believe that they're infallible. In the area where I live, the doctors in the area finally ousted what was apparently an incompetent doctor. The ousting was good and needed. It took far too long and far too many butchered patients. Then the incompetent wasn't either prosecuted or was he banned from medical practice. I feel that professional responsibility wasn't shown. However, at least the doctors knew what they were doing. A politician wouldn't have known.

As to Hawking's public statements about the NHS, you must remember that Hawking is totally dependent on medical care if he's to survive. The NHS is his medical care provider. I have no doubt that Hawking NOW receives the best of care from the NHS. If Hawking now dies, due to an NHS blunder(s), the fallout would be disastrous for the NHS. However, if Joe Average dies, due to an NHS blunder(s), there is probably no real fallout.

 

[freshface]

Doctors are very skilled, highly trained people. I trust a doctor to make rational decisions on my heath care, I more or less have to. I don't trust a politician to make rational decisions on my heath care.

So do you trust insurance executives to make rational decisions on your health care? Cause they're the ones who make the decisions in the US. Doesn't matter how your doctor wants to treat you, it matters what your insurance carrier will cover.

As to Hawking's public statements about the NHS, you must remember that Hawking is totally dependent on medical care if he's to survive. The NHS is his medical care provider. I have no doubt that Hawking NOW receives the best of care from the NHS. If Hawking now dies, due to an NHS blunder(s), the fallout would be disastrous for the NHS. However, if Joe Average dies, due to an NHS blunder(s), there is probably no real fallout.

So, you're saying that on the one hand, NHS is blackmailing Hawking into saying nice things about NHS, and on the other hand NHS is afraid to harm him?

 

[R. Richard]

So do you trust insurance executives to make rational decisions on your health care? Cause they're the ones who make the decisions in the US. Doesn't matter how your doctor wants to treat you, it matters what your insurance carrier will cover.

No, insurance executives don't make final decisions regarding my health care. Insurance executives make final decisions regarding what they will pay for. My doctor(s) and I make final decisions regarding my health care. In a single-payer, government controlled system, the government makes final decisions regarding my health care.

So, you're saying that on the one hand, NHS is blackmailing Hawking into saying nice things about NHS, and on the other hand NHS is afraid to harm him?

That's not what I said. I said that Hawking is dependent on NHS service to keep him alive. I suspect that Hawking is afraid to say anything that might upset the NHS people and possibly interrupt his health care. I also suspect that Hawking's possible fear is unjustified at an organizational level, because the NHS, as an organization, is afraid to harm him. However, some NHS employee might, in a fit of anger, decide to harm Hawking, including harm by inattention.

Some time back, I was working in Brazil. I was being escorted to the edge of the area where I was to work by a plantation owner. The people who worked for him [essentially slaves] were being worked very hard by the overseers. The plantation owner apparently felt that I disapproved of the treatment of the workers [I did.] He then called one of the workers over and had the following [translated] conversation.

Plantation owner: "Joao, are you happy working here?" [Actual meaning: Do you, your wife and your children want to continue to eat, wear at least raggedy clothes and get enough medical attention to keep you able to work productively in the fields?]
Joao: "Yes, Senhor, I am happy to work for you. [Actual meaning: I work to survive until I can use my facao (machete) to cut your throat and then to cut a bit lower on the overseers. The day will come!]

I then rode on for a bit, with the platation owner apparently blissfully unaware of the real nature of things.

 

[Liar]

No, insurance executives don't make final decisions regarding my health care. Insurance executives make final decisions regarding what they will pay for. My doctor(s) and I make final decisions regarding my health care. In a single-payer, government controlled system, the government makes final decisions regarding my health care.

Uh. What do you base that on?

It's called single payer. Payer. A function that pays. That's P to the A Y S. Get it?

Why would a would a tax funded payer and an premium funded payer have different functions? Both decide what they'll pay for. If you want something they won't pay for, you pay for it yourself. No difference whatsoever from an insurer that does the same thing.

The only way government makes medical desicions, is if the government runs the hospital. That's not single payer. That's single provider. Provider. A function that provides health care. P to the... whatever.

And it's still not politicians and buerocrats, but doctors employed by hospitals, that gets funds from the government.

 

[Liar]

That's not what I said. I said that Hawking is dependent on NHS service to keep him alive.

So if he moved to the US, he'd die?

 

[oggbashan]

So if he moved to the US, he'd die?

If not, he'd be bankrupt. What insurance company would pay for that level of care for an existing condition?

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja8h2wxTzJY

 

[john-the-author]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja8h2wxTzJY

I just phoned an old friend to wish her a happy birthday. She's 54 in good health and a non-smoker. (IIRC, it runs in her family.) She's pretty successful as a small business owner and even with the economic downturn is still grossing at least a quarter million/year and probably twice that much. She's shutting down the brick-and-mortar part of her business and just running online, where she actually expects to make more money because of the reduced overhead.

She doesn't have any significant health problems, but she does have high blood pressure. This ONE factor is keeping her from getting health insurance anywhere. She said after trying to get insurance through 5 different companies and getting turned down, she's not going to bother trying further and will, instead, be looking for a day job so she can get insurance at all. Her husband will take over running the business and will then get spousal insurance coverage through her day job.

So it's not the lack of money. G. can afford insurance. The insurers simply aren't selling it to her. This kind of thing blows huge holes in the idea that insurance is available to any that can afford it. Were I to need private insurance now, a 53-yo diabetic with a known heart condition, high blood pressure, and a family history of high cholesterol, I think I could safely just plan on dying and avoiding the effort in even trying for insurance.

But of course, no-one could possibly be denied coverage under a self-regulated private system because that wouldn't be in anyone's interests. Yeah, bullshit.

 

[amicus]

johntheauthor...

"...But of course, no-one could possibly be denied coverage under a self-regulated private system because that wouldn't be in anyone's interests. Yeah, bullshit..."

~~~

It is doubtful that anyone or any point of view could slice through your dogmatic exposition of communal guide over individual life, but...being an optimist, I can at least make a stab at it.

On one hand, human life is fragile and fraught with peril from all directions; on the other hand human life is tenacious, clinging on in the worst of circumstances, with some surviving even extinction level events in history.

Among any group of people, large or small, the numbers will show that some will be born with handicaps, some blind, some lame, hundreds of possible defects as a new human enters life. Sickness, illness, disease, pestilence, not even to mention violence and conflict threaten health and life on a continual basis.

There have always been and always will be, those in any society who show concern and empathy for those in need. Often times it helps determine the value and honor of a particular society, the degree of compassion shown to those in need.

It is part of the human condition that we all share, and to our credit, or lack of it, compassion and care is given the sick, the lame, the weak, the injured and diseased. In other words, the religious schools and hospitals, the orphanages, the food banks, the shelter given by our fellow man in times of need reflect upon the moral foundation of that society.

Everything I have mentioned thus far is to be viewed as individual and group compassionate concern for those in need on a private basis; the sum total provided from true compassion by a people whenever and where-ever in time they exist or existed.

You entire concept of using force, the power of those who administer a society, to impose upon them a requirement to be compassionate and caring, acts to destroy those individual acts of concern that define the nature of any particular group.

When you advocate institutionalizing that compassion and concern for fellow humans, you act to dehumanize the entire process and turn the eyes of those in need from their neighbors to a distant, cold and calculating combination of paid public servants who must function by the rules codified that determine whom they will service and whom they will not.

In addition to the cost of time, wealth and resources to supply those needs, you also create another level of need for those who administer the programs and further absorb the wealth and resources of the population in general.

It is, and has been demonstrated to be, time after time, a lose/lose scenario.

One can tolerate the very young, embarking upon life as a maturing adult, remaining idealistic in their thoughts that if only they controlled all the resources, if only they could redistribute wealth and care according to their dictates, then the world would be a better place indeed.

But for someone of your age to continue to bask in that immature dream, betrays to all that you really do not comprehend the human condition and are operating from a limited ideology that disregards the very nature of human existence, that of the free choice of an individual to live his life unfettered by your dictates.

You want power and control. Just admit it and then try to sell it here or anywhere.

But you won't, ever. You will keep on mouthing the time-worn phrases of 'for the greater good', for the benefit of all, any and all syrupy and phoney solutions to the human condition.

There is no perfect solution to the state of humanity but the only solution with honor, is one which protects and defends the individual and his rights to live his life as he chooses.

An interesting news item earlier this Sunday morning...a Canadian city, near the US border, sends over 7,000 Candians a year in need of emergency care to a nearby US Hospital and the Canadian health service pays for it because they do not have the facilities to care for them.

The faults of government run health care systems are glaringly apparent everywhere it is in effect and still you ignore the facts and live in your dream.

Such a deal....

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

On one hand, human life is fragile and fraught with peril from all directions; on the other hand human life is tenacious, clinging on in the worst of circumstances, with some surviving even extinction level events in history.

In Amicus-speak, this translates to; "I don't care if you die, because I haven't died."

To which Ami carefully does NOT add; "yet." But he should.

An interesting news item earlier this Sunday morning...a Canadian city, near the US border, sends over 7,000 Candians a year in need of emergency care to a nearby US Hospital and the Canadian health service pays for it because they do not have the facilities to care for them.

You notice that part? These Canadian citizens do get taken care of.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...the Canadian system is failing. That is common knowledge, stated by those within the health system and the Canadian government in recent months.

It is failing because of the bureaucratic mess that nationalized health care inevitably falls into as a matter of inevitability.

Those emergency patients would have had to wait weeks, months or years before receiving treatment in Canada, which is why they were sent to America.

"If you only had a brain..." applies in this case as well.

Amicus

 

[R. Richard]

If not, he'd be bankrupt. What insurance company would pay for that level of care for an existing condition?

Og

It's called self insurance. The same self insurance that his wife Jane got from the international science people.

You have to imagine a paraplegic, lying in bed with pneumonia, unable to speak and perhaps unable even to press a button for help. The NHS says, wait for your daily hour of nursing care. At least the scientific people realized that keeping Hawking alive was in the interest of the whole world.

 

[R. Richard]

Quote Amicus:
An interesting news item earlier this Sunday morning...a Canadian city, near the US border, sends over 7,000 Candians a year in need of emergency care to a nearby US Hospital and the Canadian health service pays for it because they do not have the facilities to care for them.

You notice that part? These Canadian citizens do get taken care of.

The Canadian government health system can't take care of its own. Now, the US is proposing to adopt another government controlled health system. When the US government controlled health system overflows, who takes care of the Canadian overflow? Who takes care of the US overflow? [Not Mexico, whose citizens already come to the US for heathcare.] Wait! We'll dump all of the overflow patients on Trinidad and Tobago.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Richard, your only point is that it's much much better to reserve healthcare for those who are healthy-- and wealthy. Offering it to anyone who needs it will prevent someone-- maybe someone with money-- from getting a bed right away.

Because the only way we can tell who is important and who is not is to look at the value of their investment portfolio.

Can't let the riff-raf have any seats on the bus, they'll take them all!

 

[R. Richard]

Richard, your only point is that it's much much better to reserve healthcare for those who are healthy-- and wealthy. Offering it to anyone who needs it will prevent someone-- maybe someone with money-- from getting a bed right away.

Because the only way we can tell who is important and who is not is to look at the value of their investment portfolio.

Can't let the riff-raf have any seats on the bus, they'll take them all!

It's not my point. It may well be the point of the NHS, at least at the policy level. On the much maligned USA, ANYONE can get care at an emergency room, regardless of ability to pay. In Canada, they put people on a waiting list and/or sometimes send them to the USA. If what I have read is true, the NHS tells the elderly, "Take two asprin, lots of liquids and don't call us in the morning."