- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 10,101
- Reaction score
- 2,990
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Easy, it doesn't fit their agenda.
:rofl
Rightt .... attacking Labour through NHS is always on everyones agenda.
Easy, it doesn't fit their agenda.
:rofl
Rightt .... attacking Labour through NHS is always on everyones agenda.
The BBC's agenda is to go as far left as they can get.
Is it now ...
Source?
BBC is hardly 'far left'
Let me guess, these are all rags that are out to overthrow the Queen........
What does the Queen have to do with anything?
ummm, it was a figure of speech.
lighten up. Are all Brits so gloomy?
....Yes.
Are all Americans so fat? :2razz:
This happens now in our current healthcare system.
There is also the risk of being uninsured and sitting under $25,000+ debt essentially for the benefit of a simple scan that I would have been happy to wait for. This is my situation.
i'm always amazed that we seem to think we can't do it better. what happened to the attitude that americans CAN do better?
and i believe that for every horror story out of britian, i can find one to match in america.
The foreign systems they promote cost much less, provide health care for all, and are higher rated by the World Health Organization.
It's the proudly ignorant right wing that doesn't get it.
The notion that forcing others to pay for our healthcare problems as being a solution to better healthcare is farcical at best.
This has always been my problem with "Liberal" thinking and problem solving; it is always that Government can create a better solution and with that, if only we confiscate enough wealth can we solve all of society’s trials and tribulations. But what ends up happening is that the REALITY is that Government makes it worse and they will NEVER, EVER have enough of our confiscated wealth.
I would think that after six decades of these nonsensical notions and false solutions, people would be smarter than that to fall for it all over again.
What Do the Studies Say?
Prevalence
According to the best available estimates,
between 1 and 2 million Americans age 65
or older have been injured, exploited, or
otherwise mistreated by someone on
whom they depended for care or
protection.
(Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect and
Exploitation in an Aging America. 2003.
Washington, DC: National Research Council Panel
to Review Risk and Prevalence of Elder Abuse and
Neglect.)
Estimates of the frequency of elder abuse
range from 2% to 10% based on various
sampling, survey methods, and case
definitions.
(Lachs, Mark S., and Karl Pillemer. October 2004.
“Elder Abuse, ”The Lancet, Vol. 364: 1192-1263.)
Data on elder abuse in domestic settings
suggest that 1 in 14 incidents, excluding
incidents of self-neglect, come to the
attention of authorities.
(Pillemer, Karl, and David Finkelhor. 1988. "The
Prevalence of Elder Abuse: A Random Sample
Survey," The Gerontologist, 28: 51-57.)
Current estimates put the overall reporting
of financial exploitation at only 1 in 25
cases, suggesting that there may be at least
5 million financial abuse victims each year.
(Wasik, John F. 2000. “The Fleecing of America’s
Elderly,” Consumers Digest, March/April.)
It is estimated that for every one case of
elder abuse, neglect, exploitation, or selfneglect
reported to authorities, about five
more go unreported.
(National Elder Abuse Incidence Study. 1998.
Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse at
American Public Human Services Association.)
I went on to point out that you are already paying for other people's healthcare.
And I am far less than interested in your 'problems,' thanks very much.
Your baiting is insipid, in fact, from here on out I refuse to respond in a serious fashion to any responses that begin with any variant of the phrase 'you liberals.'
and here are your facts:
NCEA: Statistics at a Glance
I went on to point out that you are already paying for other people's healthcare.
And I am far less than interested in your 'problems,' thanks very much.
Your baiting is insipid, in fact, from here on out I refuse to respond in a serious fashion to any responses that begin with any variant of the phrase 'you liberals.'
Well, I'm not but way to many are, especially here in the south.
We southerners love our pig fat. :lol:
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
The notion that forcing others to pay for our healthcare problems as being a solution to better healthcare is farcical at best.
This has always been my problem with "Liberal" thinking and problem solving; it is always that Government can create a better solution and with that, if only we confiscate enough wealth can we solve all of society’s trials and tribulations. But what ends up happening is that the REALITY is that Government makes it worse and they will NEVER, EVER have enough of our confiscated wealth.
I would think that after six decades of these nonsensical notions and false solutions, people would be smarter than that to fall for it all over again.
Really, how am I already paying for other people’s healthcare?
Your hyperbolic emotional outburst aside, what does this have to do with my comments? Where in my response did I type the words “you Liberals?” Are you now claiming you are NOT a “liberal?” If not, why then do you use emotions rather than logic to make your tragically failed points and have the “liberal” tag in your profile? Don’t be ashamed by it, embrace it.
What does this have to do with the debate? Here, let me help you; NOTHING.
Now this is your original statement I responded to:
Quote:Originally Posted by mixedmedia
There is also the risk of being uninsured and sitting under $25,000+ debt essentially for the benefit of a simple scan that I would have been happy to wait for. This is my situation.
What people in other nations are waiting for are critical operations which are unavailable which forces them to go outside their systems and PAY again in some other country (America for example) where they can get the critical operation. For those unfortunate enough to not have the ADDITIONAL wealth to go outside of the system, their risk is dying while waiting on that list.
How is this a better solution than what we have now?
Just as I said earlier... all in nursing homes, not hospitals.
You provide me with the facts that considerably more people are waiting on proper treatment for serious conditions in state provided health care systems than there are in the US. Did you read the article in the OP? If you weren't so myopically focused on proving liberals wrong, perhaps you would have a clear enough mind to read my previous posts as they were intended. No, instead of making discussion of what is a serious issue, you want to play combative pattycake with a random person on the internet. Wow. nice.
And whenever a person enters the hospital in this country, receives treatment, and qualifies for medicaid you, the taxpayer, PAY FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE. Whether you like it or not. But, perhaps, if you had read my posts without the emotional, political reaction that was probably spurred by looking at the word 'liberal' off to the left there you would have been able to respond without making a fool of yourself. Sorry about that.
There is another thread about the abysmal care of expectant mothers under the English NHS system. In that thread, many lefties and a few Brits did everything possible to kill the messenger rather than dispute the message.
Here is another story on the caregivers at NHS. I realize that the vast majority of doctors and nurses in the British system do everything possible to provide proper care to their patients, but obviously there is a large number that need to find another line of work.
I read that the NHS has a staff of 1.4 million, most of whom are bureaucrats. In my opinion, that is the fear of many here in the U.S. We all see how bloated government entities become. Just look at our school systems. National health care is NOT the answer.
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed - Telegraph
What do you think the chances are of seeing this in our mainstream media? Slim or none??
Take some time off of your emotional rollercoaster and do some reading; then you will become informed:
http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf
Threat to patient care as third of hospitals in red - Times Online
PRIVATE AID TO CUT WAIT FOR TESTS from 25 Jul 2005 - mirror.co.uk
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007
Featured Article - WSJ.com
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE: July 2005
Buyer Beware: The Failure of Single-Payer Health Care
Just a tiny sampling:
The Health Care Quality Problem
So what has happened in Canada? Why is it that we've gone from being very bullish on this health care system to having great reservations? Part of it is that Canadians read newspapers, and it doesn't much matter whether you're on the west coast or the east coast; it doesn't much matter whether you're a Globe and Mail reader, or a National Post reader; every single day, there are stories describing the system.
I've just randomly chosen a few stories that have come to light recently.
•The head of trauma care at Vancouver's largest hospital announces that they turn away more cases than any other center in North America. He's quoted as saying this would be unheard of in the United States.
•In Manitoba, which is my former home province, the premier--the political equivalent of a governor--concedes that his pledge to end hallway medicine has fallen short. Hallway medicine is the phenomenon where the emergency rooms are so filled with patients that people are forced to lie on stretchers in hallways, often for days. Overcrowding is a periodic problem. In fact, the overcrowding is worse than last year. The community is rocked by the death of a 74-year old man who had waited in the emergency room for three hours and had not been seen.
•New Brunswick announces that they will send cancer patients south to the United States for radiation therapy. New Brunswick, a small maritime province, is the seventh to publicly announce its plans to send patients south. In the best health care system in the world, the vast majority of provinces now rely on American health care to provide radiation therapy. Provinces do this because the clinically recommended waiting time for treatment is often badly exceeded. Ordinarily, oncologists suggest that there should be a two-week gap between the initial consult by the family doctor and the referral to the oncologist, and then two weeks more from the oncologist to the commencement of radiation therapy. In most Canadian provinces, we exceed that by one to two months, sometimes three.
•In Alberta earlier this year, a young man dies because of the profound emergency room overcrowding. He is 23. On a winter's night, he develops pain in his flank and goes to the local emergency room. It is so crowded that he grows impatient and goes to another. There, he waits six hours. No one sees him. Exhausted and frustrated, he goes home. The pain continues, so he finally decides to go to the local community hospital. It's too late: His appendix ruptured. He dies from the complications hours later.
Those are some of the examples of the cruelty of what goes on in Canada. But they don't give you the flavor of the insanity--and I'll use that term in a nonprofessional sense--of the Canadian system.
MRI scanners are very difficult to get in Canada. There are long wait times. In my book, I talk about a political struggle on Vancouver Island where the wait time for a non-urgent MRI scan was over a year--"non-urgent" being defined by government officials, not by physicians. In the province I now live in, Ontario, there are long wait times for MRIs.
Part of the problem is that we have so few of these scanners. Canada per capita has as many MRI scanners as Colombia and Mexico. It wouldn't be fair to try and compare us to the United States or Western Europe. And the few MRIs that we have tend to run on bankers' hours. MRI scanners are expensive to operate. So if an MRI scanner stops dealing with humans at 5 p.m., there are still hours you could run the scanner.
Sure beats not having a waiting list to get on, doesn't it.mixedmedia said:Having to wait '20 weeks' for non-critical medical testing...
It does have a definite liberal and europhile agenda though. I remember when they kicked off Sean Gabb in a free speech debate because he forced one of the other debaters to admit they thought Brits were so racist that without hate speech laws trampling their free speech they'd quickly devolve into open bigotry.Is it now ...
Source?
BBC is hardly 'far left'