Clinton calls for socialized health care

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

What now, punk?

It is deeply sad that so much respectable scholarship has been abused by you in the process of completely missing my point.

Among may be used as a synonym for between (albeit clumsily). However, there is no explicit statement in the relevant document that the word "among" is intended to be therein read in this sense. It may, in fact, be read in the sense of "in the midst of", leading to an entirely different sort of meaning for the clause, and claims to know for certain one way or the other are really rather unfounded and grasping.

I am sorry the subtleties of language continue to elude you.

They don't elude me at all! My mastery of words far exceeds the likes of you and you know it! I'm one of the most feared lyricists in the history of Hip-Hop (....). I have a way with words that you can not even begin to fathom, you evil pinko-communist scum!

With that said.

I'm right, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Moving it to the state level, in addition to spreading the costs around, would let different states experiment with different systems. If Massachusetts wants to build a more comprehensive system than does Maryland, and Montana doesn't want to establish anything, each would be able to do things the way they wanted. It would save all that federal money that would be needed to cover a national system, and would hopefully remove the issue and the associated passions from the national level.

The natural question at this point is, then: why aren't the states creating government-provided health care systems? I can see why some states wouldn't bother, but some of the small blue states... what have they to lose?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

Well, the first thing that comes to mind that's completely federally-funded and administered, but with a total local impact (branches, employees, purpose) is the Postal Service. And the post office is pretty healthy, I think.

Others? FBI, IRS...

oh yeah, good point.

lol what a clusterfuck would 50 state-run postal services be...

Quote:

why aren't the states creating government-provided health care systems?

They want the feds to pay for it.

I'm not sure what makes you guys think that because HMO gatekeepers are willing to deny service, that government gatekeepers won't.

Recent story out of Britain:

Quote:

Doctors refuse to fix builder's broken ankle unless he quits smoking | the Daily Mail
A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a Health Service hospital has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking.

John Nuttall, 57, needs surgery to set the ankle which he broke in three places two years ago because it did not mend naturally with a plaster cast.

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

They have told him they will treat him only if he gives up smoking. But the former builder has been unable to break his habit and is now resigned to coping with the injury as he cannot afford private treatment.

He is in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine.

Mr Nuttall, of Newlyn, Cornwall, broke the ankle in a fall in 2005. Initially he refused surgery because he had caught MRSA at a different hospital four years earlier, and was terrified of history repeating itself.

He hoped the fractured bones would knit together with a standard plaster cast to immobilise his ankle.

But six months and three plaster casts later, it became clear that an operation to pin the bones was the only solution.

However, the hospital told Mr Nuttall, who no longer works because of smoking-related chest problems, that he would have to give up smoking before an operation could be carried out.

Mr Nuttall said: '"I am in agony. I have begged them to operate but they won't. I have tried my hardestto give up smoking but I can't. I got down to ten a week at one point but they said that was not good enough.

"I spent 12 months trying to give up and used patches and everything, but nothing works.

"I have smoked for over 40 years and it's not going to happen.

"We were brought up at a time when cigarette advertisements were everywhere and there were no warnings.

"I want to warn other smokers that they could be denied medical treatment and there is nothing we can do about it.

"I have paid my dues as a taxpayer-and now the NHS won't treat me."

Mr Nuttall, who is single, uses a walking stick to get around and fears his bones will now be so 'calcified' that an operation would not work even if he were allowed to have it.

"It is very painful," he said. "If I walk more than a few steps I can feel it grinding."

A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly."

And that's just regarding a quality of life operation, nevermind how people are bumped to the bottom of waiting lists based on health criteria.

The difference between bad insurance and a bad NHS, is that you can opt out of bad insurance and stop paying dues, but you're always forced to pay into healthcare and may still be denied service by government doctors who have been told that you're not a priority.

Socializing healthcare also removes the profit motive for producing new drugs, which reduces the potential utility not only for us, but for the entire world. The US produces more new drugs than any other country in the world, and if there's no motive for those pharmaceuticals to take the risk on D&D, then the advancement of quality of life globally slows.

This isn't just a knock in your pocket book, socialized healthcare carries a lot of serious moral, social, and developmental implications, and you can't opt out of it.

It sounds like how organ transplant waitlisters have to quit drinking or else they're bumped off the list. It's not like he's being denied the surgery because he asked for too much surgery this year or something, just that he's being told they won't do it unless he commits to quitting smoking before the surgery and for a time after to help it heal.

Also when his ankle initially broke, he turned down surgery because he was afraid of catching MRSA. Just sayin'.

I'd also like to point out that he's being prescribed morphine for the pain. How many among us know stories of people who were denied procedures and left out in the rain? My sister's dental insurance isn't covering her self-imploding tooth's removal, and you can bet your bottom dollar they ain't paying for so much as a tylenol for her trouble.

Smoking only increases the risk of the bones not being able to heal, so instead they've accepted that this man will have to risk developing morphine addiction and having his bones calcify.

Morphine doesn't eliminate the pain, either, it just counteracts the pain with pleasure, so that it becomes tolerable.

You're also missing out on the issue of choice, that this man's ability to accept a risk has been denied him. At least under our system he would be able to move through doctors until he found someone willing to perform the operation, whereas once you're denied eligibility because of beurocratic criteria, there's little you can do about it.

It's also interesting that you'd bring up organ transplants, since the denial of organ markets is one way the government already allows people to die in the proverbial ditch.

Are we supposed to feel sympathetic for this guy, Brady? Were there no better examples?

"PLEASE FIX ME"

"Okay but first stop willfully self-destructing"

"WHAT NO WAY YOU FASCISTS I CUT DOWN A LITTLE ISN'T THAT ENOUGH"

"So you refuse to stop killing yourself?"

"I CUT DOWN!"

"Mmmmmm."

I know all about the TERRIBLE RIGORS of summoning up the will to not buy cigarettes but you have to make a judgment call.

Brady, the article states:

"he cannot afford private treatment."

We can therefore assume that in Britain the OPTION of private treatment still exists, no? He just can't afford it. If he wasn't poor as well as stupid and self-defeating, he'd have a handy solution.

Quit pretending that the existence of a socialized healthcare system would immediately annihilate all private care options.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Smoking only increases the risk of the bones not being able to heal,

Quote:

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

If there was a risk of developing an addiction and having calcified bones, versus the risk of my bones still not healing properly and I may get an amputation, I'd fucking get a box of patches and gum and figure this out.

Seems like he has a pretty cut and dry choice to me.

Although, you have a fat lot of nerve saying that it only increases the risk of the bones not healing, since this whole problem started because his bones didn't heal properly in the first place. Guess that choice didn't work out too well! Let's not try the same thing again!

I think I find the prescription problems to be more compelling than anything else. It really would muck up the entire system.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I'm not sure what makes you guys think that because HMO gatekeepers are willing to deny service, that government gatekeepers won't.

Well, Medicare would probably be better to look at than HMOs, and Medicare is pretty reasonable when it comes to coverage. So much so that every other senior plan has to follow Medicare's lead when they'd probably want to scale back coverage.

Quote:

It sounds like how organ transplant waitlisters have to quit drinking or else they're bumped off the list. It's not like he's being denied the surgery because he asked for too much surgery this year or something, just that he's being told they won't do it unless he commits to quitting smoking before the surgery and for a time after to help it heal.

Still, he's being deprived of a service he has to pay for whether he wants to or not via taxation. This is the kind of shit you get when you allow an entity that ultimately can kill you at will this kind of power.

He's being "deprived" of a service he refuses to cooperate with for his own good. It is utter silliness. This is the worst possible example for your argument.

I suspect government-funded smoking cessation services are available to him, but let's gloss over that

Even if you can receive private care, you still can't opt out of the socialized system. These aren't like insurance premiums, and that's the comparison I was making.

And yeah, I think it's fairly reasonable to feel sorry for a guy who can't quit a chemically-dependent habit despite crippling pain.

If you want better horror stories, here's a Times UK story from a year ago on mixed sex wards:
Filth and shame in an NHS hospital | Minette Marrin - Times Online

NHS Blog Doctor

Quote:

Monday 13th March

A particularly bad, trying day at work. Arrived in at 7.50 a.m. feeling glum and chatted to two of my partners. We have all read the same articles in the newspaper over the weekend. The blessed Patricia is now saying that the problems in the NHS are due to the doctors.

Alright, she is only a politician. It is nonsense. But it is in the papers. People will believe it. It is deeply dispiriting, and our morale is already rock bottom.

And then on to the morning surgery from hell.

++++++++++

First patient is David. Elderly man. Charming. He was a tank commander during the war. He is in atrial fibrillation, he is not maintaining his blood pressure, he keeps flipping in and out of heart failure and is being admitted for pacing in two days. When Dr Crippen was a houseman, all patients such as this were “clerked in” by the houseman. That does not happen anymore. Nowadays, they are assessed by cardiac nurse specialist. She is much cleverer that Dr Crippen because she can do this assessment by telephone. David has had a letter saying that he should be at home by the phone this afternoon, waiting for her call. He is puzzled. “How can she assess my cardiac status over the phone?” Beats me. I have to use a stethoscope, but then I am only a doctor.

++++++++++

Mavis is a hugely efficient retired social worker. Her husband has Alzheimer’s disease, quite advanced now. There is a three year waiting list for in-patient care of Alzheimer patients and he has only just gone on it. Social services offer her two weeks respite care a year. She is not managing. She is on her knees. She has a bit of angina (stable) and needs full investigation but will not go for it at present.

Trouble is, she is looking after her husband really well. So when social services “assess” her, she is classified as low need. She knows the system. She worked in it herself. “The best thing I could do is have a heart attack, then we would be high need” she says.

She is right.

++++++++++

Quote:

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/b...cle1988136.ece It's eight months since I collapsed and was taken to hospital, where I was diagnosed with lung and brain cancer. Because of my age - 57 - I was told that very little could be done for me, and that I had up to six months left to live. I then discovered that because of the cash crisis in the NHS, treatment is rationed to those who are most likely to recover, and if you suffer from more than one form of cancer, you don't fall into that
category. . . .

The district nurse came and said she would get a doctor from the hospital to visit as I told her I was very worried about my swollen legs, my sore mouth - it's been four days and still no one has brought the cream for my lips and so I can hardly eat - and, most importantly, the amount of medication I am taking. It is TWO WEEKS since a doctor saw me. . . .

I want to have radiotherapy, in a couple of weeks, but should I book it now in case I lose my slot? What about my bone scan? It's never been mentioned again. . . .

Up all night with pain. Crying and want to go in a nursing home to die because I cannot put my husband through all this. The anti-coagulation unit came and took a blood test to determine whether I should take warfarin or not. But my GP still hasn't materialised. My sister had given me a newspaper article about buying lung cancer drugs from Canada on the internet. I don't feel as if anyone in the NHS is really in charge of my case. It's all up to me, Janet and Mick.

Horror stories don't go away, regardless of the system, the nature of the horror merely changes, since now, without the profit motive, people more easily fall through the cracks in socialized care.

Quote:

If there was a risk of developing an addiction and having calcified bones, versus the risk of my bones still not healing properly and I may get an amputation, I'd fucking get a box of patches and gum and figure this out.

Seems like he has a pretty cut and dry choice to me.

He tried to quit for a year and couldn't, the benefit of the doubt should be given that it's pretty fucking hard for this guy to quit. It's easy to be callous when we're just talking about a smoker, though, right?

Quote:

Although, you have a fat lot of nerve saying that it only increases the risk of the bones not healing, since this whole problem started because his bones didn't heal properly in the first place. Guess that choice didn't work out too well! Let's not try the same thing again!

Yeah, you're right, he should just be forced to live with crippling pain and not have a chance at potentially corrective surgery because he can't get over a chemical dependency. No weak-willed untermensch will have a place in the system!

Wait, so

Socialism is wrong, because people should be responsible for themselves, BUT

Socialism is wrong because it is not adequately coddling?

Which is it?


The boo-hoo-no-compassion-for-smokers-eh card isn't getting you anywhere, chief. Cigarettes are something you have to buy. Are we supposed to believe that his addiction is of such a magical and surreal nature that he lives, alone, in a void free of other people to aid him, and his only contact with the world is a magic tube that delivers these evil, cruel cigarettes to him free of charge?

Addiction is rough, yes, without question, but people need to stop pretending it's a legitimate excuse for being stupid. He can live with the discomfort of a temporary withdrawal process, or he can live with comedy bonegrinding unti the cancer gets him. He made a choice.

Quote:

Socialism is wrong, because people should be responsible for themselves, BUT

Socialism is wrong because it is not adequately coddling?

No, it's wrong because you're forcing people into a system that they can be imprisoned, lose all their wealth and property, and get killed for resisting.