Three cheers for
-
fat_boy wrote:
f*** me, what a pair of twats these two must be!
Hey! Unfair call! He is on incapacity benefit disability allowance, therefore he has been signed off by his GP. His surgeon says his blood pressure is too high for him to undergo surgery. They are in the clear. Now, in response to cries of 'benefit scroungers' (ironically from Daily Wail readers among other right-thinking 'righties'), it has been made more difficult to obtain the incapacity benefit and disability allowance for any length of time. Instead of taking your GP's professional opinion, you are diagnosed 'fit to work' by another doctor and your benefit allowance is stopped, you appeal to a tribunal and, generally, the benefit allowance is restored. (A relative by marriage had a degenerative heart condition, and was on disability allowance from 35ish. At his benefit assessment aged 40, he was able to walk the 16 feet between two chairs, and was adjudged fit for clerical work. He appealed, and got his allowance back. Shortly after, he collapsed and died getting up out of his chair.) [Edit: Mr Eeles was on incapacity benefit not disability allowance]
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
modified on Saturday, February 6, 2010 1:29 AM
-
fat_boy wrote:
f*** me, what a pair of twats these two must be!
Hey! Unfair call! He is on incapacity benefit disability allowance, therefore he has been signed off by his GP. His surgeon says his blood pressure is too high for him to undergo surgery. They are in the clear. Now, in response to cries of 'benefit scroungers' (ironically from Daily Wail readers among other right-thinking 'righties'), it has been made more difficult to obtain the incapacity benefit and disability allowance for any length of time. Instead of taking your GP's professional opinion, you are diagnosed 'fit to work' by another doctor and your benefit allowance is stopped, you appeal to a tribunal and, generally, the benefit allowance is restored. (A relative by marriage had a degenerative heart condition, and was on disability allowance from 35ish. At his benefit assessment aged 40, he was able to walk the 16 feet between two chairs, and was adjudged fit for clerical work. He appealed, and got his allowance back. Shortly after, he collapsed and died getting up out of his chair.) [Edit: Mr Eeles was on incapacity benefit not disability allowance]
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
modified on Saturday, February 6, 2010 1:29 AM
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is on disability allowance, therefore he has been signed off by his GP
Not actually true - disability allowance has nothing to de with being fit for work or not. It is an payment-of-expenses-incurred in living with a disability. You do not have to be unemployed or signed off by a doctor to get it.
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand. My :badger:'s gonna unleash hell on your ass. :badger:tastic!
-
Ok OK. Iyt just ammused me that two doctors would say this. To be unfit for an iopperation and at the same time be fit for work is pretty surreal.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not realy, you can be declared unfit for an operation if you have a cold - yet working with a cold is common, colds can interfer with the anethestic and cause breathing difficulties when under - most sergions will avoid operation on someone with a cold as stated, high blood pressure is another one, you can work with high BP perfectly fine, but when someone is cutting holes in you it can suddenly become a serious problem
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
The hypothetical attack on nationalised health care has been quite pathetic, and certainly hysterical. It MUST involve death panels. It MUST deny care. It's pathetic.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
If it didn't it wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It is morally superior to simply allow people to go bust in attempting to pay for services, and to die horribly because they can not afford the treatments, than to possibly delay treatment for a non-critical injury in a system that covers everyone. Or so I've been told, but the people who said it really hated my analysis of it.
-
He could always be a circus freak. I strongly disagree with any socialised medicine program that does not incorporate a private option where people can get whatever care they choose to pay for. That's how it works here. We both support the needy, and allow people of means to choose the care they want.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
That's what happens here in Massachusetts. It's why Massachusetts is now in debt, after having surpluses for ten plus years. Now that it's been implemented for three years, the state is in debt.
Yea, it couldn't have anything to do with a recession or anything... Don't act like because A happens and B happens B must be a result of A. Most of the states that were in the black 3 years ago and are now in the red.
-
Yea, it couldn't have anything to do with a recession or anything... Don't act like because A happens and B happens B must be a result of A. Most of the states that were in the black 3 years ago and are now in the red.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is on disability allowance, therefore he has been signed off by his GP
Not actually true - disability allowance has nothing to de with being fit for work or not. It is an payment-of-expenses-incurred in living with a disability. You do not have to be unemployed or signed off by a doctor to get it.
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand. My :badger:'s gonna unleash hell on your ass. :badger:tastic!
OriginalGriff wrote:
Not actually true - disability allowance has nothing to de with being fit for work or not. It is an payment-of-expenses-incurred in living with a disability. You do not have to be unemployed or signed off by a doctor to get it.
Quelle horreur! My ignorance exposed! Please don't tell Gillian or Private Wee Parts, I shall never live it down! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Well, you may be right. But we had one of the biggest state surpluses. That's all. Of course, it's speculation, but it's speculation on both of our parts.
It isn't speculation on my part. I know of 2-3 states that have not changed a single thing with health care. Heck the rules got changed to help Medicare money go to Iowa (the number of people over 65 in this state is a fairly significant percentage of the state.) These states were all in the black (Illinois was barely in the black, but was still positive) and they are all in the red, rather deeply in some cases. There is no speculation on the causes here from me. It was jobs vanishing and being replaced with lower paying jobs if replaced at all, property values lowering and the subsequent loss in property taxes and other factors that have nothing to do with public health care. If Mass was like most of the east coast, the drop in revenue from property values plummeting along with all the people losing jobs is likely a bigger cause for the sudden reversal. Attributing that to health care without anything to back it up is speculation. Get the data showing how public health care siphoned money out of the system and I will consider it, but I am not going to believe idle speculation with no numbers to back it up.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Not actually true - disability allowance has nothing to de with being fit for work or not. It is an payment-of-expenses-incurred in living with a disability. You do not have to be unemployed or signed off by a doctor to get it.
Quelle horreur! My ignorance exposed! Please don't tell Gillian or Private Wee Parts, I shall never live it down! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Like CSS could capitalize on it... "You didn't know everything!" "Yea, but I admitted it and learned something, how about you?" "... ... ... YOUR MOM!!!"
-
At least he will be able to get to all those trickky 'elbow' bends in confined spaces! Actually, I am more worried by the fact a doctor hasnt signed him off as unfit for work. While another doctor, his surgeon, says he is unfit for an operaiton! Fuck me, what a pair of twats these two must be!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Not actually true - disability allowance has nothing to de with being fit for work or not. It is an payment-of-expenses-incurred in living with a disability. You do not have to be unemployed or signed off by a doctor to get it.
Quelle horreur! My ignorance exposed! Please don't tell Gillian or Private Wee Parts, I shall never live it down! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
The only way you can tell Captain Semen Stains anything is to post it on YouTube - so your secert is safe. :laugh:
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
-
If it didn't it wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It is morally superior to simply allow people to go bust in attempting to pay for services, and to die horribly because they can not afford the treatments, than to possibly delay treatment for a non-critical injury in a system that covers everyone. Or so I've been told, but the people who said it really hated my analysis of it.
Distind wrote:
Or so I've been told, but the people who said it really hated my analysis of it.
ROTFL - excellent summation. Mentlally, I gave you a 5.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Actually, I am more worried by the fact a doctor hasnt signed him off as unfit for work. While another doctor, his surgeon, says he is unfit for an operaiton!
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
Ilíon wrote:
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed. Mr Eeles has not worked and has received incapacity benefit since his accident. Claimants receiving this benefit for over 29 weeks are re-assessed medically. This is to weed out benefit cheats, such as those who do not follow their doctor's instructions, and thus prolong their period of invalidity. From the Trust Statement[^] (an excerpt omitted from the newspaper reports): He was told [that he needed to give up smoking] first when he came to the QEII in December 2008 and on several occasions subsequently. It was explained to Mr Eeles, in detail, that his continued smoking raised the risk of serious complications had the surgery gone ahead. Did no journalist enquire of Mr Eeles whether he had yet given up smoking, and whether his blood pressure had been reduced? The only reason for the hospital not arranging a further operation would be, again, the risk of serious complications. While Mr Eeles may be incapable of following his trade as a kitchen fitter and plumber, a doctor opined that he was fit for work. There is a cynical side to my nature that wonders why the media were unaware of Mr Eeles' plight until his incapacity benefit was withdrawn, and the dismal spectre of Employment cast its pall over his days of whine and ciggies. Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
That's what happens here in Massachusetts. It's why Massachusetts is now in debt, after having surpluses for ten plus years. Now that it's been implemented for three years, the state is in debt.
josda1000 wrote:
It's why Massachusetts is now in debt, after having surpluses for ten plus years
Are you sure that's the only place that funds were mismanaged in Mass ? Australia has had public health since the 50s, without a constant, growing, out of control debt problem. We just vote the libs in when the debt gets too bad, and they pay it off. Then we forget and vote in labour because they spend the most money on us.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed. Mr Eeles has not worked and has received incapacity benefit since his accident. Claimants receiving this benefit for over 29 weeks are re-assessed medically. This is to weed out benefit cheats, such as those who do not follow their doctor's instructions, and thus prolong their period of invalidity. From the Trust Statement[^] (an excerpt omitted from the newspaper reports): He was told [that he needed to give up smoking] first when he came to the QEII in December 2008 and on several occasions subsequently. It was explained to Mr Eeles, in detail, that his continued smoking raised the risk of serious complications had the surgery gone ahead. Did no journalist enquire of Mr Eeles whether he had yet given up smoking, and whether his blood pressure had been reduced? The only reason for the hospital not arranging a further operation would be, again, the risk of serious complications. While Mr Eeles may be incapable of following his trade as a kitchen fitter and plumber, a doctor opined that he was fit for work. There is a cynical side to my nature that wonders why the media were unaware of Mr Eeles' plight until his incapacity benefit was withdrawn, and the dismal spectre of Employment cast its pall over his days of whine and ciggies. Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Ilíon wrote:
Three cheers for socialism and bureaucracy!
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed. Mr Eeles has not worked and has received incapacity benefit since his accident. Claimants receiving this benefit for over 29 weeks are re-assessed medically. This is to weed out benefit cheats, such as those who do not follow their doctor's instructions, and thus prolong their period of invalidity. From the Trust Statement[^] (an excerpt omitted from the newspaper reports): He was told [that he needed to give up smoking] first when he came to the QEII in December 2008 and on several occasions subsequently. It was explained to Mr Eeles, in detail, that his continued smoking raised the risk of serious complications had the surgery gone ahead. Did no journalist enquire of Mr Eeles whether he had yet given up smoking, and whether his blood pressure had been reduced? The only reason for the hospital not arranging a further operation would be, again, the risk of serious complications. While Mr Eeles may be incapable of following his trade as a kitchen fitter and plumber, a doctor opined that he was fit for work. There is a cynical side to my nature that wonders why the media were unaware of Mr Eeles' plight until his incapacity benefit was withdrawn, and the dismal spectre of Employment cast its pall over his days of whine and ciggies. Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Motive-mongering is so anti-logical. Thus, one is lead to wonder: 1) are you incapable of reasoning properly? 2) do you reason illogically because you lack some information, the lack of which leads you to misunderstand how to reason properly? 3) do you understand how to reason logically, but have chosen to not do so?
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
As has been pointed out, high blood pressure is a valid reason for cancelling surgery, but not for remaining unemployed.
Any honest person would admit that that bureaucratic excuse doesn't work in this case.
Ilíon wrote:
Any honest person would admit that that bureaucratic excuse doesn't work in this case.
As an honest person, my post would have been the same had the Daily Wail, Daily Torygraph, Daily Mirror, et al been attacking a private, insurance backed, medical service. Short of dragging Mr Eeles into hospital, forbidding him to smoke, bringing down his blood pressure, and operating (Nanny State indeed), what would you have the NHS do? Mr Eeles is responsible for his life, not the state. If the NHS were at fault, he could have sorted it out. You can fight 'City Hospital' in this country, believe it or not. You don't have to be rich or privileged, just right - and noisy.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Thank you for your continuing interest in the UK, why do you pretend to care? Isn't that a *liberal* (or is it L*I*B*E*R*A*L) trait?
Motive-mongering is so anti-logical. Thus, one is lead to wonder: 1) are you incapable of reasoning properly? 2) do you reason illogically because you lack some information, the lack of which leads you to misunderstand how to reason properly? 3) do you understand how to reason logically, but have chosen to not do so?
You have expressed the opinion that "liberals" do not really care about the causes that they espouse. That it is all show. You do not really care about NHS victims (real or imaginary), and yet you espouse their cause in your attack on socialism. Therefore you display the trait that you accuse "liberals" of possessing.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
