Quiz/poll: how much would one year be worth to you?
-
ict558 wrote:
I could care less
:((
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
:((
I couldn't care less about your response. :) I was addressing myself to a citizen of the USA, and used an American colloquialism, which I take to be of the same provenance as I should be so lucky! and Tell me about it!
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
Hey, you don't think any outsiders will read this and get totally the wrong impression, do you?
-
Gross oversimplification of a problem. And it greatly depends on what kind of healthcare system you're using. In the US (I assume this is ultimately about Medicare, medicaid, obamacare etc...) I wouldn't want the government to spend too much on healthcare because most of it goes to advertising, excessive wages, insurance companies and a lot of research isn't exactly in the interest of public health anyway. Then you have the varying budgets and rules depending on what moron gets elected and harassment of researchers by religious fanatics. But in a hypothetical healthcare system where all money is seriously invested, where there are enough doctors and surgeons and they have a limit on their wages, in a stable political climate where science is respected and researches don't require private security, everyone pays about 15% of their income and medical costs will go down over time as technology progresses exponentially. As I said, it's a complex problem, not just a question of money and who's paying what and how much.
Giraffes are not real.
-
Very interesting, but you tell me this, why? I could care less about 'Obamacare', and the 'leftness' and 'rightness' of the denizens of that "lobbyist infested cesspool", my reference was to the GOP 'Death Panel' meme of 2009.
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
ict558 wrote:
but you tell me this, why?
Sorry. Thread drift happens, you know. You probably should get used to it.
ict558 wrote:
my reference was to the GOP 'Death Panel' meme
To stay within your limited parameters: The concept of the NHS functioning as a death dealer seems to have started on your side of the puddle. to wit: The Patient's Association, a 50 year old charity attacked the NHS in 2009, saying that over one million (!) patients had received "Cruel and neglectful care." One hospital, the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was found to have killed off 1,200 people "through failings in urgent care." Because of the report issued by the Patients Association, a letter was signed by P. H. Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics University of London, Dr Anthony Cole Chairman, Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr Peter Hargreaves Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Dr David Hill Fellow of the Faculty of Anaesthetists of the Royal College of Surgeons,and Dr Elizabeth Negus Lecturer, Barking University which said: "The Patients Association has done well to expose the poor treatment of elderly patients in some parts of the NHS (report, August 27). We would like to draw attention to the new “gold standard” treatment of those categorised as “dying”. Forecasting death is an inexact science. Just as, in the financial world, so-called algorithmic banking has caused problems by blindly following a computer model, so a similar tick-box approach to the management of death is causing a national crisis in care. The Government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death. As a result, a nationwide wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients. Syringe drivers are being used to give continuous terminal sedation, without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. It is disturbing that in the year 2007-2008, 16.5 per cent of deaths came about after terminal sedation. Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped, “dying” patients get better." Sounds like those on this side of the Atlantic who have problems with the NHS approach, learned to mistrust it fro
-
ict558 wrote:
but you tell me this, why?
Sorry. Thread drift happens, you know. You probably should get used to it.
ict558 wrote:
my reference was to the GOP 'Death Panel' meme
To stay within your limited parameters: The concept of the NHS functioning as a death dealer seems to have started on your side of the puddle. to wit: The Patient's Association, a 50 year old charity attacked the NHS in 2009, saying that over one million (!) patients had received "Cruel and neglectful care." One hospital, the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was found to have killed off 1,200 people "through failings in urgent care." Because of the report issued by the Patients Association, a letter was signed by P. H. Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics University of London, Dr Anthony Cole Chairman, Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr Peter Hargreaves Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Dr David Hill Fellow of the Faculty of Anaesthetists of the Royal College of Surgeons,and Dr Elizabeth Negus Lecturer, Barking University which said: "The Patients Association has done well to expose the poor treatment of elderly patients in some parts of the NHS (report, August 27). We would like to draw attention to the new “gold standard” treatment of those categorised as “dying”. Forecasting death is an inexact science. Just as, in the financial world, so-called algorithmic banking has caused problems by blindly following a computer model, so a similar tick-box approach to the management of death is causing a national crisis in care. The Government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death. As a result, a nationwide wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients. Syringe drivers are being used to give continuous terminal sedation, without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. It is disturbing that in the year 2007-2008, 16.5 per cent of deaths came about after terminal sedation. Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped, “dying” patients get better." Sounds like those on this side of the Atlantic who have problems with the NHS approach, learned to mistrust it fro
Oakman wrote:
Sorry. Thread drift happens, you know. You probably should get used to it.
Or just ignore it.
Oakman wrote:
To stay within your limited parameters:
Parameter: 'Death Panel' © GOP. Nothing to do with the "NHS functioning as a death dealer", all to do with NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Oakman wrote:
The Patient's Association, a 50 year old charity attacked the NHS in 2009, saying that over one million (!) patients had received "Cruel and neglectful care."
It didn't. Always read the published papers, not the Daily Telegraph.
Oakman wrote:
The Government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death.
It isn't. Always read the published papers, not the Daily Telegraph.
Oakman wrote:
One hospital, the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was found to have killed off 1,200 people "through failings in urgent care."
Wow, you got one (nearly) right. "It is not clear how many patients died as a direct result of the failures but the Commission found that mortality rates in emergency care were between 27 per cent and 45 per cent higher than would be expected, equating to between 400 and 1,200 excess deaths." - Daily Telegraph, 17 Mar 2009 (so you could believe it - I obtained independent confirmation).
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
Oakman wrote:
Sorry. Thread drift happens, you know. You probably should get used to it.
Or just ignore it.
Oakman wrote:
To stay within your limited parameters:
Parameter: 'Death Panel' © GOP. Nothing to do with the "NHS functioning as a death dealer", all to do with NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Oakman wrote:
The Patient's Association, a 50 year old charity attacked the NHS in 2009, saying that over one million (!) patients had received "Cruel and neglectful care."
It didn't. Always read the published papers, not the Daily Telegraph.
Oakman wrote:
The Government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death.
It isn't. Always read the published papers, not the Daily Telegraph.
Oakman wrote:
One hospital, the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was found to have killed off 1,200 people "through failings in urgent care."
Wow, you got one (nearly) right. "It is not clear how many patients died as a direct result of the failures but the Commission found that mortality rates in emergency care were between 27 per cent and 45 per cent higher than would be expected, equating to between 400 and 1,200 excess deaths." - Daily Telegraph, 17 Mar 2009 (so you could believe it - I obtained independent confirmation).
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
You keep blaming the Telegraph because they published a letter written by a number of doctors knowledgeable about end-of-life care. However, the letter was also covered by the Guardian and by the BBC - is there some number of sources at which you will actually deal with the issues it raises?
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
You keep blaming the Telegraph because they published a letter written by a number of doctors knowledgeable about end-of-life care. However, the letter was also covered by the Guardian and by the BBC - is there some number of sources at which you will actually deal with the issues it raises?
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
Oakman wrote:
You keep blaming the Telegraph because they published a letter written by a number of doctors knowledgeable about end-of-life care.
I don't. I merely recommend that one should always investigate the truth of anything published by MSM, blogs, fora, your Mum, ...
Oakman wrote:
However, the letter was also covered by the Guardian and by the BBC
If you say so. But the best fit for your quote was the Telegraph letters page.
Oakman wrote:
is there some number of sources at which you will actually deal with the issues it raises?
Zero, or it would be a thread drift of continental proportions. (Unless you mean are there sources whose veracity I trust sufficiently to determine the end-of-life care provided by my local NHS Foundation Trust, and its implementation, and to raise and hopefully resolve any issues I may have? In which case, yes, many sources.)
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
If I had to pay out of pocket would that be tax deductible?
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
-
BTW, I racked up $200k in medical bills in one year. I went through that $50k in a matter of hours. Paid for by private insurance.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.
-
CAD or USD?
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson My comedy.