Is this the great benefits of socialized medicine?

[Broomstick]

Really? So having to lose an eye before they give you treatment to save the other eye is an expensive 3 months to live scenario?

Details of this scenario, Chewtoy. Was it a cost issue (because saving an injured eye is often trivially easy) or was it a case of the availability of corneas?

Just for the sake of clarity - the eye condition referenced was macular degeneration, which is not an eye injury and can not be remedied by cornea transplant. Macular degeneration is a condition of the retina that only recently has been treatable at all. There's a whole shitload of issues around it, and I don't care to hijack the thread with them unless people are interested in the details. Suffice to say that without treatment is does lead to total destruction of the retina eventually. It does not always affect both eyes, but typically it does.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I love how supporting a socialist mechanism (or even a communist one) means you're a communist when communism is a coherent world-view and ideology covering all aspects of life. Adopting communistic medical principles, if they are better than capitalist ones, in no way means you are communist--it means that you're pragmatic. I completely agree that palliative care beyond a certain point is useless. My grandfather, who I never met (probably for the best) died the year before I was born at the age of 96. He could have been kept alive much longer; my family is very healthy like that; except he was dying because his kidneys failed and they refused to authorize dialysis because back in the early 1980s dialysis machines were extremely limited and they were needed for people who would have a chance at 40 years in front, not ten.
b
The ironic thing is that would Bilbo brings up is an argument FOR socialized medicine, not against it. We should never spend a half million dollars to extend a life by six months. A decade, certainly, but the US is driven by an insane fear of death in this respect. If I make it to 96 I'll have beaten so many odds, and be quite proud of how far I've gotten in life. If due to the advance of medical technology I live to be 118 and get to see the dawn of the 22nd century, I shall be exceedingly pleased that I succeeded in living across a span of three centuries, and will consider that a brilliant and ideal lifespan--and I won't waste money better spent on my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren in some sort of pointless effort to make 119. The ideal medical system should unquestionably limit the amount of money spent on treatments based on how long those treatments will increase the life of the individual in question. If the treatment could give the person another ten years or greater they should be in the top priority, falling to the point where I'd actually argue that treatments which only extend life by like six months or so should never be done, unless that treatment is a bridge to a decisive cure which will extend their life substantially.

So the main article here is really an argument in favour of socialized medicine, and moreover an illustration of the sick ends of American society, where the blank, retarded masses flail about worshipping God in fear of their death, and then not sufficiently content in their imaginary deity must press on to squeeze as many months out of their lives as they can (I wonder if it's a psychological fear that they're wrong and God doesn't exist after all, or that under actual Christian doctrine almost all 'christians' in America know they're going to be sent straight to Hell for gluttony and greed, that if they're ever brought before their God, He will ask them why they did not live the simple and spiritual lives demanded in the new testament? Why they chose to put Mammon above him? And then burn in hell they will--and I suspect most Christians today in our religion-as-mass-marketing society know with some disquiet that by the teachings of their own doctrine they're Damned, and the fear leads them to squirm about for a couple more months of life). For me, I am more concerned with the dignity of how I die, and the impression it leaves upon my family. I should like to be able to comfort and reassure those I love in my last moments, settled into some great comfortable bed in my home and spending my last hours without machines and strangers to harass me, like a great foundering ship of the line with two-dozen descendants gathered 'round, to roll over on my side in my last moments and close my eyes just like I always do when I go to sleep. If I am not to escape into immortality through the translation of brain to computer, then let it be as I have just described, and no other way.

That is a worthy and happy death... And Americans prefer an extra three months of life, intubated and hooked up to the whir of machines. The Embarassment of Riches, indeed--no other good description for the disquiet which seems to drive the end of life in America, the corpulant beasts expiring in a miasma of desperation and lies. What kind of society should ever fund a single cent toward this vain and desperate effort to avoid mortality?

[Knife]

More than one quarter of total Medicare expenses go to patients in their last year.

Isn't the data set skewed to be that way anyway? Most Americans are not dependent on Medicare until either they retire and no longer have coverage from theit employer or cannot afford the premiums of private health care insurance. The elderly would of course be a primary spender of the medicare moneys as they are also the primary users of said money.

A better analysis would be to compare the spending in a completely socialized healthcare system ala Canada versus that of the aggregate US spending. Does the same trend exist in Canada?

I work on a medicare ward. Most of our Patients are ortho, new knee's and hips, not dying. Their quality of life is improved by the procedures. Now we do have terminal patients and few on medicare go into Hospice care which they should.

[MageOhki]

Zeon? It's not -that- we (the majoirty of 'anti soicalist') are bitching about. I happen to be married TO a Doctor (and yes, I'm a US Citizen). I ALSO grew up in Japan, so...

Look: I'm PRO in THEORY (note that word) 'socialized' health care. In fact, there's several nations that get it right. There are nations who DON'T. There's ALSO ways to cut our (the US's costs) without requiring such actions. Zeon, please ask people in the UK and HOLLAND about their healthcare. you'd be horrified. (Now, there's Sweden and Japan to counter, so...)

My problem is this. "Do we REALLY trust the goverement to get it RIGHT?" Yes, there are systems that WORK. and Work WELL. sadly, they aren't the systems the US's pro socalized backers TEND to push. (there are exceptions. Surpisingly Hillary's plan was closest to what I'd consdier acceptable) However, Zeon, Dashele's plan... is what the UK pushes, and the thing is, it's AS BAD as 'private HMO's'. Or worse. NOT in THEORY (I agree that at a point, you have to go.. "Do you REALLY think this is worth spending more money on?" My WIFE agrees, and she's peds tramua) but the ATTUDITE it endangers in the professonals who do it. WHO decides if X is 'hopeless' Who decides that treatment Y is too costly, etc.

People bitch (and RIGHTLY!) about HMO's in the US. Do you want a GOVEREMENT run HMO?

There ARE some things to do FIRST, however, before you try soicalizing health care in the US
Malpratice insurance is skyrocking. Let's not even GO on how much it is.
Drug costs (which IS a vaild bitch!) are VERY high. Why?
Do the research on time of patents on medical drugs and treatments and WHEN that clock starts. You begin to understand some of the drug's costs. (and development costs).
the fact NO ER can refuse treatment.... and that has to be paid for. Goverement doesn't reimburse that cost.

Not so simple, is it. You're all bitching about the 'last moments'... when a LOT of those charges... cover other things. Basically, if you go to a hosptial with an ER... anywhere from 5-10% of your bill covers that unfunded mandate.
and if your hosptial is part of a chain, even if it DOESN'T have an ER... if others in the chain DO...

Malpratice costs, etc, etc. Just isn't 'oh, far too costly treatements!' Think about WHY costs are so high... and fix those FIRST. THEN go onto other options.

A.

[ray245]

Look: I'm PRO in THEORY (note that word) 'socialized' health care. In fact, there's several nations that get it right. There are nations who DON'T. There's ALSO ways to cut our (the US's costs) without requiring such actions. Zeon, please ask people in the UK and HOLLAND about their healthcare. you'd be horrified. (Now, there's Sweden and Japan to counter, so...)

My problem is this. "Do we REALLY trust the goverement to get it RIGHT?"

Compare and contrast them to private companies. At the very least, people can vote for a change in government, a government that is better that running a socialised health-care system, whereas you cannot do anything about a private health care system.

[Bilbo]

So recognizing and incorporating into decision-making the fact that health care is subject to diminishing returns on investment is now condemning the poor to die under a goddamned socialist system? Did I miss the memo?

I believe that's what Bilbo said. Of course, if he had his way we would condemn the rich to spend their last months being subjected to intrusive, painful, and ultimately useless procedures that not only isolate them from their loved ones (due to medical personnel tossing out family while procedures are done) but also impoverish their heirs. While there is a certain aspect of schadenfreude involved, it's no way to run a medical system. Typical some is good so more must be better thinking.

Did you miss the whole part about Brits losing vision in one eye before they were allowed drugs to save the second? That is not adding a few years of pain onto the end of your life.

[SirNitram]

Malpratice insurance is skyrocking. Let's not even GO on how much it is.

0.46% of total health costs, or about 6.5 billion. What's so objectionable about discussing that average malpractice payouts are below other developed nations(26% less than the UK), or that 5.2% of doctors account for 55% of all malpractice?

Or were you hoping for more scary numbers that would show the crisis is EVIL TRIAL LAWYERS?

Study on malpractice payouts

Drug costs (which IS a vaild bitch!) are VERY high. Why?

Patent abuse, lack of controls, very, very highly paid lobbyists.

[Bilbo]

Where we slow down medical research because it costs too much?

That is a load of bullshit. You obviously have no idea how this research is carried out. Most of the costs of actually developing drugs is shouldered by publicly funded universities and is done on the dimes of charitable donations, and state and federal grants. Why do you think there was such a big problem with limiting federal funds to Stem Cell Research fucktard? Because private companies do not fund medical research. The only place a private company comes in is when it comes to buying the rights to the compounds or treatments. It then goes through clinical trials. The majority of the costs are not due to the clinical trials.

No its not fuckwad. It is a quote form Daschle. He wants to slow down medical research because he feels we cannot afford the newer more expensive treatments developed. Learn to this asshat.

[PainRack]

Did you miss the whole part about Brits losing vision in one eye before they were allowed drugs to save the second? That is not adding a few years of pain onto the end of your life.

There are similarly insurance and HMOs which would debate similar issues in the states, on whether procedures are neccessary and required.

Also, I think you ignore the fact that having to inject a fucking drug INTO your eye IS PAINFUL and fucking scary to watch. Its one of the reasons why I know I will reject working with AIDs patients.

[Bilbo]

Did you miss the whole part about Brits losing vision in one eye before they were allowed drugs to save the second? That is not adding a few years of pain onto the end of your life.

There are similarly insurance and HMOs which would debate similar issues in the states, on whether procedures are neccessary and required.

Also, I think you ignore the fact that having to inject a fucking drug INTO your eye IS PAINFUL and fucking scary to watch. Its one of the reasons why I know I will reject working with AIDs patients.

When an HMO does this they can be sued. When the government does it we just call it policy.

As for the pain, that doesnt matter, you give the patient a choice and let them decide if they want to lose their eye or endure their pain and be able to continue to see. Forcing them to lose an eye to save some money is just stupid.

[PainRack]

When an HMO does this they can be sued. When the government does it we just call it policy.

And you can vote to cancel the policy, which people successfully did. Which is an easier and more cost effective method than the hidden hand applied by insurance and HMOs since such policies should be publicly decleared. Its probably why UHS works so well in democratic countries like Europe and Australia, and sucks in China and the Soviet Union.

As for the HMOs, not really. All they have to do is say that their policy and procedures doesn't cover your said condition, and you are required to top it up or some other shit like that.

As for the pain, that doesnt matter, you give the patient a choice and let them decide if they want to lose their eye or endure their pain and be able to continue to see. Forcing them to lose an eye to save some money is just stupid.

You just shifted the goalposts there. To first address the money issue, there is the valid problem of rationing care. There are only finite amount of money and resources in the system. If you can top it up, fine.

However, your earlier claim was "That is not adding a few years of pain onto the end of your life."
Treatment in this case is disturbing.... Actually, I should point out that my previous post is a technical error. There isn't any pain since intravitreal adminstration doesn't go through any nerves or disturb any tissue, but there is the issue of quality of life as well as need/cost effectiveness. Using a google search, it seems that wet degeneration affects only 10% of patients, and drug treatment is continous. Meaning you are asking elderly people to continously submit themselves to an eye injection every few weeks or so. This is simply a case of the NHS saying, well, we're not going to cover this.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The government runs the system with much lower costs in other countries, resulting in higher life expectancies and lower child mortality. You must, to have a valid argument against socialized health care, specifically demonstrate a negative to those established facts which outweighs them by a reasonable ethical metric. And it's your obligation to do that, Bilbo, Ohki.

[Eulogy]

As for the pain, that doesnt matter, you give the patient a choice and let them decide if they want to lose their eye or endure their pain and be able to continue to see. Forcing them to lose an eye to save some money is just stupid.

Did you miss the part about people not affording said treatments, Dildo? Of COURSE the vast majority would endure pain and terror to keep their sight! Being blind SUCKS MAJOR DONKEY ASS, to put it politely!

Yes, it's stupid and horrid that saving eyes means bankruptcy, so why are you against the socialist system?

[Patrick Degan]

So recognizing and incorporating into decision-making the fact that health care is subject to diminishing returns on investment is now condemning the poor to die under a goddamned socialist system? Did I miss the memo?

I believe that's what Bilbo said. Of course, if he had his way we would condemn the rich to spend their last months being subjected to intrusive, painful, and ultimately useless procedures that not only isolate them from their loved ones (due to medical personnel tossing out family while procedures are done) but also impoverish their heirs. While there is a certain aspect of schadenfreude involved, it's no way to run a medical system. Typical some is good so more must be better thinking.

Did you miss the whole part about Brits losing vision in one eye before they were allowed drugs to save the second? That is not adding a few years of pain onto the end of your life.

Did you miss the whole part about public pressure forcing a change in that policy? That's democracy in action, which applies to a government but will not work with an insurance company.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Where we slow down medical research because it costs too much?

That is a load of bullshit. You obviously have no idea how this research is carried out. Most of the costs of actually developing drugs is shouldered by publicly funded universities and is done on the dimes of charitable donations, and state and federal grants. Why do you think there was such a big problem with limiting federal funds to Stem Cell Research fucktard? Because private companies do not fund medical research. The only place a private company comes in is when it comes to buying the rights to the compounds or treatments. It then goes through clinical trials. The majority of the costs are not due to the clinical trials.

No its not fuckwad. It is a quote form Daschle. He wants to slow down medical research because he feels we cannot afford the newer more expensive treatments developed. Learn to this asshat.

You are such an ignorant fuck. For one, that is not in your original post or any post since as a quote from him. You are an idiot quoting a sensationalist opinion article, which you did not bother to link to as per board rules.

Second, lots of the new and expensive treatments are not actually new. They are repatented older ones that have a methyl group moved around and thus have to go through trials again. We SHOULD slow down and stop that profiteering bullshit.

Given your lack of reading and critical thinking skills, I am fairly certain you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Daschle was saying. Because no sane person says something like what you attributed to him.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The government runs the system with much lower costs in other countries, resulting in higher life expectancies and lower child mortality. You must, to have a valid argument against socialized health care, specifically demonstrate a negative to those established facts which outweighs them by a reasonable ethical metric. And it's your obligation to do that, Bilbo, Ohki.

I do tend to agree. neither of them have adequately cited actual, you know.. Data.

When an HMO does this they can be sued. When the government does it we just call it policy.

Actually, they really cant. The contracts are iron clad and it is a rare rare day that they are sued successfully. A government might ration care like that because if you are

As for the pain, that doesnt matter, you give the patient a choice and let them decide if they want to lose their eye or endure their pain and be able to continue to see. Forcing them to lose an eye to save some money is just stupid.

Why? Why is it stupid if resources are limited? As I have already pointed out Scheinssenkroete and you have have failed to even try to address is that under a private system the costs are higher and the results poorer across the population. Per unit healthcare, a socialized system uses less money and gets better results even in the more poorly constructed systems.

You also have not sourced your claim you dishonest fuck, like I asked you to do in my post. Either do so or concede because your say so that this is a regular occurrence and not some freak incident is not an acceptable standard of evidence on this board and never has been.

[Rye]

Zeon? It's not -that- we (the majoirty of 'anti soicalist') are bitching about. I happen to be married TO a Doctor (and yes, I'm a US Citizen). I ALSO grew up in Japan, so...

Look: I'm PRO in THEORY (note that word) 'socialized' health care. In fact, there's several nations that get it right. There are nations who DON'T. There's ALSO ways to cut our (the US's costs) without requiring such actions. Zeon, please ask people in the UK and HOLLAND about their healthcare. you'd be horrified. (Now, there's Sweden and Japan to counter, so...)

My problem is this. "Do we REALLY trust the goverement to get it RIGHT?" Yes, there are systems that WORK. and Work WELL. sadly, they aren't the systems the US's pro socalized backers TEND to push. (there are exceptions. Surpisingly Hillary's plan was closest to what I'd consdier acceptable) However, Zeon, Dashele's plan... is what the UK pushes, and the thing is, it's AS BAD as 'private HMO's'. Or worse. NOT in THEORY (I agree that at a point, you have to go.. "Do you REALLY think this is worth spending more money on?" My WIFE agrees, and she's peds tramua) but the ATTUDITE it endangers in the professonals who do it. WHO decides if X is 'hopeless' Who decides that treatment Y is too costly, etc.

I live in the UK, I am far, far more horrified by the US' state of affairs. And before you ask, both of my parents have worked their whole lives in the NHS, and the US' system was roughly comparable to the pre-Bevan UK healthcare system. The exact same arguments were used to justify not moving to the NHS, anyway. Every time I've needed the NHS I've had quick, good care and I even know people who have had their travel costs paid back to them.

Could you provide some evidence for it being as bad as privatised healthcare? Like actual statistics, not individual scare stories.

People bitch (and RIGHTLY!) about HMO's in the US. Do you want a GOVEREMENT run HMO?

In general, I more support the French system.

Drug costs (which IS a vaild bitch!) are VERY high. Why?

US Market fundamentalists refuse to let the government set prices reasonably, allowing the drug companies to gouge in the interests of profits. Most other countries don't allow them this same freedom.

the fact NO ER can refuse treatment.... and that has to be paid for. Goverement doesn't reimburse that cost.

Interestingly, you save money if you invest in preventative care, rather than just paying for emergency care.

A.

A!

[Bilbo]

Did you miss the whole part about public pressure forcing a change in that policy? That's democracy in action, which applies to a government but will not work with an insurance company.

Because that outcry so brought back their lost vision. An HMO may try to pull this stunt but all of them wont. When Britain pulled this shit it hit every person in the country. That is the difference. When one group of people makes the calls for everyone their fuckups hit everyone. When one HMO pulls this it affects a few people till they get their asses taken to courty.

[Stark]

And curing AIDS won't bring back dead AIDS sufferers. So what?

[Edi]

Did you miss the whole part about public pressure forcing a change in that policy? That's democracy in action, which applies to a government but will not work with an insurance company.

Because that outcry so brought back their lost vision. An HMO may try to pull this stunt but all of them wont. When Britain pulled this shit it hit every person in the country. That is the difference. When one group of people makes the calls for everyone their fuckups hit everyone. When one HMO pulls this it affects a few people till they get their asses taken to courty.

You assume that the victims of this policy would have the resources to do so in the first place, which is more likely than not a completely mistaken assumption. The public plicy was changed swiftly, not after years of court battles and appeals and the change also affected everyone right off the bat.

So do you actually have a point or do you just like foaming at the mouth?

[Stark]

LOL. He edited his original response (which was 'that didn't bring back their lost vision, did it?' to something after I responded.

[Surlethe]

Zeon? It's not -that- we (the majoirty of 'anti soicalist') are bitching about. I happen to be married TO a Doctor (and yes, I'm a US Citizen). I ALSO grew up in Japan, so...

Look: I'm PRO in THEORY (note that word) 'socialized' health care. In fact, there's several nations that get it right. There are nations who DON'T. There's ALSO ways to cut our (the US's costs) without requiring such actions. Zeon, please ask people in the UK and HOLLAND about their healthcare. you'd be horrified. (Now, there's Sweden and Japan to counter, so...)

Surely you can dig up studies that show outcomes are worse in the UK and Holland?

My problem is this. "Do we REALLY trust the goverement to get it RIGHT?" Yes, there are systems that WORK. and Work WELL. sadly, they aren't the systems the US's pro socalized backers TEND to push. (there are exceptions. Surpisingly Hillary's plan was closest to what I'd consdier acceptable) However, Zeon, Dashele's plan... is what the UK pushes, and the thing is, it's AS BAD as 'private HMO's'.

Can you please cite some studies that show outcomes are worse in the UK than in the US? I really am curious.

Or worse. NOT in THEORY (I agree that at a point, you have to go.. "Do you REALLY think this is worth spending more money on?" My WIFE agrees, and she's peds tramua) but the ATTUDITE it endangers in the professonals who do it. WHO decides if X is 'hopeless' Who decides that treatment Y is too costly, etc.

Presumably the doctor, who is a competent professional, knows. Who else would decide? The family? Are they competent medical professionals?

[Edi]

LOL. He edited his original response (which was 'that didn't bring back their lost vision, did it?' to something after I responded.

He did? Well, we already knew he was a lying sack of shit, so from now on it's best if everyone who replies to him quotes his posts when replying. That way the asshole can't resort to that trick.

Bilbo, if I ever catch you editing a single post of yours to change the contents after someone has replied to your arguments, I will summarily ban you from the forum and you can then make an appeal to the registrations email address if you feel like it. We don't tolerate that kind of dishonesty here.

[Knife]

Or worse. NOT in THEORY (I agree that at a point, you have to go.. "Do you REALLY think this is worth spending more money on?" My WIFE agrees, and she's peds tramua) but the ATTUDITE it endangers in the professonals who do it. WHO decides if X is 'hopeless' Who decides that treatment Y is too costly, etc.

Presumably the doctor, who is a competent professional, knows. Who else would decide? The family? Are they competent medical professionals?

Indeed. Medical professionals do it all the time now. Most people don't have a power of attorney to make those decisions, most of it comes from the spouse who is heavily influenced by the immediate family. Though, since the laws are predicated on the patient or his/her POC can reject any treatment, the Doctor can also refuse to do a reckless procedure too, if the family demands something out of the blue.

What some times happens is a family shops for a doctor or facility that will do their bidding, though mostly it comes to either hospice or no hospice. On hospice, most long term treatments are discontinued and only comfort care is followed.

[Stark]

Actually, I thought the new phpbb let you see the edits so you could check?