Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Stupid
The Fée Verte Absinthe Forum - The Oldest, Largest, Most Authoritative Absinthe Forum. > The Monkey Hole > The Newgate Calendar
Donnie Darko
I had a free moment to blow off steam.

Can anybody think of a better word than STUPID to describe the most vocal critics of Obama's health care reform plan? I'm not all that enthusiastic about his plan, I think it should go further than it will, but I understand that he's got to play ball to get it passed at all. I also understand if some people have some reasonable objections because they think the free market is always better, even though I may disagree with them. They're not the people I have a major issue with.

What the flying fuck is up with all this "death panel" craziness, and these "average Americans" who claim this will turn our country into Russia? Those are the people I have a major issue with.

So to keep it brief I just wanted to say that I think Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (and anyone else who actually buys that "death panel" or "Obama will turn us into Russia" horseshit) are absolutely the two stupidest people alive on earth today. S-T-U-P-I-D.

Thanks for listening.
Jaded Prole
You don't believe in the Death Panels!?!

(Really they already exist in practice within the system we have. It's called the Insurance Industry and they give bonuses ro their employees for denying services.)










As for the morons? Just another tempest in a teabag. It's up to the rest of us to take some initiative to fight for our own interests against the insurance lobby and our sold out elected officials.
Jaded Prole
Those bastids piss me off. It isn't easy to type when you're as drunk as I am but it would be nice to be able to see a Dr.









and I don't mean you-know-who.
Steve
Frankly I think 90% of the "outrage" at the town hall meetings is not about health care. It's simply racism. "How did that black guy end up in the White House?" That's why they're pissed off. That's why they take GUNS to town hall meetings where the President will be. That's why they compare him to Hitler. That's why they cry "Give me back my country!" And a number of elected Republicans are feeding it by repeating obvious lies about "death panels" and "socialism".
Wild Bill Turkey
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 14 2009, 02:58 PM) *

I also understand if some people have some reasonable objections because they think the free market is always better, even though I may disagree with them. They're not the people I have a major issue with.

I appreciate that. You and I have argued this issue at the Lounge, but I definitely want to distance myself from the current rage of nonsense. I can't imagine where these ass-clowns come from.
speedle
Spoon's right, and I've gotta admit that for the first 5 days or so of the coverage of these things, I plain couldn't watch the TV because I thought I might shoot it. And then I'd have to buy a new one, of course. I do wish Obama would figure out that the post partisanship is dead in the water, the Republicans aren't going to vote for anything he ever proposes, ever, so why are we giving up anything to them in the first place?
Tibro
No system is perfect, but you can't fix anything by scare-mongering. The status quo doesn't work and will only get worse. Britain's system isn't that bad. At least Stan Brock, "The 72-year-old former public schoolboy, Taekwondo black belt, and one-time presenter of Wild Kingdom" doesn't think so. He's demonstrating that Americans need something better than they have.
Donnie Darko
I just loved how one of those Fox News dipshits invoked Stephen Hawking as an example of how England's health care system is horrible. Stephen Hawking responded by saying he loved the NIH and he'd be dead if it weren't for them.

The one thing that I'll give Obama credit for, is he is taking the high road. I can't imagine how tempting it must be for him to say "Death panels? Are you fucking kidding me? Why kind of lying idiot do you have to be to invent such nonsense?"
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Spoon @ Aug 14 2009, 06:29 PM) *

That's why they compare him to Hitler. That's why they cry "Give me back my country!" And a number of elected Republicans are feeding it by repeating obvious lies about "death panels" and "socialism".


I do wonder about these people. I'll withhold accusations of racism though, as I think that makes them too easily dismissed and misses the bigger picture (me calling them stupid is also too dismissive, though probably true). Some of them are probably racist, but I think there's also a big contingent of people who are just prone to getting angry over imaginary things. I think the word of choice is paranoid. Of the "questions" I've heard asked at these town halls, most of them seem driven by extreme paranoia more than anything else. They're all literally afraid of things that are not real. They're afraid Obama will take away their shitty health care they already have, and they're afraid he'll have them euthanize family members. That's not even a legitimate objection to the plan, but more a product of delusions driven by some sort of underlying mental illness. And I'm dead serious when I describe their behavior as mentally ill. People prone to paranoid delusions are defensive in the extreme, and feel threatened by any attempt to change their environment, and even feel threatened by genuine attempts to help them.

For such a paranoid group, all you need is somebody like Beck or Limbaugh or Palin to stoke the flames of fear with some lies and baseless innuendo, and presto, you've got an "awakened sleeping giant" that's ready to attack everyone and everything within range. It reminds me of the paranoia during the McCarthy era, except I'm keeping my fingers crossed this time that these people are in the minority and in spite of being loud, are at least not so influential.
Kirk
I think the Internet has brought a degree of culpability;
in this day and age
if you're still an idiot, it's likely because you want to be, so be as dismissive to the idiots as you will but don't underestimate how many willing fools there may be, or the odds of them gaining "authority"
Tibro
Although I'm culpable no one has officially deputized me. I hardly know whether to weep or rejoice.
Jaded Prole
Rejoice while you can.

As the economic crisis continues and is further deepened globally by the crisis of ecology tempers will rise with desperation. Power will maintain itself as best it can with lies, mysticism, nationalist fury and scapegoating. Howling hate-filled mobs will be more the rule than the exception.
Group psychology is a predictable thing and as history shows, those who understand it's nature can manipulate it for their own ends.
Kirk
It's Greek to me.
Jaded Prole
You're immune.
Kirk
I hope I am when the pitch fork bearers show up at my door.
Jaded Prole
Remember, it's not what you say . . .
dakini_painter
For some people, Democrat or Liberal is a code word for "Communist" or "Socialist". For us, I know that seems silly, but that's the way they think.

Those liberals (ie commies) are going to take away their guns, force abortion on people. And if they're willing to kill babies, they're certainly willing to kill grandma with their health care system. Forget the fact that Medicare is a government run program. And everyone knows that Democrats (ie commies) are all for Big Government that will intrude on our lives and tell us how to live. Forget the fact that the Republicans have been very good at keeping government big, with especial emphasis on Big Military and friends such as the intelligence community. And that they tell people how to live (that you can't have an abortion even if you were raped, and didn't you know you were supposed to use that damn gun you're supposed to carry at all times, and you'd better not be gay, and certainly not in the military).

In some ways, it's city vs country. And the country folk have been losing out for a long time. Sadly, the reason for this has little to do with the government, but economics. The government gets the blame, regardless.

A small example from where I live: the rural community of Colchester has been getting it's water from springs for over 100 years. The water is tapped from the spring. Technically, a spring is a surface water source, and is therefore, not allowed to be used. Someone up in Albany has discovered this, and they either have to filter the water for giardia cysts (expensive) or have wells drilled, and get the water from the wells. The head of the town wants to fight it, but the lawyer says it's the Clean Water Act, and they ain't ever going to win.

Another: The emergency communication system used in Delaware County was established in the 1950's. They're still using it today. However, the FCC recently sold off the UHF range used for emergency communication because, nearly everyone else upgraded long ago. The estimated cost for a new modern emergency communication system in the modern FCC approved range is $24 million. The total population of Delaware County is about 48,000. That's $500 per person. For a poor rural area, that's a lot of money.

The economics of dairy farming are such that it's cheaper to ship milk from factory farms in the mid-west to NYC than to have it produced and processed here a mere 150 miles away. (This used to be a big dairy farming area. Grass fed, range free, locally grown corn. Too bad not so many farms around now, as that could be a selling point.)
Tibro
QUOTE(Kirk @ Aug 16 2009, 08:09 PM) *

I hope I am when the pitch fork bearers show up at my door.

Those aren't pitchforks, they're just really, really big make-shift absinthe spoons.
Donnie Darko
We're all gonna die. Might as well die free (and 20 years too soon because it's OK for private insurers to deny you care and for you to have no other options).
Absomphe
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 16 2009, 05:33 PM) *

We're all gonna die.


First Julian Beck, now you.

Okay, I'm convinced. vampire.gif
Donnie Darko
Here is a brief and illuminating article from a former insurance executive about the origins of the talking points put forth by those terrified of Obama care:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/pot…ance/index.html

Donnie Darko
Yet more evidence that some of these people freaked out about Obama's health plan are stupid:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/oba…ifle/index.html

The debate isn't about gun control or the 2nd amendment. The debate is about health care. The only connection I can see between health care and an assault rifle is that guns like that increase the likelihood of somebody needing to go to the hospital.

Maybe next time somebody wants to debate taxes I'll whip my dick out, because hey, I like freedom, and who cares what the issue is at hand, right? I want to whip my dick out, cuz that makes me more free. Of course my dick won't accidentally or purposefully kill anyone, so it's probably less appropriate at a debate than walking around with a loaded gun.

Guns are cheap. Healthcare is expensive. I'm so glad our priorities are in the right place.
hobgoblin
Did you see that fringe-crackpot Consevative Euro-MP Daniel Hannan on Fox News? Spouting lies about the British NHS. He's entitled to have an opinion on the NHS, but he is not entitled to tell blatant lies in order to give his opinion credence. 14 months queue for treatment of prostate cancer? Absolute bollocks.

The guy's a crack-pot who's remarks on the NHS have been criticised by his party leader. Its just a shame that the leader of the British Conservative party is a spineless twat who hasn't got the guts to withdraw the party whip from the crackpots within his own party. But that's David Cameron for you, the likely new British Prime Minister by next May, a spineless, chinless wonder. Depressing, but I guess we get the politicians we deserve.
Provenance
Wel, yes. We do the politicians we deserve.
Donnie Darko
The "waiting line" argument is a bunch of smoke and mirrors anyway, though I'd wager the 14 month wait claim is either a total fabrication or one isolated case where someone lived in a remote area and the nearest urologist was booked. It's nice that Fox News was able to find the one person in the entire United Kingdom who thinks the NHS is worse than the US system though.

Besides, plenty of procedures within the US have a long wait. My dad had a robotic prostatectomy done last week, and his cancer was graded as pretty aggressive, and he still had to wait 2 1/2 months after diagnosis before he could get the surgery, and he has really good insurance. It's not uncommon for less aggressive prostate cancers to have a wait of 6 months or longer until treatment. Proton radiotherapy often has a waiting list of 8-12 months because there's only a handful of places in the country that even do that treatment. It also costs $55,000 and is not covered by many insurance plans. Yeah, our health care is way better than the NHS. We don't have to wait like in those evil countries with commie care.
Tibro
QUOTE(Provenance @ Aug 18 2009, 06:18 PM) *

We do the politicians we deserve.

Honestly though, isn't it the politicians that do us?
Donnie Darko
Usually without lube.
Provenance
Tib and D2 score on that one.
Donnie Darko
Free-dumb ain't free.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 18 2009, 05:20 PM) *

The "waiting line" argument is a bunch of smoke and mirrors anyway, though I'd wager the 14 month wait claim is either a total fabrication or one isolated case where someone lived in a remote area and the nearest urologist was booked.
It was total fabrication, he just made it up to give the impression that the British National Health Service was so bad that people could die while on the waiting list. Just to scare people into opposing any moves to reform your health service.
Donnie Darko
Well, I'm sure Murdoch's papers will return the favor of him lying to Americans on Fox about NHS by endorsing him for re-election.

Donnie Darko
Speaking of this relentless issue of wait times that is brought up again and again by people who are afraid of government health care (though most of them curiously seem to love Medicare), I believe it is genuinely likely that America has somewhat shorter wait times for some procedures than EU/Canadian counterparts.

It should be no wonder to anyone that America has shorter wait times, because we don't insure 46 fucking million people!, so there's less people in line to begin with. And for all those claims that any health reform will result in "rationed care", we already have rationed care. Care is rationed to those with health insurance, while those who are without health insurance and aren't poor enough for medicaid generally get no health care at all. And even those with insurance experience rationing, as plenty of the insurers out there refuse to approve treatments of people they supposedly cover. If that's not rationed care, what is?
hobgoblin
The notion that you will get better treatment because you have paid for it through private health insurance is just not the case. Yes if you have some acute, non life threatening condition that can be dealt with relatively simply, then you will often get seen a bit quicker and have your issue dealt with a bit quicker through private health care, but the case for chronic life threatening condition is very different.

If you have cancer and need very expensive treatment like chemotherapy, then private insurance will generally only cover you up to a certain limit, usually up to only 6 courses of chemotherapy and then that's it (whether you are responded well to the treatment or not). Under the NHS you will be re-scanned after 6 and then, if responding well, be given up to another 6, and then re-scanned and then moved onto a different type of chemotherapy if need be, and so on. My own father had 2 years worth of chemothearpy under the NHS (probably about 20 course of chemo) I doubt he would have had this under private health care.

Also under the system over here, you are far more likely to be referred onto other services, charitable hospices (which provide truly excellent care, my wife works for one) and other support services if you are treated under the NHS. If you are being treated privately, the consultant will, more often than not, not refer the patient on to such services until it is too late, because he will have a vested interest in doing everything he thinks he can possibly do rather than refer on to another service that would do a better job.

Our National Health Service is certainly not without its problems: too many layers of management and bureaucracy; government targets that when implemented by clever managers can result in less care in practice, while on paper the target has been met; issues with contracted out services such as cleaning; and other problems, but on the whole it serves the population well and is generally better than the service provided privately (unless of course getting your food and drinks served to you on fine bone china is a priority, in which case private health care would suit you better).

There is no reason why you could not create a public health service in the USA which would be even better and more efficient than ours, since you would not be burdened by the problems inherent in any service that was set up 60 years ago and has been built upon bit by bit, rather than re-designed from scratch. Good luck, I applaud what Obama is trying to do regarding your health service.
Donnie Darko
When you refer to the system that was set up 60 years ago, ours was actually set up that far back too, so we're just as entrenched into the private model as the UK is entrenched into the public model. We're stuck with a rebuilding it bit-by-bit situation, since to dismantle the whole thing and start over with a single payer system would cause a massive economic shock. During a global recession is a very bad time to yank the rug out from under one of the few employers that is actually growing, so I do understand why Obama backed away from his endorsement of single-payer back when he was a Senator.

From what I've heard about the UK system (correct me if I'm wrong), one is better off if they also have private supplemental insurance in addition to NHS. Everything that I've read has been purely anecdotal, but as I understand it, if you have supplemental insurance through your employer you are seen and treated much faster and in more comfortable and more sanitary environments than if you have no supplemental insurance. From what I understand this is how it works in the Scandinavian countries as well. If you have only NHS, you still generally receive adequate care and rarely if ever are in the situation where you could die because of a delay in care, but supposedly it's optimal if you have supplemental private insurance as well.
Shabba53
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 19 2009, 10:16 AM) *
Everything that I've read has been purely anecdotal, but as I understand it, if you have supplemental insurance through your employer you are seen and treated much faster and in more comfortable and more sanitary environments than if you have no supplemental insurance.

I've had the same experiences as well. While still anecdotal, I have two clients that are dual citizens of the US and UK. They've told me the same. They also hold the belief that the US overprescribes, and the UK underprescribes regarding his chronic cardiac problems.

I guess being a participant in both gives him a nice middle ground. chickawow.gif

As another side note, my father in law was diagnised with pancreatic cancer about a month ago. It's not been a fun experience. But he was receiving chemo within 2 weeks and is also already scheduled for surgery and radiation. I don't know what plan he currently has, but he's not at all well off, so I can't believe it's that great of a plan, yet it's covering all of these treatments.
Kirk
2 years after I broke my leg, I got a bill from the hospital for parts and treatments that the insurer didn't approve, I told them up front (when I broke it) not to do anything that my insurer did not approve. I coughed up another $1500 to appease them and keep my good credit. The broken leg cost my insurer 12K, it would have cost me 50K, the insurance company negotiates a bargain over the uninsured. It cost me 7K, I'm pretty sure my copay helped the insurance company get a better deal. The amount I payed is over half the amount they paid.
Donnie Darko
Kind of makes you wonder what your insurance was for, huh?
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Shabba53 @ Aug 19 2009, 10:33 AM) *

As another side note, my father in law was diagnised with pancreatic cancer about a month ago. It's not been a fun experience. But he was receiving chemo within 2 weeks and is also already scheduled for surgery and radiation. I don't know what plan he currently has, but he's not at all well off, so I can't believe it's that great of a plan, yet it's covering all of these treatments.


Sorry to hear about that. That's great his plan is covering all the treatment. The good thing with cancer is that unless they trump up some "pre-existing condition" nonsense, most insurance plans cover the first round of chemo and radiation fully. Pancreatic cancer is taken very seriously as it's important to treat it ASAP, as usually by the time most people are symptomatic it's too late, so waiting a long time for treatment with pancreatic cancer is very uncommon. As for coverage, it's usually when you have a cancer that recurs or have a kind that requires an expensive long-term treatment that one can run into these "maximum benefit allowed" riders hidden within the plan.

And this also is a morbid but nonetheless accurate thing to say: aggressive cancers with a poor prognosis are often more likely to be fully covered, as the likelihood of the cancer recurring or progressing slowly and chronically (and thus resulting in a lot more treatment and cost to the insurer) is pretty low since the patient is often not expected to survive.

As a side note, if your father-in-law is in any way unhappy with his care or looking for a second opinion (particularly if his oncologist said the tumor was inoperable), the best place to go for a second expert-opinion is Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center here in NYC.
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/44.cfm
One of my co-workers was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer 3 years ago, and one MD said it was inoperable so he went to Sloan Kettering and they operated, gave him chemo, and he's cancer free 3 years later.
Kirk
My daughter had a collapsed lung, it was a weekend holiday, right after our insurance company changed owners. The hospital wanted to send her home because the insurance company could not verify she was covered and she was not in danger of immediate death, with half her chest caved in, gasping for breath and in exquisite pain, they parked her in the lobby. I offered to pay cash but they would not treat her for cash, they told me I could not pay cash up front.
I spent 4 hours trying to get the (insurance company) chief administrator on the phone. After clearing everything they treated her as if she was critical, by then, she was. It took them 5 minutes to insert a shunt and she had full relief almost immediately, made me wish I had stabbed her with a ball point pen tube. Cost: 57K including the subsequent surgery to staple her lung shut.
Shabba53
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 19 2009, 12:57 PM) *
Pancreatic cancer is taken very seriously as it's important to treat it ASAP, as usually by the time most people are symptomatic it's too late,
Exactly. I'd been mentioning to him for years that he should be getting regular physicals. Instead he played it his own way. It wasn't until he felt like he was constantly being hit in the stomach with a baseball bat that he went to see a doctor. I have no doubt that it probably won't end well.

QUOTE
As a side note, if your father-in-law is in any way unhappy with his care or looking for a second opinion (particularly if his oncologist said the tumor was inoperable), the best place to go for a second expert-opinion is Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center here in NYC.

Thanks for that. I'll make sure to keep it in mind as an option. He's a stubborn bastard, so it might be hard to uproot him from Pittsburgh, even for something so important.
Donnie Darko
Actually if he's getting treated at the teaching hospital that's affiliated with U Pittsburgh then he's in good hands. Like you say though, if he's already having severe abdominal pain then the outcome does not look good. It's important to stay positive though, people have beaten cancer with a worse prognosis before.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(Kirk @ Aug 19 2009, 01:03 PM) *

My daughter had a collapsed lung…


Wow, that story is really fucked up. Don't go back to that hospital. Emergency Departments are required by law to stabilize patients regardless of their ability to pay. They'll still try and pull shady bullshit like bouncing the patients to county hospitals once they've stabilized the patient, but they are legally obligated to stabilize the patient first. A patient with a collapsed lung is not "stabilized". Normally I blame the insurance companies for patients not getting the care they need, but in this case it was an actual emergency and it was the hospital's fault. The hospital refusing to put in a chest tube in a patient with a collapsed lung because they can't verify insurance is something you could sue over. You should have your daughter see a pulmonologist just to make sure she hasn't suffered a decrease in lung capacity from the hypoxia she experienced by having her lung collapsed for so long. If she has then the hospital can be held liable.
hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 19 2009, 03:16 PM) *

From what I've heard about the UK system (correct me if I'm wrong), one is better off if they also have private supplemental insurance in addition to NHS. Everything that I've read has been purely anecdotal, but as I understand it, if you have supplemental insurance through your employer you are seen and treated much faster and in more comfortable and more sanitary environments than if you have no supplemental insurance. From what I understand this is how it works in the Scandinavian countries as well. If you have only NHS, you still generally receive adequate care and rarely if ever are in the situation where you could die because of a delay in care, but supposedly it's optimal if you have supplemental private insurance as well.


Not really. Very few people do have private health care over here. Not many employers give it either as there really isn't a great deal of benefit in having it. In fact it can actually be a disadvantage sometimes. The notion that because you are paying extra for it, it must be better is often a bit misleading. With a serious condition if you are being treated by a consultant privately, often you will not be referred to non-private agencies (which may be more appropriate) until it is too late as the consultant will have a vested interest in doing as much as he can himself. It is your consultant who refers you to other agencies etc., and a consultant working for the NHS will be less likely to be reluctant to refer you on elsewhere.

Say for example you are a young man who has private health insurance and you develop cancer. If you go down the private route then after 6 courses of chemotherapy, then that's it, you get no more. If you had used the NHS you would get as many courses as would benefit you, there would be no cost limit imposed. But if you went privately you could not then, after the 6 private courses, go to the NHS for the rest as your treatment was not started under the NHS. Sure you will no doubt have the benefit of a recuperating in a private room and nice cutlery etc. while getting the private treatment, but is this really what matters?

The NHS do not alllow people to have NHS treatment and 'top it up' with additional private benefits as that, they believe, would result in an unfair '2 tier' system with the poor receiving a lesser standard of care than those who can afford to 'top up' with additional private benefits. Its either or over here and most people, even those who can afford to, don't bother with private treatment (apart from the ocassioanl rountine medical required by their employer etc. which their employer pays for).

As virtually all the hospitals over here are set up for and controlled by the NHS if you do have private treatment you will be treated in an NHS hospital, by an NHS paid doctor who is doing extra private jobs in addition to his main NHS job, treated with NHS equipment etc, but unlike the NHS their will be a cost limit on the amount of treatment you can get. In some cases, yes there are benefits to private treatment (new drugs not yet approved for use by the NHS etc.) but in most serious cases you are better off going through the NHS. And for minor things, say you break your arm etc., you turn up at the hospital (NHS), wait in the queue like anyone else, get treated like anyone else, what would the benefit be of saying afterwards "Oh by the way I have private insurance, should I fill in a form so that you can charge the cost to them"?
Donnie Darko
Oh I see. It's an either-or situation. You have to either choose NHS or the private route depending on what treatment you need, and most people don't bother with the private insurance.

This interesting editorial explores it, and I think I misunderstood what she was saying the first time I read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinre…S&st=Search

hobgoblin
QUOTE(Donnie Darko @ Aug 19 2009, 09:28 PM) *

Oh I see. It's an either-or situation. You have to either choose NHS or the private route depending on what treatment you need, and most people don't bother with the private insurance.


Yes it is an either-or choice to make. Their has been some opposition to the either-or nature and this is understandable in a lot of individual cases. Why shouldn't a patient be able to recieve the benefits of many courses of chemotherapy under the NHS (which wouldn't be the case under most private insurance) and be able to obtain new drugs (unapproved by the NHS) privately while obtaining the benefoit of NHS treatment? The reason is the ethos of the NHS which is built on an basis that people shouldn't be advantaged in terms of the health care provided, because they are able to pay for it, that access to good healthcare is a right and not something that should be reserved for those who can afford it. To be honest I couldn't care less myself whether the hospital had a gym, air conditioning (which isn't such a big issue with the UK climate), or cable TV, nor am I a fussy eater, I'd be more concerned about the medical treatment and not be worried that a clause in my insurance policy will mean that the treatment will be ceased due to cost.

One thing that is sub-standard about the British National Health Service is dental care. Best to use the NHS for general checkups (as its cheaper) and pay the same dentist privately for other treatments (unless you're happy with an ugly amalgam filling or crown instead of a white one). That's what I do anyway. But then in the whole scheme of things, how many people have died from having an ugly filling in their mouths? And the cost of dental treatment is pretty minor compared to the potential cost of medical treatment.
Donnie Darko
QUOTE(hobgoblin @ Aug 20 2009, 06:23 AM) *

The reason is the ethos of the NHS which is built on an basis that people shouldn't be advantaged in terms of the health care provided, because they are able to pay for it, that access to good healthcare is a right and not something that should be reserved for those who can afford it.


We're exactly the opposite. My wife's aunt works as a marketer for a company that provides Concierge medicine. For an extra $12-$25K per year, you can see a doctor whenever you want, and they make house calls, you get to stay in VIP hospital suites if you're hospitalized, and you can get all sorts of treatments regular insurance won't cover. Maybe we should just kill the lower middle class, that way doctors will have more time to spend on the most worthy members of society, the rich.
G&C
'cept there would be no rich without the slave class.
Jaded Prole
That's a fact!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.