Re: OT Who should get the best healthcare?

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:22:32 -0700 (PDT), Mrs Irish Mike
<BeaForoni@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 25, 11:41 am, FL Turbo <noem...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:31:49 -0700 (PDT), Mrs Irish Mike





<BeaFor...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 25, 7:51 am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
What's the "Best Healthcare?" Cleaner thermometers? Unused needles? Faster
ambulance? Biased triage? First in line for Kidneys or livers? (Is that a
menu item?).

"We'll only give you a CAT scan, rather than an MRI because you're lower
class."
"Your telephoned medical inquiry has been routed to India."
"We'll have to use a duller and shorter needle for your shot."

Jerry (cutting in line) 'n Vegas

- Cyclic Redundancy Check; Taking Inventory at a Bike shop.

I have seen people die for lack of health insurance.

You know how doctors look at your chart with all the tests and your
history (and your level of insurance), and the pronounce you have X
amount of time to live? Well, it seems 80-90% of the health care money
you're going to spend will come at the last year of your life. If you
have brain cancer and have about 6 months to live, why should millions
of dollars be spent in giving you chemo, radiation and surgery? If the
doctors and drug companies would stop selling false promises, there
would be health care for everyone.

Well, duhh

It's no secret that health care costs go up dramatically as the
patient and the doctors desperately battle against the immanent demise
of a very sick or elderly person.

In our private health care system, there is at least some choice as to
whether or not the patient wants to continue the battle, or give up.

You can bet your little booties that if we get a Socialized medical
system there will be bureaucrats at the top of the heap, looking to
keep costs down, deciding just who gets the bypass or transplant
operation and who is too sick or elderly.
"Sorry, you're too old.  Sorry, you're too sick. No soup for you."
You can be damn sure that is exactly what would happen.

Sen. Kennedy has brain cancer.
He is quite elderly.
Should he give up further treatment and just go die to save money and
scarce medical resources?

You can probably guess my opinion of Teddy as a politician.
Whatever, in no way would I suggest that he not take advantage of
every bit of medical knowledge and techniques to prolong his life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have one side of the arguement, allow me to present the other.

I have seen doctors selling false hope. Thar's profit in keeping
people hoping.

Allow the pacemaker companies and dialysis companies and hospital
companies and doctor companies and all the other bloodsucker companies
who profit on the misery of others, continue to sell their quackery.


First of all, I don't share your contempt for anyone in the medical
industry who makes a profit.
The advanced medical technology we have today would never have
happened were it not for the profit motive.

It matters not whether the technology would prolong the life of a
40-something or a 60-something.

But also allow someone (government?) to present the other side to the
consumer.


The "other side", meaning that when you come to a certain point in
your life that you shouldn't be allowed to take advantage of every
medical technology at your disposal?

A government medical bureaucrat should make a "one size fits all"
determination as to just who is eligible for treatment?

A government medical bureaucrat should be given the power to tell
someone when it's time to just go away and die?

The ironical part is that if Socialized Medicine is instituted, the
"filthy rich", like Teddy Kennedy would go jet off to an overseas
clinic and get as much treatment as they wanted.

The poor slobs like you and me couldn't afford that, and we would just
have to go away and die.

When someone is given a grave diagnosis they panic, its only natural.
The normal reaction for one facing death is to reach for something -
anything to save their life. Now this is where the dishonesty of for
profit medicine comes in. The doctor will promise to try to save the
person's life, but it will be at great cost. The patient doesn't care
because its not his money and the doctor sees dollar sign where the
patient sits.

One hundred years ago, what was considered modern medicine is now
considered barbaric. Think how today's medicine will appear to our
great-grandchildren.


Don't be so sure about that.
If all those "bloodsucker" companies and doctors are denied any
profit, the medical technological advances would come to a dead stop.
Where are the statistics? How much longer does one live with a triple-
bypass compared to one who refuses it? How much longer does a 65 year
old live with a heart transplant compared to one who does not recieve
one? What is the quality of life improvement for one who gets a spinal
fussion compared to one who is given a routine of exercise? You can
not find those stats because they are not given to the public. Too
much money is involved.

Compare a 65 year old person's chances of living to be 100. The
chances are very close to what they were 200 years ago.


What if they don't want to live to be 100?
What if they just want to live to be 75?

It sounds as if you think that the government should be making the
decision for them?

As I have so tiresomely repeated, Socialized medicine would turn all
such decisions over to government bureaucrats.

If you don't like the decisions made by your insurance company, you're
gonna positively hate the decisions made by bureaucrats in DeCee.

Who are ya gonna sue then?

The only improvements seem to be in treating childhood diseases and
in treating trauma. If we put the bulk of our medical spending in
those two catagories, we would find our at birth life expectancy to
soar and our medical costs to plummet.

Improvements in our lives has not come from medicine, it has come from
the engineering marvels that have given us clean water, food and air.

True as far as it goes.
But don't forget the engineering marvels in medical technology.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cholesterol Guidelines A Gift For Merck, Pfizer
    ... Let the doctors practice medicine. ... Most hospitals are non profit and receive money from all sources. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Bad Law, Good Ruling
    ... >> doctors should have the right to help people kill themselves. ... > preserve and sustain life. ... > imminent and the person is in pain. ... causes with terminal patients. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Why is the US discriminating Iran on the issue of nuclear energy?
    ... Btw foot doctor how come that you are always on here pushing out your ... The practise of medicine is ... it is a life style. ... am just trying to paint the picture of why you are such an angry man, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Announcing : Sept. 12th-14th, 2008 - 1st Annual "Celebrity Pinball Tournament & Arca
    ... I shouldn't really have to defend Jennie or the CureAutismfolks ... opinions and feelings - of course Doctors are influenced by drug ... but it doesn't change the fact that 'real medicine' has NOT ... 'practice medicine' offer much in the way of hope, a cure or even much ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Fil-Am doctor-lawyer wins landmark case
    ... Professor of medicine, cancer director in several US ... Doctors have an obligation to carefully consider the unique condition ... up with no chance of cure.” The patient died last month. ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
Loading