Healthcare

[natcat86]

Well in my opinion because it is a racist request. The disbelief that a black man could become presidant. Surely he must be illegitimate. Thats what it looks like from over here in the UK anyway.

[Molly]

Well in my opinion because it is a racist request based. The disbelief that a black man could become presidant. Surely he must be illegitimate. Thats what it looks like from over here in the UK anyway.

Oh c'mon.  ROFL.  Have you read our Constitution?  Our President must be a "natural born" citizen. Our founders did not want the commander in chief of our military forces having a loyalty to any other country.

There is a lot of question as to whether Obama qualifies as such, even if he were born in Hawaii, which is not yet proven, since his father was a subject of the British Crown at the time of his birth.  That's right, the man might actually be a British citizen.

[natcat86]

Ahhh, that explains his move to socialise health care!  :wink:

[Molly]

Ahhh, that explains his move to socialise health care!  :wink:

There you go.  :wink:

[natcat86]

Hey Molly, sorry for being argumentative. Have thought about it and there is no way I can realy appreciate how you feel about this issue because at the end of the day its not happening in my country. Its easy for me to disagree from way over here.  :HeartThrob:

[WhiteWings]

Here you go Molly  :happygrin:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

Unless you would like him to bring it round your house for you to inspect personally I dont know what else he can do to prove he was born in US???

That's not his birth cerficate.  That's a certificate of live birth, which has also been claimed to be a forgery and since it's on the internet, could be anything.  It doesn't name the hospital where he was delivered or the doctor who delivered him.  He has repeatedly been asked in the courts to produce his birth certificate and he's spent over a million dollars fighting the request.  Why?

I find that so odd. If it's of such great importance why isn't solid proof asked of all candidates before they can even be part of elections?
It's like getting a job as pilot on a airliner. And a year later they ask you to show your flying license?
Just show the thing and get it over with.

When someone who won a medal on the olympics is caught afterwards (sometimes even months) that he or she took drugs; that medal must be given back.
But what if 20 years later Obama is proved to have no/false/wrong birth certificate?
What would be the concequences? What happens to all the laws/treaties he signed?

I fully understand many of the no-birth-certificate-lobby are there because they hate Obame because he's black, a Democrate or something else. But shouldn't even the biggest Obama fan want that laws are followed. And especially with something as simple as showing that piece of paper. How can such a piece of paper that every legal American has can harm the reputation of Obama? There is no shame in a piece of paper that every American has.

[WhiteWings]

Well in my opinion because it is a racist request. The disbelief that a black man could become presidant.

Mc Cain was asked of the same. He is born outside the USA (too). So he showed proof he was born on a US military base. And that counts as US soil. End of story. It could be just as easy for Obama. Obama was a liar from the beginning :laughing7:
He had all kind of excuses. I will show it but not now because my mother is ill. True and sad. But he could easily have one of his many people of his campain team get that certificate. Or certainly he must have enough time to have picked it up himself by today.

[WhiteWings]

Hey Molly, sorry for being argumentative. Have thought about it and there is no way I can realy appreciate how you feel about this issue because at the end of the day its not happening in my country. Its easy for me to disagree from way over here.  :HeartThrob:

Your missing the point.
It's often said the UK is the 53rd US state but now it seems the USA is the 2nd UK state.

That's right, the man might actually be a British citizen.

:laugh:

[Molly]

I find that so odd. If it's of such great importance why isn't solid proof asked of all candidates before they can even be part of elections?

It should be, but it's never been an issue before. Usually it's very obvious where a candidate was born and who his parents are and where they were born--that is, all in this country.   There is so much cloudiness about Obama's past, and his parents, and where they were at the time of his birth, that these records need to be produced, including his passports and college records [did he receive aid to foreign students as some have claimed?].

But what if 20 years later Obama is proved to have no/false/wrong birth certificate?
What would be the concequences? What happens to all the laws/treaties he signed?

Everything he signed will be null and void--if we are still a country by then.

[natcat86]

the 53rd US state but now it seems the USA is the 2nd UK state.

Nooo! We dont want it! :tongue:

[Raggedy Anne]

 :hijacked: :offtopic: :spank: :coffee2:

[Molly]

That's right, the man might actually be a British citizen.

:laugh:

Did we just lose the revolution? :mshock:

Not off topic at all.  He's trying to make us look just Britain with socialized health care--or worse.

[natcat86]

Ok well aslong as we're talking about Britain...  :icon_queen: :icon_king:, over here you can buy medical insurance and get excellent care. There are lots of big insurance companies, there is market competition. You cannot opt out of National Insurance which is what pays for NHS but it isn't much really and everyone is free to go private if they have the money and want to do that. Many people who could go private dont because many people are very pleased with NHS. THe insurance companies in this country wont make as much profit as those in US but over here we put the health care of the nation before capitalism. Oooh I'm feeling all patriotic,

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our- :Shoot:

:mshock:

[natcat86]

Just thought I'd add tht was me getting shot not the Queen!!!!!

[Molly]

Ok well aslong as we're talking about Britain...  :icon_queen: :icon_king:, over here you can buy medical insurance and get excellent care. There are lots of big insurance companies, there is market competition. You cannot opt out of National Insurance which is what pays for NHS but it isn't much really and everyone is free to go private if they have the money and want to do that. Many people who could go private dont because many people are very pleased with NHS. THe insurance companies in this country wont make as much profit as those in US but over here we put the health care of the nation before capitalism. Oooh I'm feeling all patriotic,

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our- :Shoot:

:mshock:

Let me guess--You must be young and healthy--or rich.


Rationing care from limited funds


The NHS cannot, and never has been able to, offer every treatment to everyone who needs it.
The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK. But it is not a bottomless pit of funds and some treatments have to be restricted.

Raising taxes to pay for every possible need is politically unthinkable, as it would require a massive increase in income tax to raise enough revenue to make a significant difference to spending.

This means some treatments have to be restricted, or rationed.

The media hype over the anti-impotence drug Viagra forced the issue out into the open.

The government has restricted the circumstances in which people will be prescribed the drug.

Responsibility

The British Medical Association wants the government to accept responsibility for rationing decisions and to consult the public over which treatments should be restricted on the NHS.

This would require a national policy - at the moment health authorities make the decisions on drug rationing on an individual basis.

This leads to accusations that care is being delivered by postcode since patients living under one health authority are denied a treatment available to those living under another.

The issue of rationing has also come to the fore due to the setting up of primary care groups later this year, when GPs will take over responsibility for commissioning care for their patients.

In a January 1999 survey of GPs, conducted by Doctor magazine, one in five said they knew patients who had suffered harm as a result of rationing.

More than 5% of the 3,000 surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS.

Expensive treatments

One of the most controversial rows over rationing concerns beta interferon, a treatment for multiple sclerosis.

The full effectiveness of the drug has yet to be established, and because it is very costly - approximately £10,000 per patient per year - some health authorities are reluctant to allow doctors to prescribe it.

Another example is a drug used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, Taxol, which has been licensed for use in the UK since mid-1998.

It costs £1,500 per injection and the average course requires six of these.

There are two studies that show the drug extends a patient's life by a year, but this is not enough evidence to justify prescribing it for everyone with ovarian cancer.

Marilyn Bush had the disease but was able to get the treatment because her private health care insurance agreed to pay for it.

She said: "Could you imagine how you would feel if you knew you could not possibly find the money for a drug you needed?"

Popular treatments

The case of Viagra is different, however. At an NHS price of £4.84 a pill, it is nowhere near as expensive as beta interferon.

But the government placed a temporary ban on NHS prescriptions of the drug because it feared so many patients would want it.

The ban is to remain in place until guidelines have been formulated to define who should get Viagra and who should be denied it. The guidance is due to be published in January 1999.

In future, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will issue guidance for a whole range of treatments.

In the meantime, however, it is up to individual health authorities to set priorities and to decide who is eligible for treatment.

Health authority guidelines

Dr Gordon Rustin, who treated Ms Bush, is familiar with the implications of local priority setting.

"Some health authorities have made special funding available just for patients who fit into certain clinical trials and some health authorities have said they will not provide any extra funding for Taxol."

Dr Rustin said that before he sees a patient he has to check their postcode to see which health authority pays for their treatment. He says he can only then prescribe the drug if he knows the authority will fund it.

He said authorities have to make a crude calculation.

"They want to show that we can improve duration of life with a new drug and they then try to calculate the extra duration of life," he said.

"If you get an extra year of life for less than £10,000 then it is generally considered that that is a reasonable buy."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm

[WhiteWings]

Rationing care from limited funds

And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.

[Molly]

Rationing care from limited funds

And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.

Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right?  They can check through their buddies or their comrades and just knock out those on the no fly list.

[WhiteWings]

Rationing care from limited funds

And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.

Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right?  They can check through their buddies or their comrades and just knock out those on the no fly list.

The use of the word comrades doesn't make me overlook you didn't answer my question.

[Molly]

Rationing care from limited funds

And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.

Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right?  They can check through their buddies or their comrades and just knock out those on the no fly list.

The use of the word comrades doesn't make me overlook you didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question.  There is no question that doctors ration healthcare now.  They are trained to do so.  They don't dole out antibiotics to everyone who requests them neither do they dole out transplants to everyone who needs one.  They make decisions based on years of medical training and experience, not based on who their buddies are.

There is a reason why we do not want to put the power of medicine in the hands of the government that transcends healthcare issues.

Any problems in this country could be easily addressed and fixed without handing over 1/6 of our economy to a bunch of bureaucrats who have the best interests of their party or personal biases at heart, not the healthcare of the country.  The people promoting this have not only made their views known about abortion and treament of the elderly, but they mean to implement them.  They have shown that they do not respect the privacy or the civil rights of our citizens.  They make lists of enemies.  This is too much power in the hands of the government.

[WhiteWings]

Ok now we are getting somewhere. Healthcare is rationed. For medical reasons you say. That's good. That's how it should be. But hospitals, the people that work there and those who research new mediacl techniques do so for cash. Yes and some for greed.
My point is and was that whatever system you chose it will cost money. That money somehow has to be payed. Regardless of the system. The comrade system possibly has lists of people who are allowed to get care. But what about the greed hog system? I "you" seem ill/costly you can't even get insurance. They won't accept you. The max. spended on you is capped. Etc.
Even in a system with very hard working, none greedy people, and zero overhead a $ can only be spend once.
And when the pot of money is empty there are only a few choices: Let people pay more. Less research. Don't treat people. Etc. It's are rationing. Except the pay more option. But some people simply can't pay more.

[natcat86]

Let me guess--You must be young and healthy--or rich.

Young  :Sparkletooth: and healthy thanks to the NHS!  :gwink: Definately not rich!! I had my son with NHS care. Excellent pre- natal support, fantastic care after emergency C-section, excellent post natal care. Couldn't be happier with the level of care I recieved. I'm not saying the NHS isn't without its faults. BUT just like in US if you can afford insurance you can get it, but UNLIKE the US if you can't afford insurance you don't have to wait until you qualify for the emergency room to recieve treatment.

[Molly]

Did it ever occur to you, WW,  that a lot of doctors in this country donate their time for free?

The best doctors make a lot of money and can afford to do this both financially and out of generosity of heart.  Neither do hospitals  turn people who are in need away.  A lot of these hosptals were founded by Christian and religious organizations--Catholic, Methodist, Presbytarian, Jewish,etc.

We have a long history in this country of caring for all the sick and needy.

Go to Russia to live and see how great their healthcare is.

[Molly]

Let me guess--You must be young and healthy--or rich.

Young  :Sparkletooth: and healthy thanks to the NHS!  :gwink: Definately not rich!! I had my son with NHS care. Excellent pre- natal support, fantastic care after emergency C-section, excellent post natal care. Couldn't be happier with the level of care I recieved. I'm not saying the NHS isn't without its faults. BUT just like in US if you can afford insurance you can get it, but UNLIKE the US if you can't afford insurance you don't have to wait until you qualify for the emergency room to recieve treatment.

You're young and healthy!  How did I know that? lol

What makes you think you have to wait until you qualify for the emergency room to receive treatment in this country?  Been reading a lot of propaganda?  I've been both insured and uninsured and I've never been denied treatment by a doctor or a hospital when I've needed it.  You are making statements based on a total lack of knowledge of what you are talking about.

If this is such a terrible place to have babies, why are women from other countries coming here so often to have babies?

[natcat86]

If this is such a terrible place to have babies, why are women from other countries coming here so often to have babies?

I didn't say it was a terrible place to have babies. I was using my experience of needing a large amount of medical care to show that my experience of the NHS has been positive. You jumped to the wrong conclusion there and put words in my mouth.

You may have received care but there are people who are waiting to go to the ER because they have no health care. Do I really have a total lack of knowledge, seems like hyperbole to me and if you are right and I am wrong you shouldn't need to exagerate, the facts will back you up. Unfortunately they dont.


http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-facilities-hospitals/13069021-1.html

Now there might be provision for them that means they do not have to wait so long and perhaps it is just lack of education as to what is available to the unisured. Either way its a fault with your system.

[Molly]

Here's a list of some of the free medical and dental clinics in Cincinnati, Ohio, a city picked at random.

Stop slandering our country.  All the big hospitals also have free clinics, run by the best doctors in the hospital.


http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/vcamp.php?cityid=1172