This is why I don't trust Socialized Medicine

Roadtoad

Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Roadtoad
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
15,468
Location
Citrus Heights, CA
I realize this is just one view, and that there's some serious questions about the balance of the reporting, (I think it's an Op-Ed piece), but it raises some very serious questions about socialized medicine.

Two years ago, the owner of this face, a retired builder from West Cornwall, broke his ankle in three places. A plastercast failed to set the break, and ever since then, where once was fleet foot and stout shank, has been felt only the ghastly grinding of bone on bone.

So grisly is the pain, we learned, that Mr Nuttall is prescribed daily doses of morphine by the local medicine men. His hurdling career is in tatters. And now these same medicine men, the Hippocrateses of the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro, are refusing to enter him for an operation to set his ankle. The reason for this, they explain, is that Mr Nuttall is a smoker.
Click to expand...

I don't want anyone to have this kind of authority over me. Ever.
 
There was a 20/20 piece last night against socialized medical care. Is there some kind of push recently for it? Is this just propaganda against a socialized health care system? The reason why I ask is because it seems rather heavy-handed in trying to oppose such an idea.
 
1) John Nuttall is quite free to have a private operation done if he likes. Private health care co-exists with "socialized" health care in the UK, as it does in most countries with national health care.

2)
From a different news report:

However, the hospital told Mr Nuttall, who no longer works because of smoking-related chest problems, that he would have to give up smoking before an operation could be carried out.
Click to expand...

Add a few details and the whole picture changes, doesn't it? Looks like Mr. Nuttall already suffers from severe smoking-related disease (unspecified but my guess is that it's emphysema), and it looks like the docs are too worried about his chances under anaesthetic and the post-op problems to want to operate.

So it really does look like your original kind of objection is invalid and prejudiced, yes?

3) Millions would like a decent national health service merely so that they can afford health care.

4) Your USA health muddle costs an average USA tax-payer twice as much as it does for an average German tax-payer paying for the far superior German "socialized" system, or for a Swede or Dane.

Hey, and guess what? Private USA docs will also refuse to operate if they estimate the risks are too high.
 
I'm guessing part of the reason his foot hasn't healed is poor circulation due to his smoking. If his emphysema is that bad, then there's a good chance his extremities aren't getting enough oxygen.

As Gurdur noted, private health insurance companies aren't going to do anything different, they are all about risk management as well. If he has the cash, he can get himself healed anywhere he wants, that option is always open to him.
 
Roadtoad said:
Well, I know Hillary Clinton is for it, and Obama is to a lesser extent.
Click to expand...

Wrong. She is for a universal healthcare system. The use of the phrase "social healthcare" is simply to poison the well.

The reported case seems like BS to me and it also seems that it has little to do with the universal healthcare system. You can cite breakdowns in any system. Cherry picking one to further your political beliefs is a little dishonest.
 
Gurdur said:
1) John Nuttall is quite free to have a private operation done if he likes. Private health care co-exists with "socialized" health care in the UK, as it does in most countries with national health care.

2)

Add a few details and the whole picture changes, doesn't it? Looks like Mr. Nuttall already suffers from severe smoking-related disease (unspecified but my guess is that it's emphysema), and it looks like the docs are too worried about his chances under anaesthetic and the post-op problems to want to operate.

So it really does look like your original kind of objection is invalid and prejudiced, yes?

3) Millions would like a decent national health service merely so that they can afford health care.

4) Your USA health muddle costs an average USA tax-payer twice as much as it does for an average German tax-payer paying for the far superior German "socialized" system, or for a Swede or Dane.

Hey, and guess what? Private USA docs will also refuse to operate if they estimate the risks are too high.
Click to expand...

I think I admitted the initial report was incomplete and biased. And, in the initial report, Nutall did admit he couldn't quit smoking. Personally, if it were my ankle, I'd be doing anything I could to quit, regardless of how much I wanted that next drag.

I still don't trust the idea of someone who isn't a medical professional making these decisions.
 
qayak said:
Wrong. She is for a universal healthcare system. The use of the phrase "social healthcare" is simply to poison the well.

The reported case seems like BS to me and it also seems that it has little to do with the universal healthcare system. You can cite breakdowns in any system. Cherry picking one to further your political beliefs is a little dishonest.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm cherry picking here. True, I don't trust socialized care, but I'm sure as hell not happy with what I have right now, (a PPO), which plays these ridiculous games with my health as well. (No, I generally don't get into discussions about this topic, simply because it sends my blood pressure stratospheric.)

I'm not as versed as some about what Hillary Clinton says is the difference between universal care and social care. My son thinks her idea is great, that it works towards a single payer system, which means hospitals won't be going bankrupt. That worries me, because he who pays calls the plays. (AUP being right on the money, pardon the pun.)
 
Roadtoad said:
I still don't trust the idea of someone who isn't a medical professional making these decisions.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies make this kind of decision all the time in the USA. And I don't see where in the Torygraph article it said that it wasn't a doctor making this decision in the UK health system.
 
Roadtoad said:
...I still don't trust the idea of someone who isn't a medical professional making these decisions.
Click to expand...
It was medical professionals making that decision, so I guess that wipes out your objection. The NHS trusts do rely on them.

Roadtoad said:
I don't think I'm cherry picking here. True, I don't trust socialized care, but I'm sure as hell not happy with what I have right now, (a PPO), which plays these ridiculous games with my health as well.
Click to expand...
So you say yourself that your objection to "socialized" health care also turns out to be the same objection you have to your current private medical care?

Um.

Well, I guess you don't have much against socialized health care specifically, then, unless there is something more you haven't said as yet.
 
Terry said:
Insurance companies make this kind of decision all the time in the USA. And I don't see where in the Torygraph article it said that it wasn't a doctor making this decision in the UK health system.
Click to expand...

I'll have to reread it. You could be right.

Right now, we've got a fight going on with Blue Cross: Peggy needs meds for her asthma, but the person who won't okay them 1.) isn't a doctor, he's a pharmacist, and 2.) is violating the very rules Blue Cross has in place, saying that if the doctor has ordered it, it can be appealed. We're still waiting for an appeals form, (no, we can't just send in a couple of letters), and they're still saying if we want to use this particular medication, we have to pay for it out of our own pocket. ($80 a whack, if memory serves.) So, no, in the US, it's not always a doctor who makes the decision. It ought to be, but it isn't.

BTW: We generally go with generics, but there isn't one for what's going on with Peggy. There's only the brand name drug. Go fig.
 
Gurdur said:
Well, I guess you don't have much against socialized health care specifically, then, unless there is something more you haven't said as yet.
Click to expand...

As I've admitted at the outset, I don't have all the facts. I'm still digging into this. But at the same time, what I'm reading disturbs me. Part of the point in starting a thread like this is to find out what others know so an intelligent decision can be made.

The closest thing to socialized medicine I've dealt with has been the military, (which may not be the best comparison), and the VA. My dad had incredible difficulties getting treated at VA hospitals, and currently, my oldest son is on waiting lists for everything from Xrays to routine exams for his injured ankle. If you can show me the difference, I'm interested in hearing it. How would it work differently, and how would we keep it from bankrupting the nation, as I'm reading it's doing in other countries.
 
Roadtoad said:
As I've admitted at the outset, I don't have all the facts. ,..... If you can show me the difference, I'm interested in hearing it. How would it work differently, and how would we keep it from bankrupting the nation, as I'm reading it's doing in other countries.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
Your American present system costs an average American tax-payer twice as much as the German system costs an average German tax-payer.

Just who is getting bankrupted and ripped off again?

There is at present a nasty dominance of pure mythologization in American politics, and this is one of those areas ruled by it.

If you want some actual facts, then you can read through this thread here (a thread I did to compile said facts) and the links provided in it.

On a personal note regarding health-care; I am incredibly glad to be living where I am and not in the USA. I figure I would most likely be long dead had I been an American. The sheer insanity of the health mess over there really turns me off. It's far too dominated by big business who really don't give a flying stuff about people.
 
Last edited:
Gurdur said:
*sigh*
Your American present system costs an average American tax-payer twice as much as the German system costs an average German tax-payer.

Just who is getting bankrupted and ripped off again?

There is at present a nasty dominance of pure mythologization in American politics, and this is one of those areas ruled by it.

If you want some actual facts, then you can read through this thread here (a thread I did to compile said facts) and the links provided in it.

On a personal note regarding health-care; I am incredibly glad to be living where I am and not in the USA. I figure I would most likely be long dead had I been an American. The sheer insanity of the health mess over there really turns me off. It's far too dominated by big business who really dont give a flying stuff about people.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I'll read through it tonight.

I agree about the storytelling in American politics. It's gotten us into more messes than I want to discuss right now, (we've already got enough threads about Iraq, thank you).

I'm sorry you seem to think this needs to be a personal battle. It doesn't. I said at the outset, the report came across as incredibly biased, and I suspected it was an op-ed piece. There are a lot of times I throw things out, simply to learn.

Just to clarify something, Gurdur: I could be wrong.
 
Roadtoad said:
.....I'm sorry you seem to think this needs to be a personal battle. It doesn't. I said at the outset, the report came across as incredibly biased, and I suspected it was an op-ed piece. There are a lot of times I throw things out, simply to learn.

Just to clarify something, Gurdur: I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

My apologies. Obviously I came off too combatatively in repy to you; it's basically because I'm pissed off with the same myth being tirelessly propounded, but that is no excuse in this case.
 
Roadtoad said:
I don't think I'm cherry picking here. True, I don't trust socialized care, but I'm sure as hell not happy with what I have right now, (a PPO), which plays these ridiculous games with my health as well. (No, I generally don't get into discussions about this topic, simply because it sends my blood pressure stratospheric.)

I'm not as versed as some about what Hillary Clinton says is the difference between universal care and social care. My son thinks her idea is great, that it works towards a single payer system, which means hospitals won't be going bankrupt. That worries me, because he who pays calls the plays. (AUP being right on the money, pardon the pun.)
Click to expand...

Here is my experience with universal healthcare.

I pay $100.00/month for medical coverage which covers everything except prescriptions. My daughter, is still under my coverage. She just had a baby by c-section and stayed in the hospital for 8 days. Total cost to me . . . $0.00.

My extended benefits through work cost me another $100.00/month and cover prescriptions, dental, orthodontics, long and short term disability, life insurance, orthotics, eye glasses. etc.

For me, I haven't put out a penny besides the $200.00 a month in over 12 years, even when there were 4 people under my coverage.

I am not saying the system doesn't have faults, it does but people who need healthcare but can't afford it, receive it. The system is based on income and those below a certain income level, a lot of them young people working minimum wage jobs or elderly people on fixed incomes, pay nothing but still get the same health coverage. Plus, should you or your loved ones get gravely ill, the expenses won't bankrupt you.

My mother died in 1999 from stomach cancer. With her operations, chemo, hospital stays, etc. my father had to pay $0.00. I have a friend who died in almost the same way in 2002. He lived in Iowa. After he died, his widow was left with a six figure bill. (This may not be entirely accurate as I am not privy to what exactly the bills covered. I have been told by people close to the widow that the bills were almost all medical expenses.)
 
Roadtoad said:
I don't want anyone to have this kind of authority over me. Ever.
Click to expand...
there is nothign to stop him from paying for the oepration privately, except whtehr he has the mone or not. Thsi is no differnt than if he as in eth USA and his HMO had refused to fund the oepration. Do you feel that HMO's have too mcuh power over people? Is that an argument against private healthcare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom