|
|
Post by matt on Jul 12, 2017 23:10:02 GMT -5
You've been given a terminal cancer sentence. We've decided that you have zero chance of survival. Go home, die.
Meanwhile, Chelsea manning has been approved for a D cup upgrade....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 6:04:48 GMT -5
Then correct me, as I politely asked above, you testy prick.  Haha! Ok, jackel already gave the details but my bigger issue here is that the parents do have an avenue they'd like to explore but they've been told no, the baby must die. Over there in the UK, they appoint a 3rd party team to consult with the medical staff, consult with the family...and then the 3rd party determines the next course of medical action...so basically the decision now belongs to an outside party, rather than the patient. And so in this case the baby had been given a terminal prognosis and the 3rd party has decided to pull the plug while the family would like to explore other options. The decision isn't the patients. It's his parents and the doctors feel it is unethical to prolong his suffering by providing futile care. I wish we had more of this in America but until you have cared for a patient that begs you to let her die while her skin peels off to the point you can't keep a central line in her, her bones are so brittle they break when you turn her, and her daughter refuses to let her have pain medicine, you really can't understand there are worse things than death and it is unethical to keep someone alive regardless of what their family wants. This does happen in America and your continual refusal to acknowledge that shows your come from a position of extreme bias and are not looking at this with any objectivity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 6:11:01 GMT -5
You've been given a terminal cancer sentence. We've decided that you have zero chance of survival. Go home, die. Meanwhile, Chelsea manning has been approved for a D cup upgrade.... This is such a bastardization of the situation. The government isn't allocating resources. They are ultimately making an ethical decision that can't be made mutually by both parties involved. This decision was made locally, then the central government had to rule. Only socialized MEDICINE? Terry Schiavo. This has happened. Government finally decided to withdraw care against parents request. AMERICAN MEDICINE!!! Schiavo wanted to live but Bruce Jenner can get bolt ons and be called a chick! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 6:23:07 GMT -5
Then correct me, as I politely asked above, you testy prick. Haha! Ok, jackel already gave the details but my bigger issue here is that the parents do have an avenue they'd like to explore but they've been told no, the baby must die. Over there in the UK, they appoint a 3rd party team to consult with the medical staff, consult with the family...and then the 3rd party determines the next course of medical action...so basically the decision now belongs to an outside party, rather than the patient. And so in this case the baby had been given a terminal prognosis and the 3rd party has decided to pull the plug while the family would like to explore other options. I don't read Jackel's posts anymore and my blood pressure is down 5 points as a result. I am admittedly not well-informed on this, all I knew prior to last night was what I stated in my post prior to your insulting response.
I share your disdain for any governmental intervention in tragic matters such as this. I wasn't aware that the UK government has the final say, if indeed it does....aren't the parents free to seek medical attention abroad?
But after reading Hugh's well-thought out, informed opinions on this, I really haven't changed my mind. Isn't the child in a completely unresponsive state, with physicians unable to even say whether further treatment would indeed induce, or prolong, his agony?
If so, I agree that this unfortunate waif should be allowed to die....once his parents are indeed convinced there's no further hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 13, 2017 11:07:35 GMT -5
You've been given a terminal cancer sentence. We've decided that you have zero chance of survival. Go home, die. Meanwhile, Chelsea manning has been approved for a D cup upgrade.... This is such a bastardization of the situation. The government isn't allocating resources. They are ultimately making an ethical decision that can't be made mutually by both parties involved. This decision was made locally, then the central government had to rule. Only socialized MEDICINE? Terry Schiavo. This has happened. Government finally decided to withdraw care against parents request. AMERICAN MEDICINE!!! Schiavo wanted to live but Bruce Jenner can get bolt ons and be called a chick! Shiavo case was different, bad example to use here. The legal guardian was in support of removing the feeding tube. Pretty sure jenner paid for his own tits...manning, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 13, 2017 11:12:59 GMT -5
Haha! Ok, jackel already gave the details but my bigger issue here is that the parents do have an avenue they'd like to explore but they've been told no, the baby must die. Over there in the UK, they appoint a 3rd party team to consult with the medical staff, consult with the family...and then the 3rd party determines the next course of medical action...so basically the decision now belongs to an outside party, rather than the patient. And so in this case the baby had been given a terminal prognosis and the 3rd party has decided to pull the plug while the family would like to explore other options. I don't read Jackel's posts anymore and my blood pressure is down 5 points as a result. I am admittedly not well-informed on this, all I knew prior to last night was what I stated in my post prior to your insulting response.
I share your disdain for any governmental intervention in tragic matters such as this. I wasn't aware that the UK government has the final say, if indeed it does....aren't the parents free to seek medical attention abroad?
But after reading Hugh's well-thought out, informed opinions on this, I really haven't changed my mind. Isn't the child in a completely unresponsive state, with physicians unable to even say whether further treatment would indeed induce, or prolong, his agony?
If so, I agree that this unfortunate waif should be allowed to die....once his parents are indeed convinced there's no further hope.
Estimated costs for single payer in California is 400 bill per year. And with such, the government will have final say over your healthcare decisions, not you. But yes, the baby was gonna die anyway, right? Cause that was the whole god damn point. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 11:23:02 GMT -5
I don't read Jackel's posts anymore and my blood pressure is down 5 points as a result. I am admittedly not well-informed on this, all I knew prior to last night was what I stated in my post prior to your insulting response.
I share your disdain for any governmental intervention in tragic matters such as this. I wasn't aware that the UK government has the final say, if indeed it does....aren't the parents free to seek medical attention abroad?
But after reading Hugh's well-thought out, informed opinions on this, I really haven't changed my mind. Isn't the child in a completely unresponsive state, with physicians unable to even say whether further treatment would indeed induce, or prolong, his agony?
If so, I agree that this unfortunate waif should be allowed to die....once his parents are indeed convinced there's no further hope.
Estimated costs for single payer in California is 400 bill per year. And with such, the government will have final say over your healthcare decisions, not you. But yes, the baby was gonna die anyway, right? Cause that was the whole god damn point. No, No it is not. Estimated costs for top-tier single payer in California is 180 billion a year (counting the estimated undocumented immigrant population). The extra 220b is the result of graft. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 13, 2017 11:31:48 GMT -5
Estimated costs for single payer in California is 400 bill per year. And with such, the government will have final say over your healthcare decisions, not you. But yes, the baby was gonna die anyway, right? Cause that was the whole god damn point. No, No it is not. Estimated costs for top-tier single payer in California is 180 billion a year (counting the estimated undocumented immigrant population). The extra 220b is the result of graft. You're so wrong it's hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 13, 2017 11:39:10 GMT -5
As for california,
The latest independent panel, which was a pro-single payer research panel, dropped estimated costs from 400 billion annually to 337 billion annually... and it still would require massive statewide tax hikes on the already most heavily taxed state in the US.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 11:51:16 GMT -5
This is such a bastardization of the situation. The government isn't allocating resources. They are ultimately making an ethical decision that can't be made mutually by both parties involved. This decision was made locally, then the central government had to rule. Only socialized MEDICINE? Terry Schiavo. This has happened. Government finally decided to withdraw care against parents request. AMERICAN MEDICINE!!! Schiavo wanted to live but Bruce Jenner can get bolt ons and be called a chick! Shiavo case was different, bad example to use here. The legal guardian was in support of removing the feeding tube. Pretty sure jenner paid for his own tits...manning, not so much. It is an example of government making the final decision. Something you have been touting only happens in socialized medicine. It just isn't true. Guardianship doesn't make artificially prolonging life any more ethical. Okay, Shiavo wanted to live but Medicare patients can pretend their chicks and get hormone therapy!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 11:52:10 GMT -5
No, No it is not. Estimated costs for top-tier single payer in California is 180 billion a year (counting the estimated undocumented immigrant population). The extra 220b is the result of graft. You're so wrong it's hilarious. We went over this before, the single payer cost according to all applied metrics is about 4,100$/person. Because we are America and want to have the best, we'll spend a luxurious 4,500, meaning California costs 176.13b/yr. I used old data for the 180 mark, using the current predicted 2.4 million undocumented there, but lets bump it up some to give us even 42 mil why not, that would means 193b/yr if you gave the healthcare to illegals too. If we instead used the 4,100 metric, that would only be 172b/yr. edit: oh to show how corrupt and wasteful our government is... We are already spending over 4,100/person in tax money towards healthcare. In other words we are already spending universal healthcare amounts, without giving it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 11:57:03 GMT -5
How about some actual sources fuck sticks? You sound like kindergarteners. Nuh uh, you are wrong!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 12:06:30 GMT -5
How about some actual sources fuck sticks? You sound like kindergarteners. Nuh uh, you are wrong!!! After posting sources like 10x already I figured you'd have them memorized by now... data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL that is the %health expenditure by government compared to overall spending in healthcare. Take that percentage, multiply it by the spending in a country and there you go. Look at the #s you get for the universal healthcare systems, even the good ones are all hanging around 4,100pp. Switzerland a bit on the high side with about 4170, Netherlands at 4090 edit: To further illustrate my point, Switzerland spends more than anyone in the world, with the exception of the US, and their health indexes are better than ours, while still spending much much less than us per capita. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 12:38:32 GMT -5
How about some actual sources fuck sticks? You sound like kindergarteners. Nuh uh, you are wrong!!! After posting sources like 10x already I figured you'd have them memorized by now... data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL that is the %health expenditure by government compared to overall spending in healthcare. Take that percentage, multiply it by the spending in a country and there you go. Look at the #s you get for the universal healthcare systems, even the good ones are all hanging around 4,100pp. Switzerland a bit on the high side with about 4170, Netherlands at 4090 edit: To further illustrate my point, Switzerland spends more than anyone in the world, with the exception of the US, and their health indexes are better than ours, while still spending much much less than us per capita. LA Times, Kaiser Health, Reason, and the Daily Caller are all reporting a cost of 400 billion dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 12:46:18 GMT -5
After posting sources like 10x already I figured you'd have them memorized by now... data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PUBL that is the %health expenditure by government compared to overall spending in healthcare. Take that percentage, multiply it by the spending in a country and there you go. Look at the #s you get for the universal healthcare systems, even the good ones are all hanging around 4,100pp. Switzerland a bit on the high side with about 4170, Netherlands at 4090 edit: To further illustrate my point, Switzerland spends more than anyone in the world, with the exception of the US, and their health indexes are better than ours, while still spending much much less than us per capita. LA Times, Kaiser Health, Reason, and the Daily Caller are all reporting a cost of 400 billion dollars. I know, because the politicians in CA are upping the cost to fund pork spending. As I said, corruption. And they are getting away with it because Americans think Universal healthcare is an uber-expensive near impossibility in the US so they don't question such a high cost. that roughly 220b extra over what it SHOULD cost is going towards artificially inflated over market rate costs, pet projects of various legislators, etc.... it is called corruption. In most countries, corruption comes in the form of power, in the US it comes in the form of money. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 13, 2017 12:58:51 GMT -5
LA Times, Kaiser Health, Reason, and the Daily Caller are all reporting a cost of 400 billion dollars. I know, because the politicians in CA are upping the cost to fund pork spending. As I said, corruption. And they are getting away with it because Americans think Universal healthcare is an uber-expensive near impossibility in the US so they don't question such a high cost. that roughly 220b extra over what it SHOULD cost is going towards artificially inflated over market rate costs, pet projects of various legislators, etc.... it is called corruption. In most countries, corruption comes in the form of power, in the US it comes in the form of money. So you're saying rampant corruption takes place when the government gets involved in the goods and services business causing massive price increases as well as dragging down the quality and availability of the product as well as eliminating the consumer's right to choose? Sounds like a good deal! Come to think of it, we should have the government control the production of all goods and services in the future. ...And when every major news source, including the governor himself, has different numbers than you...it means you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 13:10:15 GMT -5
I know, because the politicians in CA are upping the cost to fund pork spending. As I said, corruption. And they are getting away with it because Americans think Universal healthcare is an uber-expensive near impossibility in the US so they don't question such a high cost. that roughly 220b extra over what it SHOULD cost is going towards artificially inflated over market rate costs, pet projects of various legislators, etc.... it is called corruption. In most countries, corruption comes in the form of power, in the US it comes in the form of money. So you're saying rampant corruption takes place when the government gets involved in the goods and services business causing massive price increases as well as dragging down the quality and availability of the product as well as eliminating the consumer's right to choose? Sounds like a good deal! Come to think of it, we should have the government control the production of all goods and services in the future. And when every major news source, including the governor himself, has different numbers than you, it means your wrong. Gee I wonder why the governor is giving different numbers than the ACTUAL OFFICIAL NUMBERS that every universal system shows. Maybe because that extra money goes to him and his buddies' pockets? I gave you the link, you can do the math yourself. Give me one reason why CA should legit cost 2.2x more than the most expensive universal healthcare system in the world. The reason is that CA is calling for 400b is they are shifting the private healthcare costs (roughly 210-220b) over to the public. So instead of having an actual universal heatlhcare system, they are approaching it similar to the ACA. They are keeping the ineffective public spending, but mandating the private spending (like the ACA did with insurance) while routing it thru government spending instead of keeping private. In other words, it isn't a universal/single-payer healthcare system CA is proposing but some quasi-public system focused on spending rather than infrastructure. All of that while assuming costs for elective procedures that some of that private spending goes towards currently, even though the CA bill isn't covering that. So they are estimating costs that they admit they don't plan on paying anyways. Also in new news, Sheldon Silver was released from prison having his conviction overturned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 13:39:03 GMT -5
LA Times, Kaiser Health, Reason, and the Daily Caller are all reporting a cost of 400 billion dollars. I know, because the politicians in CA are upping the cost to fund pork spending. As I said, corruption. And they are getting away with it because Americans think Universal healthcare is an uber-expensive near impossibility in the US so they don't question such a high cost. that roughly 220b extra over what it SHOULD cost is going towards artificially inflated over market rate costs, pet projects of various legislators, etc.... it is called corruption. In most countries, corruption comes in the form of power, in the US it comes in the form of money. So, you are coming up with a number by arbitrarily picking a country that has cheap cost per citizen and thinking you can make an apple to apples comparison with the United States? Do you not work because you are a barely functioning retard? You are like fucking rain man except you can't do math and instead can apparently cook well like a supremely focused autistic. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 14:15:45 GMT -5
I know, because the politicians in CA are upping the cost to fund pork spending. As I said, corruption. And they are getting away with it because Americans think Universal healthcare is an uber-expensive near impossibility in the US so they don't question such a high cost. that roughly 220b extra over what it SHOULD cost is going towards artificially inflated over market rate costs, pet projects of various legislators, etc.... it is called corruption. In most countries, corruption comes in the form of power, in the US it comes in the form of money. So, you are coming up with a number by arbitrarily picking a country that has cheap cost per citizen and thinking you can make an apple to apples comparison with the United States? Do you not work because you are a barely functioning retard? You are like fucking rain man except you can't do math and instead can apparently cook well like a supremely focused autistic. No, I picked the country that had the second HIGHEST cost per citizen (and the highest for single payer). I also look at all the other high cost universal systems. The whole issue is that our current public spending pays inflated costs because of guaranteed payments. In most single-payer systems, the government instead acts more like our insurance companies operate, negotiating rates. In the US our public money basically pays what is being asked without questioning if it is inflated because they know the government gonna cough up the cash no questions ask (hint: it is). This is why the government pays say 30$ for an aspirin, an insurance company pays like 10-15$ for the same aspirin. Where in most universal systems, the government would be paying that insurance rate. Basically the infrastructure and spending of our current public system is broken and corrupted. If we laid out a system that didn't take everything at face value, we'd probably only need to pay about 4-4200pp to break into the top 15 in health rankings (we currently sit at 37). We are already spending that, but wasting it. If we did that with our public spending and kept our private system in place (which a lot of the universal healthcare systems do to an extent) we'd be top 5 easily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 14:37:40 GMT -5
So, you are coming up with a number by arbitrarily picking a country that has cheap cost per citizen and thinking you can make an apple to apples comparison with the United States? Do you not work because you are a barely functioning retard? You are like fucking rain man except you can't do math and instead can apparently cook well like a supremely focused autistic. No, I picked the country that had the second HIGHEST cost per citizen (and the highest for single payer). I also look at all the other high cost universal systems. The whole issue is that our current public spending pays inflated costs because of guaranteed payments. In most single-payer systems, the government instead acts more like our insurance companies operate, negotiating rates. In the US our public money basically pays what is being asked without questioning if it is inflated because they know the government gonna cough up the cash no questions ask (hint: it is). This is why the government pays say 30$ for an aspirin, an insurance company pays like 10-15$ for the same aspirin. Where in most universal systems, the government would be paying that insurance rate. Basically the infrastructure and spending of our current public system is broken and corrupted. If we laid out a system that didn't take everything at face value, we'd probably only need to pay about 4-4200pp to break into the top 15 in health rankings (we currently sit at 37). We are already spending that, but wasting it. If we did that with our public spending and kept our private system in place (which a lot of the universal healthcare systems do to an extent) we'd be top 5 easily. You know Medicare typically dictates reimbursement rates and then insurances follow suit, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 13, 2017 14:57:15 GMT -5
No, I picked the country that had the second HIGHEST cost per citizen (and the highest for single payer). I also look at all the other high cost universal systems. The whole issue is that our current public spending pays inflated costs because of guaranteed payments. In most single-payer systems, the government instead acts more like our insurance companies operate, negotiating rates. In the US our public money basically pays what is being asked without questioning if it is inflated because they know the government gonna cough up the cash no questions ask (hint: it is). This is why the government pays say 30$ for an aspirin, an insurance company pays like 10-15$ for the same aspirin. Where in most universal systems, the government would be paying that insurance rate. Basically the infrastructure and spending of our current public system is broken and corrupted. If we laid out a system that didn't take everything at face value, we'd probably only need to pay about 4-4200pp to break into the top 15 in health rankings (we currently sit at 37). We are already spending that, but wasting it. If we did that with our public spending and kept our private system in place (which a lot of the universal healthcare systems do to an extent) we'd be top 5 easily. You know Medicare typically dictates reimbursement rates and then insurances follow suit, right? Not quite. Medicare has its own max charges for the procedures themselves, which is usually about 80% of that of private insurance. However they wind up paying out the ass on unnecessary expenses to the tune of about 3x what private insurance pays, which lines up with our public spending covering about 1/3rd the amount of people that other country's public spending covers. That comes in the way of paying out on guaranteed reimbursements paid on what would be considered elective procedures normally, extra diagnostic procedures, etc... Like I said, the issue is we don't run our public system efficiently. If we did what other countries do, and treated the public healthcare system like an insurance company, we'd have pre-authorization to prevent taxpayer money on elective procedures or spending it on outdated procedures that wind up costing more long-term, etc.... That right there would massively decrease what would be needed by our current medicare spending alone. Edit: What I am trying to point out isn't so much we should have universal healthcare because we are already paying for it (though true), but shouldn't we at the very least fix our current public system? About 109 million are covered with medicare/medicaid. We spend about 1.55 trillion of taxpayer money when all metrics say we can match (or improve the quality to those 109 million) while spending about 450 billion. Over a trillion dollars wasted because of the inefficiency of our public spending within our current system alone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 15:20:22 GMT -5
"Who sets RVUs? CMS sets RVUs based upon the recommendations of the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC). The RUC is made up of 29 physicians, 23 of whom are nominated by professional societies. Almost all are specialists. CMS is not bound to accept either the professional society nominees or the RUC's recommendations, but it has historically approved more than 90 percent of RUC recommendations." www.physicianspractice.com/blog/how-medicare-other-payers-determine-physician-reimbursement-ratesCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) |
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Jul 14, 2017 9:50:32 GMT -5
Wait.....when did Sammy Sossa turn in to Marco Rubio? Fucking guy caught Michael Jackson's mental disorder and apparently has been bleaching himself like a mad man I realize this may have been discussed before and I just missed it, but holy hell. This is fucking blowing my mind right now I mean LOOK at this idiot....  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 14, 2017 11:15:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Jul 14, 2017 11:36:48 GMT -5
You'd be cranky too, if you had to wear a 200 pound coat  |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Jul 14, 2017 12:14:57 GMT -5
Wait.....when did Sammy Sossa turn in to Marco Rubio? Fucking guy caught Michael Jackson's mental disorder and apparently has been bleaching himself like a mad man I realize this may have been discussed before and I just missed it, but holy hell. This is fucking blowing my mind right now I mean LOOK at this idiot.... WTF?? He looks terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 14, 2017 12:19:57 GMT -5
Pretty sure this happened several years ago. I remember seeing those pics and thinking he'd somehow turned himself into a 1930s mixed race cuban gangster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tapout on Jul 14, 2017 12:39:37 GMT -5
Pretty sure this happened several years ago. I remember seeing those pics and thinking he'd somehow turned himself into a 1930s mixed race cuban gangster. Ha, The first thing that popped into my head is that he looks like a prohibition era Miami gangster named Slappy Hernandez |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 14, 2017 12:52:41 GMT -5
You'd be cranky too, if you had to wear a 200 pound coat Too many heavy medals on their coat... is why it requires so many of them to screw in a lite bulb. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 14, 2017 15:06:31 GMT -5
So Amazon packages are subsided $1.46 per package. How does that help create a competitive marketplace? I thought one of the goals to the administration was to bring back competition and stop the big corps from getting the handouts.
|
|
