Those who tout nationalized health care as more compassionate than the U.S. system are delusional, says Investor's Business Daily (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253238609390312
). A headline just this week in the Times of London pretty much sums it up: "Doctors Left Elderly Stroke Victim To Starve To Death." That's socialized "care" for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2537447,00.html
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat's underfunded socialised care for you...
Those who tout nationalized health care as more compassionate than the U.S. system are delusional, says Investor's Business Daily (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253238609390312
). A headline just this week in the Times of London pretty much sums it up: "Doctors Left Elderly Stroke Victim To ...[text shortened]... 's socialized "care" for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2537447,00.html
Originally posted by RedmikeIndeed.
That's underfunded socialised care for you...
Anyone that does not imediately go and offer a blank check to their health care provider simply lacks compassion.
Perhaps I am being a bit over the top.
They don't really need a blank check, they just need to tell us how much money they need, and we should give it to them.
Wait, I have a better plan. Let's let our honest, selfless politicians work with them to establish the cost of all medical care. If doctors and politicians agree on a price, then we should have no objection giving them unlimited access to our salary.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIsn't it more to do with doctors simply deciding not to feed someone, for some medical reasons (or becuase they are EVIL), rather than whether or not the healthcare is privitised or not?
Those who tout nationalized health care as more compassionate than the U.S. system are delusional, says Investor's Business Daily (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253238609390312
). A headline just this week in the Times of London pretty much sums it up: "Doctors Left Elderly Stroke Victim To 's socialized "care" for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2537447,00.html
The Hospital in question is one of the few hospitals in the UK funded through Private Finance Investment (PFI). Maybe it is due to the lack of resources in the hositals, due to funds going to the private companies, that lead to this occuring.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253238609390312
"Increasingly we hear such anecdotes about the collapse of government-run health care overseas."
No examples given, apart from the UK one, which as I've already pointed out is deeply flawed.
Does the INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY actually have any real news, rather than capitalist propaganda?
Originally posted by wedgehead2I doubt that's the case. Probably they looked at their socialized medicine playbook and it said, "Don't waste health care on the aged, since they are at the end of their years and no longer contribute taxes having since retired from the work force. Under our system, it’s far better to spend the money on the young and healthy."
Isn't it more to do with doctors simply deciding not to feed someone, for some medical reasons (or becuase they are EVIL), rather than whether or not the healthcare is privitised or not?
The Hospital in question is one of the few hospitals in the UK funded through Private Finance Investment (PFI). Maybe it is due to the lack of resources in the hositals, due to funds going to the private companies, that lead to this occuring.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDo you think that is what nationalised health services do? 🙄
I doubt that's the case. Probably they looked at their socialized medicine playbook and it said, "Don't waste health care on the aged, since they are at the end of their years and no longer contribute taxes having since retired from the work force. Under our system, it’s far better to spend the money on the young and healthy."
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDo you have experience of this?
Yes. It's a terrible thing if your elderly, have a chronic condition or need to see a specialist -- unless of course if you're a celebrity or politician, then you get to jump the queue.
What is the celebrity/ politician point about? I've never heard that one before.
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
Originally posted by wedgehead2The point is that if politicians had to use the same system that the peones do, there wouldn't be any socialized medicine anywhere.
Do you have experience of this?
What is the celebrity/ politician point about? I've never heard that one before.
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20368
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Mar05ffesmail.pdf#
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB108267290367391256.html
You can argue that the cost of people off work because they can't afford healthcare is higher than that of a National Health Service and that the Governemnt has an obligation to give people the right to access to free healthcare. In many cases, the waiting time will be longer than if it was privitised, but thats due to lack of funds- but those who don't want to wait can go private. It provides healthcare for the many, not the few.
Originally posted by AmauroteExactly. There are basics that everyone should have a right to- these include healthcare.
I find it funny when people oppose "socialized" healthcare. Presumably they stop before extending their oh-so consistent hatred of socialism to despising municipal sewage systems, or do they keep their integrity and use the nearest bucket?