15 Sep 07
Originally posted by MacSwainThat's pretty horrific; they can explain the risk that he might lose his foot if he carries on smoking, but that's all they need to do. If he carries on smoking and needs his foot removing then that's his own fault for not listening to medical advice. He should have something done about his man boobs instead.
Which politically incorrect activity might be used next to deny service?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481617&in_page_id=1770
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyExcellent point! Well spotted!
He should have something done about his man boobs instead.
Obviously this fellows' eating habits includes MacDonalds 😠 This habit will void future medical care should he develop any type of heart ailment.
Unless,,,, of course, he is involved in going trans-gender - in which case this is politically acceptable and he would quailify 😏
In the mean time, do not put a pin in his ankle but prepare to take off his foot should conditions worsen...Teach him a lesson and make an example for others. Huzzah!
16 Sep 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyJust another one of millions of discrepancies in a "make someone else pay" health system.
That's pretty horrific; they can explain the risk that he might lose his foot if he carries on smoking, but that's all they need to do. If he carries on smoking and needs his foot removing then that's his own fault for not listening to medical advice. He should have something done about his man boobs instead.
16 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThat's a very strange position to take - less than two weeks ago you were arguing that one of the problems with socialized medicine was that it helped people who were ill because of their own lifestyle choices, and that you didn't believe that people could be refused treatment by socialized services if they failed to look after themselves. You can hardly then turn around less than a fortnight later and blame the NHS for doing precisely that.
Just another one of millions of discrepancies in a "make someone else pay" health system.
17 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Wajoma...yet somehow countries with more extensive public healthcare have a better quality of health.
Just another one of millions of discrepancies in a "make someone else pay" health system.
Is it more important for those with enough money to afford private healthcare to have more money, or those who can't afford private healthcare to receive a degree of care at all. You may want to consider my last post in this thread:http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=74474&page=16 (to which you appear not to have a viable response to) before answering.
Are you trying to say overall, that the gap between rich and poor isn't already large enough for you to feel that working is worthwhile? While there are differences in wealth, there will always be force and threats of force, to assume that there won't be is akin to believing absolute communism will work.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by mrstabbymcstabby, I'm not sure you understand how these message boards work, I actually come to RHP to have a few games of chess and if the fancy takes me I enter the discussion board to kick some control freak ass. I may or may not deign to reply, because it gets boring going over the same territory.
...yet somehow countries with more extensive public healthcare have a better quality of health.
Is it more important for those with enough money to afford private healthcare to have more money, or those who can't afford private healthcare to receive a degree of care at all. You may want to consider my last post in this thread:http://www.redhotpawn.com/boa ...[text shortened]... ts of force, to assume that there won't be is akin to believing absolute communism will work.
I don't give a hoot about the 'gap' except when stepping onto a train in the London underground. Yes there will always be threats of force but it is important to recognise it is the initiation of force and threats of force that is the prime evil. If someone possesses more wealth than you can you identify what is the threat of force and by whom.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by AmauroteNot strange - but principled and consistent, unlike nationalisticated socialised die while you wait public health systems which are loaded with inconsistencies. MacSwain has drawn attention to one of millions.
That's a very strange position to take - less than two weeks ago you were arguing that one of the problems with socialized medicine was that it helped people who were ill because of their own lifestyle choices, and that you didn't believe that people could be refused treatment by socialized services if they failed to look after themselves. You can hardly then turn around less than a fortnight later and blame the NHS for doing precisely that.
When health care is available on an open free market examples like the one above just go away. At least he is honest, he could easily say he's stopped smoking, have a few sneaky ones on the side then start full blown smoking again after the treatment.
Why is he refused treatment when smoking did not cause the injury in the first place. Someone other than John Nuttall is setting priorities regarding John Nuttalls health - there is 'right' there is 'wrong' and what is happening here is just plain wrong.
17 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsBecause if he has ever earned anything, he has had a portion of it taken to fund a compulsory health insurance, which is now not delivering, if he had been presented with the conditions, i.e. you have to pay for a service which will not treat you if you smoke, he may have chosen not to throw his money into that scheme.
Read the article Wajoma, there is a free market, this person just can't pay it.
You really need to understand what the word 'free' means
17 Sep 07
1 edit
I dunno - reading between the lines, and taking into account that we're only hearing his side of the story, I'd say that the real story is not nazi doctors trying to force him to quit just coz they think it best for his health, but that if he continues to smoke then the blood supply to his ankle will not be sufficient to allow repair from the operation so his foot would rot instead.
There's 4 basic principles that rule a doctors decisions (as far as practical): do what's good for the patient, don't do harm to the patient (which is subtly different from the first), allow the patient to chose from the treatment options on offer (or to chose none of them), and to offer the same level of care to all people under their care. In this case it sounds like, because he smokes they would be doing him more harm than good so can't offer him the surgery unless he quits.
also I just noticed - it's written by the Daily Mail. NEVER believe anything in that paper - it's all sensationalist trash
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe point is, the nazi (your word not mine) doctors have refused to put a pin in his ankle that he paid for in advance.
I'd say that the real story is not nazi doctors trying to force him to quit (smoking) just coz they think it best for his health, but that if he continues to smoke then the blood supply to his ankle will not be sufficient to allow repair from the operation so his foot would rot instead.
There's 4 basic principles that rule a doctors decisions (as far ...[text shortened]... e Daily Mail. [b]NEVER believe anything in that paper - it's all sensationalist trash[/b]
Is anyone so positive that his bone would not heal, because of his smoking, they would place a bet on it? Lets say, if it did heal they would amputate their own foot! I think not.
Fact is, they have waited so long their prognosis is effectually guaranteed!
Back to the point of this thread. BEHAVIOUR deemed "bad". Who next will be denied service they have paid for in advance? For reason of..hmmm, lets see, drinking alcoholic beverages is a good one. What say you then?
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by MacSwainyou've obviously got your mind made up, so there's not much debate here. Put bluntly it is their medical opinion that to operate on him while he continues to smoke will cause more harm than good - end of argument.
The point is, the nazi (your word not mine) doctors have refused to put a pin in his ankle that he paid for in advance.
Is anyone so positive that his bone would not heal, because of his smoking, they would place a bet on it? Lets say, if it did heal they would amputate their own foot! I think not.
Fact is, they have waited so long their prognosis ...[text shortened]... For reason of..hmmm, lets see, drinking alcoholic beverages is a good one. What say you then?
And yes, the same would hold true if the fact someone wouldn't quit drinking would mean that their operation would fail.
Ask yourself - why do you really think the doctors are refusing treatment? Is it because doctors are evil buggers who like to torture people who won't bow to their whims and will? Or because they are trying to do what is best for him? Really, which do you believe?
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by WajomaSo this is about evil is it? An human concept often utilised (in my experience) when one person wishes to condemn something without looking at the bigger picture. You're ignoring the laws of nature if you believe that people are going to happily sit there with nothing (because economy is about competition, and many, many people are simply outcompeted) when some members of society have a lot of resources at their disposal. A society should be about accepting people's evil as well as good, and devising a system which minimalises unrest, maintains stability, as well as allowing an individual to thrive on his own freedom, and live day by day with minimal force. The threat of force is always going to exist, it's how we deal with it that defines the form that the force will take. You cannot change human nature.
mcstabby, I'm not sure you understand how these message boards work, I actually come to RHP to have a few games of chess and if the fancy takes me I enter the discussion board to kick some control freak ass. I may or may not deign to reply, because it gets boring going over the same territory.
I don't give a hoot about the 'gap' except when stepping onto ...[text shortened]... one possesses more wealth than you can you identify what is the threat of force and by whom.
In a society, a balance between the individual and the collective must be maintained, not ignoring the importance of either. Threats of force are a part of our nature, and to reverse an agreement (taxation) that for the best part has maintained and infrastructure and social stability over the centuries is a recipe for disaster. It's either taxation, or wait till businesses streamline and ignore any social responsibility (because if one decides to ignore it then they outcompete other businesses) and enjoy the civil unrest and violence that will ensue when people decide to divide the resources up themselves. It is well known that when the ruling body (i.e. government and businesses) do not cater, or are perceived not to cater sufficiently for the people, that the people become restless and violent towards their rulers. Why do you think people overthrow their rulers? Is taxation not a lesser evil than violence?
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyWhen government is the problem, it can not be the solution.
So this is about evil is it? An human concept often utilised (in my experience) when one person wishes to condemn something without looking at the bigger picture. You're ignoring the laws of nature if you believe that people are going to happily sit there with nothing (because economy is about competition, and many, many people are simply outcompeted) whe ...[text shortened]... hy do you think people overthrow their rulers? Is taxation not a lesser evil than violence?