- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
Link
Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.
Link
Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.
How would this be any different with private insurance?
Again people seem to not understand how the english and canadian health care systems differ and how the proposed system differs from both.
In England the doctors are both paid by the government and work for the government. In Canada private practitioners are reimbursed by the government through a single payer system. In the US we're talking about a public insurance subsidized by the government and a private insurance which people can buy. The doctors stay private. So again what's the point of posting all these articles about England when no one is proposing a socialized health care system like england
Link
Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.
We'll remembe that when it's your turn. In your case we might jerk the tube early out of niceness.It keeps people fearful and prevents them from being pragmatic and thoughtful in their analysis of the proposed health care reform.
What is describe in the article is how people die under hospice paid by Medicare. Free of pain and with their dignity.
Feeding tubes, life support machines have their place. But postponing death when a person has no quality of life is cruel and selfish.
We'll remembe that when it's your turn. In your case we might jerk the tube early out of niceness.
We'll remembe that when it's your turn. In your case we might jerk the tube early out of niceness.
No that's bullshiat! There's no such thing as no cost. Are the doctors and nurses working for free? I guess they eat at soup kitchens right?
Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost. This crisis is one i have not yet heard of, and sounds like it is on a small scale. Otherwise, the NHS has been miracolous at saving lives and offering health care opportunities and jobs across the country. Sometimes it can be tedious to wait for something as simple as a scan...but when you find yourself in need of an Op, us Britons are ever so glad it exists. I dont think we could imagine a UK without it.
So stop using the NHS's faults as a terror tactic for your own governments plans. I agree, it will be very difficult and very costly in a country as large as America. Obama will likey legislate the American Health Care System in such a way that will be a burden for your middle class American taxpayer in one way or another, you may believe it will reduce quality. But here in Britain, our system is just fine, so leave it alone.
Bull Pucky. “Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
No thinking, rational Person wants the "State" to decide when their Life is to End. :roll:
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.
They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.
Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost.
This is probably the most fundamental misconception about socialized health care... that it's free.
When the poster begins her argument with such a basic error, why even read on?
:2wave:
he meant 'at the point of delivery'. It's simply a mistake when writing.
Link
Is there any question about the type of healthcare models being considered in the Obama Administration? They talk about Europe like it's a panacea.
I'm not buying it, sorry. People who advocate government programs often view government services as 'free services.' This is a large part of the appeal. It's 'free.'
These folks also make the mistake of assuming that government programs are free of 'profit motive.' Anyone who understands how government bureaucracies function knows that the bickering over funding within state agencies on every level, and the associated waste involved, is far more intense, and more destructive, than 'profit motive' of private sector players.
There's a reason we pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or a toilet seat in the military. Government programs by their very nature are wasteful and inefficient. Yet we are to believe these same governments are capable of providing health services more efficiently.
:shock:
How would this be any different with private insurance?
Again people seem to not understand how the english and canadian health care systems differ and how the proposed system differs from both.
In England the doctors are both paid by the government and work for the government. In Canada private practitioners are reimbursed by the government through a single payer system. In the US we're talking about a public insurance subsidized by the government and a private insurance which people can buy. The doctors stay private. So again what's the point of posting all these articles about England when no one is proposing a socialized health care system like england
he meant 'at the point of delivery'. It's simply a mistake when writing.
I'm not buying it, sorry. People who advocate government programs often view government services as 'free services.' This is a large part of the appeal. It's 'free.'
These folks also make the mistake of assuming that government programs are free of 'profit motive.' Anyone who understands how government bureaucracies function knows that the bickering over funding within state agencies on every level, and the associated waste involved, is far more intense, and more destructive, than 'profit motive' of private sector players.
There's a reason we pay hundreds of dollars for a hammer or a toilet seat in the military. Government programs by their very nature are wasteful and inefficient. Yet we are to believe these same governments are capable of providing health services more efficiently.
:shock:
Kaya to American said:Was that post for me? I didnt say there was no costs. We pay for the healthcare we recieve through tax. But that comes back to us when we are in need of medical attention. The taxes are reasonable and ensure the best quality health care, and when we need it, we recieve the sufficient attention we need, without having to worry about soaring debts compromising our lifestyle as a result. Healthcare is a service we have the right to. In the long run it works out better to pay an extra tax than pay huge bills when in need of medical attention.
And in your posting of this article, it is evident you have no clue about our NHS system, hence your attempt at a comparison between the British national health care and the American to-be national healthcare, as they are totally different systems (legistlated and strucutured totally differently).
I agree with you about the general benefits of the NHS even if I think it is not quite so miraculous and could do with a few changes. But it is always worth pointing out it is certainly not at no cost, although maybe that was simply vague wording and you meant at point of access.Actually, our NHS definetly has its flaws, but its the backbone of the country. Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost. This crisis is one i have not yet heard of, and sounds like it is on a small scale. Otherwise, the NHS has been miracolous at saving lives and offering health care opportunities and jobs across the country. Sometimes it can be tedious to wait for something as simple as a scan...but when you find yourself in need of an Op, us Britons are ever so glad it exists. I dont think we could imagine a UK without it.
So stop using the NHS's faults as a terror tactic for your own governments plans. I agree, it will be very difficult and very costly in a country as large as America. Obama will likey legislate the American Health Care System in such a way that will be a burden for your middle class American taxpayer in one way or another, you may believe it will reduce quality. But here in Britain, our system is just fine, so leave it alone.
I set that straight already.
kaya said:Its a complete success story in terms of offering healthcare to everybody in the country at no cost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?