Nope. Not what I have in mind. Just because the NHS has these problems in no way determines our system. Like the article said, the problem was a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have already concluded that our system will end up EXACTLY the same as the NHS, but that's a bit obtuse. We could learn from their mistakes and make our healthcare system more efficient, effective, and self-sustaining.
Lol I think it's because our whole government is brokeWell, all I can say is ... government is government. Inefficient, inept and very expensive. And yes, I agree with you that we are the most ingenious and productive nation on the planet. In addition to that, no other country can out produce the American worker, nor can they out sell the American salesman. The thing to keep in mind, jrh, is that we are talking about government programs and not the free market where free minds can excel
Social Security - broke.
Medicare - broke.
Medicaid - broke.
Prescription drug plan - broke.
Post office - broke.
Amtrak - broke.
Tax cuts were about 40% of the package if I recall correctly.SEND THE FREAKIN' MONEY BACK TO US IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS CHECK!
When some of you give up your Medicare and Social Security then I'll have some respect, otherwise you're just buying into the fear. You should also stop using the mail and use FEDEX instead, I'm sure you would rather pay $25 rather than 50 cents to send a letter to prevent communism.
The Post office lost $4.7 billion in 2009 thru August 5th according to CBS news. That would mean the low cost of sending a letter is being subsidized (by you)...the real cost isn't what you pay at the stamp window.When some of you give up your Medicare and Social Security then I'll have some respect, otherwise you're just buying into the fear. You should also stop using the mail and use FEDEX instead, I'm sure you would rather pay $25 rather than 50 cents to send a letter to prevent communism.
i refuse to click an orange link. sorry.
what's it say?
if the government didn't take care of them, who would?That people in England are dying because their government's health care plan is cutting off foods and liquids when their patients are near death.
Sometimes they are getting it right...sometimes they are killing people who are improving.
Wonder if they had the imaginary "death panel" conversation in England before making this into law.
By "take care of them" is that a euphamizm <-- sp? for killing them? Because I think that just about any of us could manage to kill people that need to be fed to live.if the government didn't take care of them, who would?
There is the first couple paragraphs of it.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 Lukes 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."
The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
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 Governments 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.
you didn't answer the question.By "take care of them" is that a euphamizm <-- sp? for killing them? Because I think that just about any of us could manage to kill people that need to be fed to live.
It's keeping them ALIVE that is the tricky part. In this case apparently the government does not see keeping old people alive as being financially sound business practice.
you didn't answer the question.
should i ask again:
IF the government wasn't taking care* of them, who would?
*... "providing them with care" for the slow people out there.
In their system...nobody. But what to do? They've already paid into the system through high taxes...they absolutely do not have enough to go to a private doctor.