Conservative Sources Spread Death Panel Rumors as Early as 1994

I can't believe the stuff coming from America regarding their 'health service' listing to all the rich people going against it - just mental!

The NHS is free at point of just about everything, but the thing for me that let it down were prescriptions charges but where I live, most government like mine the Scottish government have set plans to abolish prescription charges by 2011 meaning we pay nothing for drugs, they have since been lowered twice and just now in Scotland it's £4 (US$6.60) for prescriptions but they are already free in Wales and in Northern Ireland by 2010. Charges are a bit more in England at £7.20 (US$11.90) but are free for most. There is a set dental charge, though it is higher than it should be. We don't pay for dental check ups, eyes tests are free, our old people get a free nursing home place, if required -  even if they own a house and can pay for it they don't need to sell up - it's free as well an old person gets free bus travel to anywhere within their own borders i.e. A Scottish person can travel anywhere in Scotland.

Kids when very young get a free nurrsery place, though we have lots of private ones. That's not the NHS, or the nursing home but it's not an example of what we take for granted.

The funny thing is listening to Americans diss the British NHS, talking about death panels - they kind of stuff talked about doesn't really happen, not really. We have horror stories of things going wrong, of course we do - but so does America, and every other nation be it private or NHS.

No system's perfect, some hospitals have longer waiting Q's that they should have, but if it's urgent you will be seen. 

But the problem with our NHS is that it's such a success story that when it does fail someone a big deal is made about it, not that one shouldn't make a big deal made out of it but it is a busy and well used service.

A service that no country, or anyone should be without, think we all know it'll never happen, too many greedy companies and shareholders but heres hoping.

Good luck.

It's annoying that so many people are lying about NHS and other national health care plans for points, politics, pandering, hate or just outright racism. 

Take a look at how the U.S. stacks up . . . see what's it's like to be tied with Cuba.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/12/nhs-us-healthcare-obama

Rationing by definition is the distribution of resources in scarcity.  Organ transplants could be rationed due to availability and considered scarce. 

We have rationing of health care to 47 million people who cannot afford it.  Where does this fit into rationing debate?  How many of those 47 million might die because they do not have health insurance that would ensure primary care and early intervention and prevent death or serious disease processes that are not reversible.  Sure, they can present at a hospital when their condition has reached the point of needing emergency care, but for some this is too late.  What about them?  And this brings up the argument of emergency rooms being primary care for the poor which is not cost effective and contributes to  health care debt, unmanaged care, and teaches people to not be responsible in the areas of preventive health education, namely diet; exercise; and lifestyle choices.

To me, it seems like a vicious cycle if we don't do something now.

The senate has removed the Advanced Planning Consultation from the bill, so the discussion is moot at this point.  But I hope this does not prevent the discussion of the importance of Advanced Directives that allows an individual or appointed health proxey to decide about end of life care and not an insurance company or hospital team. 

Barring self imposed myopia or blindness, determining health care in the U.S. is not serving the needs of its citizens only requires waiting in doctors offices or emergency rooms across this nation.

Once at the doctor's office, listen as approximately half of those scheduled to be seen haggle over which forms need to be filled out, which plan will or will not cover whatever procedure, whatever consultation or whatever diagnostic test.

In the emergency rooms, the average wait to be seen is 3 to 4 hours, no exceptions, well, maybe if your head or an extremity is hanging by a thread of tissue but, that is not a guarantee.

The mother of my daughter's bandmate, a mother, covered under her husband's plan (he's a minister),  being treated for an endocrine condition, had to buy a few pills, get the rest later because she couldn't afford to fill the entire prescription.

I suffered from recurring gastric distress, which was first observed in my local emergency room. My primary doctor, when I went to her for follow up, indicated she believed I'd contracted a stomach virus. I was back and forth between the hospital and emergency for a time.

Finally, I underwent emergency gall bladder removal after one final attack. My gall bladder disease was discovered when whatever dye it was used for a test could not been seen as my inflamed gall bladder blocked the flow of the liquid. My gall bladder disease went undiagnised for 3 years.     

My girlfriend, a performer, received a call from the clinic she frequented, apologizing and explaining to her they had overlooked some abnormal results for her PAP smear, asking she come right in as soon as possible.

She received a call an hour or two later and was told her insurance would no longer cover her treatment at the clinic, although, she was advised it was urgent she have the abnormality investigated as it was an urgent issue. Luckily, her condition turned out not to be life threatening.

My former husband, a gas meter reader, fell two and a half flights through a floor in an abandoned building where he had been sent by his employer. He lay unconscious for hours in the basement of the building. 

He suffered nerve damage to his neck and spine. He was prone for several months, unable to walk. He applied for workman's compensation. The insurance carrier he had through his job would not accept his doctor's findings and tests.

One of my oldest and dearest friend's mother, a retired school district secretary, was diagnosed with breast cancer and required a radical double mastectomy. The radical procedure removes part of the underarm muscle area. She was sent home after the surgery in 3 days, unable to use her arms properly.

My sister, a paralegal, was diagnosed with and eventually succumbed to colon cancer. She was diagnosed at Stage 4. She was 47 years old.

Due to the aggressive nature of the her cancer, in addition to traditional, approved chemotherapy treatments, she and her husband decided to try a suggested trial chemo treatment.

It was planned that a shunt would be put into my sister's chest to accommodate the use of an I.V., to avoid the need to keep finding a vein when receiving treatments.

The administration of the experimental/investigational drug was to occur, on slow drip, over a 42 hour period. One possible adverse outcome of the use of this drug would be possible complications of a perforated bowel, if the tumors on the colon wall shrank too quickly.

This procedure was supposed to occur, without any monitoring, over a 42 hour period, while my sister sat at home. 

My friend, a self employed craftsman, as I spoke of elsewhere, was diagnosed with a congenital heart condition that required he have a valve replacement.

After he was diagnosed and told he needed to have the operation or he would die, he was told because he had no insurance, he could not be admitted. When he protested, invoking the Hill-Burton Act, he was escorted out of the hospital by security.

All of his friends and family, including myself, made calls all over, without any assistance from the hospital that had diagnosed his illness.

Finally, Deborah Hospital, an investigational/teaching facility, agreed to do the surgery.

For each of these stories, there is an exponential effect of suffering and denial when each person in this narrative tells of folks they know of and the trials they have undergone seeking treatment or medication.        

Ralph Nader wants a single payer, universal health system for all Americans like the Medicare for All plan proposed by Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. The bill would have provided high quality care for every American.  I support this as well, but what are the chances of reaching an agreement without the cries of socialism that are rampant even now. 

The Obama Administration has attempted to put fourth a compromise plan that at least has a chance of passing. Ralph Nader's arguments are supporting evidence for  health care reform not being liberal enough.  Yes, I agree Ralph Nader is one of the greatest reformers in our life time.  When he published  Unsafe At Any Speed  in 1965 and challenged the auto industry for safety features like seat belts, think about whose side you would have taken.  This was a government option in effect proposing universal safety for all automobiles in America.  Universal health care is not disimilar.