Health Care Ruling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2012, 10:42 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(28-06-2012 10:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Humor parodies reality. There's plenty of people posting it ironically yet there are some, not serious in their intentions, but seriously thinking Canada would be better since it's away from the evil Obamaman.

Well I would say the bubbles overlapped at the "moving to Canada" bit... That rhetoric was used massively in 2000/2004 when Bush became president. Some of the reasons were solid but when the claim was that Bush would turn the country into a Christian Nation, the oddity is that Canada is one.. Although they have the more open secular population.
Good point on the 2000/2004 point--there was a lot of blog space on the right dedicated to ridiculing celebrities who said they were moving to Canada because Bush was elected.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2012, 12:54 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2012 01:02 AM by Filox.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
Tralalalala...

This is for all those that think this is socialism and it should not be passed in modern USA...

Quote: Hippocratic Oath


I swear to fulfil, to the best of my ability and judgement, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.


Can anyone please find me a passage here that says that every doctor has to take money for every exam he makes? Is there a passage here that tells the doctor who he can treat and who he can not? Can you show me where does it say that a doctor must refuse to treat a patient who has no medical care?

I wonder how can people that are against this law live with their selves? Can you be more immoral, please? Can you care less for those that are sick and in need of help, but have no money for that? How can anyone call himself a doctor and refuse to treat a patient, just because of money?

I mean, Jesus Christ people, WTF?!?

P.S.

This is the original Oath:

Quote: I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art;to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2012, 07:11 AM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(29-06-2012 12:54 AM)Filox Wrote:  Can anyone please find me a passage here that says that every doctor has to take money for every exam he makes? Is there a passage here that tells the doctor who he can treat and who he can not? Can you show me where does it say that a doctor must refuse to treat a patient who has no medical care?

I wonder how can people that are against this law live with their selves? Can you be more immoral, please? Can you care less for those that are sick and in need of help, but have no money for that? How can anyone call himself a doctor and refuse to treat a patient, just because of money?

I mean, Jesus Christ people, WTF?!?
My biggest problem with the legislation is that it was compromised and did not go nearly far enough.

Extending Medicare for all would have been a better solution, in my opinion, then putting a means test on it (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, etc. do not need Medicare). A single-payer, coverage for all would have been the optimal solution.

There are many that oppose this law based on the fact it has Obama-cooties and nothing more. There are others, including many libertarians, that see this as government overreach and placing citizens even further at the mercy of the government to take care of them.

Again, I harp on this a lot, we are not asking the right questions to begin with. Is citizen-health an issue that government should be involved in? Does the republic benefit from a healthy citizenry? Is this part of the social contract that governments should be expected to perform? If the answer is yes, then legislation (and funding) should be passed. If the answer is no - then government should get out of the Medicare/Medicaid game altogether.

We've been operating for 50 years on this quasi-"socialist" model and the costs are depleting way to much of the federal budget. People say the Affordable Health Care act will bankrupt the country, but I argue that maintaining the status quo would do the same -- something needed to be done - this isn't a great law, but at least it attempts to fix a problem...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Seasbury's post
29-06-2012, 03:39 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
We have several problems converging all at once.
1 - We will have a 15,000 doctor shortage in the next ten years. The average age of doctors now is 55.
2 - We just significantly shifted the cost of healthcare for 30,000,000 people to someone else. Their cost to access healthcare is practically zero. Demand will skyrocket.
3 - We will pay for this by chasing down 20 somethings for penalties. Good luck with that. Do you know how many people don't bother buying car insurance? Catch them if you can.
4 - The Baby Boomer wave is hitting Medicare over the next 20 years.
This is the perfect storm in a row boat.
Reality doesn't have a political ideology and doesn't care about yours.
The ONLY solution is to stop treating people after a certain age. Get used to that idea. It will be here in less than a decade, just about the time I turn 60. Just my luck. Thumbsup

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
29-06-2012, 04:30 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
[Image: photo-6.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LadyJane's post
29-06-2012, 04:38 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(29-06-2012 04:30 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  [Image: photo-6.png]
Oh, is she paying for it? Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2012, 06:32 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(29-06-2012 04:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-06-2012 04:30 PM)LadyJane Wrote:  [Image: photo-6.png]
Oh, is she paying for it? Yes
If she is, then I'm moving to the US Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2012, 04:51 AM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(29-06-2012 03:39 PM)Thomas Wrote:  We have several problems converging all at once.
1 - We will have a 15,000 doctor shortage in the next ten years. The average age of doctors now is 55.
2 - We just significantly shifted the cost of healthcare for 30,000,000 people to someone else. Their cost to access healthcare is practically zero. Demand will skyrocket.
3 - We will pay for this by chasing down 20 somethings for penalties. Good luck with that. Do you know how many people don't bother buying car insurance? Catch them if you can.
4 - The Baby Boomer wave is hitting Medicare over the next 20 years.
This is the perfect storm in a row boat.
Reality doesn't have a political ideology and doesn't care about yours.
The ONLY solution is to stop treating people after a certain age. Get used to that idea. It will be here in less than a decade, just about the time I turn 60. Just my luck. Thumbsup
stop treating people over a certain age?
Comon that would never happen. Not only is it political suicide, but it's just not human.

It is beneficial to have a healthy country. You have less deaths, less people taking time off work etc..

While I'm all for government paid healthcare, I have been thinking lately how it is going to work in reality for the US.
Like how are you going to pay for it?
Here healthcare is the second largest part of our countries budget (after education) by a county mile. Like 30% of our budget goes into ACC and healthcare. I suppose you guys don't have ACC to worry about but still. In a time when your country should be tackling debt you're now going to be spending a shit load of money.
Makes you wonder what is getting cut in the budget to squeeze this in.

I dunno, I haven't read into this at all.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2012, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 30-06-2012 11:24 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Health Care Ruling
(29-06-2012 03:39 PM)Thomas Wrote:  We have several problems converging all at once.
This is the perfect storm in a row boat.
Reality doesn't have a political ideology and doesn't care about yours.
The ONLY solution is to stop treating people after a certain age. Get used to that idea. It will be here in less than a decade, just about the time I turn 60. Just my luck. Thumbsup

The problems converging at once are not all health care related, and can all be handled if we can get a competent Congress elected. I assume you believe that isn't going to happen? I'm also pretty pessimistic about our future, maybe just in a slight different way.

That would be funny just to start killing off old people, but why stop there? We can kill off people with deadly or chronic illnesses, mentally handicapped people, physically handicapped people, our prison populations, kids with learning disabilities, a lot of poor people could go, long term unemployed, I'm mean we could really clear out a lot of space. Evil_monster

(30-06-2012 04:51 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  In a time when your country should be tackling debt you're now going to be spending a shit load of money. Makes you wonder what is getting cut in the budget to squeeze this in.

We have tons of problems that need to be resolved, and even though there is debate on what the deficit will look like after we "squeeze this in", to me at least, it's a sure thing that it will not be a problem, and should in the long run actually help the deficit/debt. We do need to be able to handle the other problems with our health care system, that won't be directly targeted by this law. It's a private sector based plan, so majority of the concerns, especially with cost, are there. People are worried about their insurance costs going up and stuff like that. All problems that can be resolved.

Also, we don't need to worry about the debt, until we worry about the economy, because if the economy is crappy, it wouldn't matter what we do, the debt will still be horrible.

If we can get things together in Congress, we should be able to tackle things with a solution for stimulating the economy, hopefully something that involves more spending on infrastructure and restoring our public sector job losses, and maybe adding more, and not exclusive or majority tax cuts, while, at the same time, come up with a future plan on debt/deficit reform with our tax code, medicare, social security, and defense being the main things.

The things that seem to be part of the problem, in our control, revolve around demand and certainty. If we can restore consumer and business confidence by getting a plan for the future in order, and at the same time, add jobs with a stimulus, and get the unemployment moving in the right direction, then we should be good on our side of things and only have to worry about what Europe does.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2012, 11:53 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
Quote: Also, we don't need to worry about the debt, until we worry about the
economy, because if the economy is crappy, it wouldn't matter what we
do, the debt will still be horrible.
Ahh, the ol' "but we're in a recession" argument.
"It's not my fault we're in debt, we're in a recession!"

Never gets old.

There will be a time when countries running huge deficits and getting into debt wont be the norm but frowned upon. Just you watch.
When you rely on other countries (trade, ie: EU relied on US) who are out of your control, then it is generally advisable I would think to be in a situation where if something goes downhill you have some power to mitigate the damages on your end.
It's like everyday people. They advise you that you should 3months worth of salary in savings encase you lose your job or whatever. The way I see it, governments are no different. (except maybe not to the extent of having 3months worth of GDP sitting in a bank account).

Eh I dunno, thinking out loud.

Quote: restoring our public sector job losses, and maybe adding more
Why???? Costing the country even more money.
Large bureaucracies are horrible. Not only are they a waste of money but they are inefficient.
Why have three people to do a job when you can have one. Why have a department of welfare and a department of state owned housing when you can merge them into one and have a department of social development or whatever.
Why have four departments for each level of schooling (primary, secondary, high school, university) when you can merge them together and just have a department of education.
Bureaucracies need to become more efficient, not bigger.
"But it's better to have people working then on the unemployment blah blah", yeah but paying them to work for you or paying them unemployment doesn't matter the money comes from the same place. You need those people out in the private sector, that way the money they bring in (taxes) is effectively "free".

The fact their job got cut in the first place shows you that they were the fat that needed trimming.
It's the same with big corporations sacking heaps of people. The fact they sack these people to make a profit shows you how ill-efficient they were running that business in the first place.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: