I’m going to try to keep this post civil but I’m pretty upset by this article in the Daily Mail.
“Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.”
Why would they do that?
“They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment. “
That can’t be true.
“In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.”
…
Well, many preemies are unhealthy, right? Maybe this one was, too.
“She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.”
Wow, that must have been awful for the mother.
“Miss Capewell…has had five miscarriages”
That poor woman.
“I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, ‘They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him’.
She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.”
Well, I tried.
This is the direction we are going in the US. We already elected a President who is content to let little babies, who were supposed to be murdered but somehow survived, die alone in a closet. We’ve already let the liberals decide that murdering babies is legal. No, not just legal, A RIGHT.
Yes, Mr. Obama, the US spends more money per capita on health care than any other nation. That’s because we’re willing to spend the money if it means a chance, even a small chance, for some little guy to keep living or for some older woman to have a few more months to spend with her loved ones. Is it expensive? Yes. Is it our choice? Yes, until you get the government involved.
You claim there won’t be death panels yet you promote these kinds of guidelines. You claim we’ll still have our same insurance policies, yet your legislation would necessarily make those policies nearly unrecognizable. You claim you’ll cut costs and improve the system but don’t have the bill go into effect until 2013…after the 2012 election.
Obama, you are another worthless politician who acts in his own best interests to the detriment of the American people.
How anybody can claim this isn’t treason is beyond me.
Great work, 52%.
Isn't this case from the UK (Gorleston, Norfolk, UK)?
The illustration may be from another government health care system but the point, as I see it, is that this president and congress aim to "change" the entire health care system rather than fix it, rather than solve the problem of insuring 10%-15% of the US population. Too much too fast for too much money!
We all pay for uninsured health care…one way or another.
@Jonathan: Yup. That's the model Obama keeps talking about. Lovely.@Richard: Exactly. The thought of higher taxes to pay for worse care is nauseating. Seems to be a key plank in the Democratic platform, though…@Jason: True, at least the way it's currently set up. My problem with the proposed "fixes" is that they do nothing to actually decrease costs. They only overburden an already overtaxed system. Instead of trying to get everybody into a system that everybody seems to think is broken, why not fix the system? Allow more doctors to be educated (AMA!!), remove mandated coverage for medically unproven treatments (seriously, naturopaths?!). Why not find a way to stop subsidizing other nations (Japan!) through foreign-government mandated low prices?Besides, look at the math. Say the entire population is 10 people. If 10 people want a $100 treatment and they all buy insurance to cover it, guess how much it's going to cost? $100.
So, that's my real frustration. Higher taxes, increased government intervention in my life and lower quality of care.This pretty much sums it up: http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz090809adAPR20090909021639.jpg
To be fair to Japan's health care system, here is a balanced article from the NY Times which summarizes its strengths and weaknesses.http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/health-care-abroad-japan/John Creighton Campbell is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Michigan and a visiting researcher at the Tokyo University Institute of Gerontology.
For a (slightly dated) comparison between the US and other OECD countries see:assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
@Jonathan: The NY Times article fails to mention that because Japan refuses to allow the prices to fluctuate at a market rate, we in the US essentially cover the cost for them through higher prices on technology and drugs. If you squeeze a balloon on one side, it will pop out on the other.Also, the OECD report you sent is pretty invalid. The main sign of that is the mortality rate calcs. The US defines mortality rate to include infants born that live less than 24 hours. Most other countries do not, which is one reason our mortality rate is so high compared to them. When you factor in things like that, we're easily #1.
Also, it includes things like "Beds per capita" which I find to be a pretty weak measure of quality health care.