• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

The "Stupid" Sarah Palin Appears to Have Been Right After All

#2
#4
Now now Comrade Jarhead, Big Brother cannot be expected to tolerate and care for and spend its money on the old and infirm who do not vote for the correct party, don't you agree? This is all part of Comrade Obama's plan for a greater USSA, now quieten yourself down before you end up in the Alaskan gulags. :wink:
 
#5
Why does the same drivel get dredged up by people who seem to not understand the NHS?

Yes. The NHS practices, what is it again, 'politicised rationing of health care'. Basically we pay for treatment for everyone, but where a drug or treatment is not seen to be particularly effective or the price of it is higher than the benefit received then it is not used. After all we have a finite pot of money to share around ALL.

This is healthcare. People WILL die. It is inevitable. Newsflash, everyone dies in the end. I am sure we could keep any one person alive indefinitly if we really wanted. But, we're human. We die.

Now, let us go to the HMO.... they will similarly refuse to pay for certain treatments that they consider is pointless or 'experimental'. People die, or live terrible lives.

As is said on Micheal Moore* and his 'Sicko' film. The HMOs regard this as denying payment not care, but obviously it is one and the same thing to many. Unless you are truely wonga'd and can pay for the treatment regardless, or step up to the increased insurance payments.

So who do YOU want deciding what treatments should be used or shouldn't? A government organisation or a profit making organisation which regards paying out to make you well as a 'loss', but you paying your premiums as a 'gain'.

I love the way the Yanks distrust their government so much :D

* I don't follow everything that MM says as gospel. One of his books suggested a solution to NI as a RC Chaplain blessing the water coming out of firehoses to Catholicise the Protestants!!! But talking to various lads from across the pond this seems pretty much fact.
 
#6
Now now Comrade Jarhead, Big Brother cannot be expected to tolerate and care for and spend its money on the old and infirm who do not vote for the correct party, don't you agree? This is all part of Comrade Obama's plan for a greater USSA, now quieten yourself down before you end up in the Alaskan gulags. :wink:
Hah! Indeed so. I imagine I am already on several lists so I may as well continue until this "station signs off."
 
#7
Why does the same drivel get dredged up by people who seem to not understand the NHS?

Yes. The NHS practices, what is it again, 'politicised rationing of health care'. Basically we pay for treatment for everyone, but where a drug or treatment is not seen to be particularly effective or the price of it is higher than the benefit received then it is not used. After all we have a finite pot of money to share around ALL.

This is healthcare. People WILL die. It is inevitable. Newsflash, everyone dies in the end. I am sure we could keep any one person alive indefinitly if we really wanted. But, we're human. We die.

Now, let us go to the HMO.... they will similarly refuse to pay for certain treatments that they consider is pointless or 'experimental'. People die, or live terrible lives.

As is said on Micheal Moore* and his 'Sicko' film. The HMOs regard this as denying payment not care, but obviously it is one and the same thing to many. Unless you are truely wonga'd and can pay for the treatment regardless, or step up to the increased insurance payments.

So who do YOU want deciding what treatments should be used or shouldn't? A government organisation or a profit making organisation which regards paying out to make you well as a 'loss', but you paying your premiums as a 'gain'.

I love the way the Yanks distrust their government so much :D

* I don't follow everything that MM says as gospel. One of his books suggested a solution to NI as a RC Chaplain blessing the water coming out of firehoses to Catholicise the Protestants!!! But talking to various lads from across the pond this seems pretty much fact.
You do give me so much enjoyable humor, especially since it is always laden with irony. You cite the inimitable Michael Moore (although in closing seek to mitigate the reference), who has been exposed as a propagandist who is fast and loose with any factual information just after you characterize other information with which you disagree as "drivel." Very good! Keep up the good work.
 
#8
Sarah Palin's Facebook page said:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.
A statement on the morality of deciding access to healthcare by administrative panel. Whereas the US Healthcare proposals, as endlessly discusses in this forum, is about end-of-life planning including living wills and voluntary euthanasia.

What she doesn't do is explain how an unprofitable treatment would be more available to all in the private sector US healthcare system than in the public sector British one. Are anti-cancer drugs really going to be made available by a private company with shareholders to please to a patient who can't afford them? Or is that patient going to be left to die as a result of a bureaucratic decision made by a 'death panel' of businessmen who've decided their bottom line is more important than human life?

You're right about one thing, though: there are indeed people in the US who will cheerfully distort the truth to further their own political agenda. I wouldn't describe Sarah Palin's agenda as in any way 'progressive', though.
 
#9
A statement on the morality of deciding access to healthcare by administrative panel. Whereas the US Healthcare proposals, as endlessly discusses in this forum, is about end-of-life planning including living wills and voluntary euthanasia.

What she doesn't do is explain how an unprofitable treatment would be more available to all in the private sector US healthcare system than in the public sector British one. Are anti-cancer drugs really going to be made available by a private company with shareholders to please to a patient who can't afford them? Or is that patient going to be left to die as a result of a bureaucratic decision made by a 'death panel' of businessmen who've decided their bottom line is more important than human life?

You're right about one thing, though: there are indeed people in the US who will cheerfully distort the truth to further their own political agenda. I wouldn't describe Sarah Palin's agenda as in any way 'progressive', though.
Say what you will. She was vilified for calling the government out on its true intent that it continues to obfuscate. But I should of course not complain as our Masters will of course only act in the interests of the "greater good." I suppose that is why they have exempted themselves and over 100 entities so far (curiously unions and other groups that have shown their willingness to support our Masters) from all or certain aspects of the plan.
 
#10
Why does the same drivel get dredged up by people who seem to not understand the NHS?

Yes. The NHS practices, what is it again, 'politicised rationing of health care'. Basically we pay for treatment for everyone, but where a drug or treatment is not seen to be particularly effective or the price of it is higher than the benefit received then it is not used. After all we have a finite pot of money to share around ALL.

This is healthcare. People WILL die. It is inevitable. Newsflash, everyone dies in the end. I am sure we could keep any one person alive indefinitly if we really wanted. But, we're human. We die.

Now, let us go to the HMO.... they will similarly refuse to pay for certain treatments that they consider is pointless or 'experimental'. People die, or live terrible lives.

As is said on Micheal Moore* and his 'Sicko' film. The HMOs regard this as denying payment not care, but obviously it is one and the same thing to many. Unless you are truely wonga'd and can pay for the treatment regardless, or step up to the increased insurance payments.

So who do YOU want deciding what treatments should be used or shouldn't? A government organisation or a profit making organisation which regards paying out to make you well as a 'loss', but you paying your premiums as a 'gain'.

I love the way the Yanks distrust their government so much :D

* I don't follow everything that MM says as gospel. One of his books suggested a solution to NI as a RC Chaplain blessing the water coming out of firehoses to Catholicise the Protestants!!! But talking to various lads from across the pond this seems pretty much fact.
Spot on in my view. It is a complete mystery to me why this healthcare reform is causing so much disturbance. Yes, it will cost an awful lot to implement, so maybe thats it, less aircraft carriers for uncle sam. But surely everyone can see the holes in any insurance based scheme. some people are worse risks than others, and the old and infirm poor are the worse risks of all.

what happens when the human genome is cracked such that an individuals cancer risk is a known factor ? wont that make them totally uninsurable ??
 
U

uncle_ho

Guest
#11
She is a cretin. Thinks the world is only 6000 years old and humans and dinosaurs co-existed. That in itself proves she has the intelligence of a jelly mould. Why would anyone take anything she says about anything seriously?
 
#12
JJH, your link is very one-sided and it isn't really clear what these "death panels" will actually debate... other than what Sarah Palin's view of them are.

My opinion of the US Healthcare system isn't based on MM's reports, it's based on having lived in the States for 7+ years, my parents living there for 20 years and my sister for 36 years. My sister had a daughter who was born without thyroid glands and has needed medication all her life. This was fine when my sister was working and was either able to pay into an HMO or got medical benefits with her job, but when she wasn't working, she wasn't able to afford the medication and my niece went without or went to live with my parents who were able to afford the medication. How is that system any better than what is proposed? My father had to wait 5 years until he was virtually crippled before his HMO decided a hip replacement was necessary. How is that any better than what is proposed?
 
#13
But I should of course not complain as our Masters will of course only act in the interests of the "greater good."
This leaves me curious every time it raises it's head from across the Atlantic: why are you so dead-set against having a government you can vote out make decisions that you're perfectly happy to have made by businessmen that you can't?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
In England anyone can register a (dormant) Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare that can be taken up by the designated 'attorney' (nok, relative, friend etc) by application to the Court of Protection, in which you can lay down your own rules for the future in terms of e.g. pain relief. To my mind well worth doing while you still believe you possess a modicum of brainpower. Personally I have no ambition to be a living vegetable.
 
#16
what happens when the human genome is cracked such that an individuals cancer risk is a known factor ? wont that make them totally uninsurable ??
Not entirely. I think the genome will only give a likely indication of that persons propensity to developing a cancer. If the person acts on that and avoids other much greater contributory factors such as smoking, drinking, poor diet, obesity etc; I would think that statistically, the risk is insignificant. Having a genetic pre-disposition to cancer and actually developing cancer are two seperate mechanisms. Having it in your genes doesn't mean you will get it.

But the Health Insurance Market won't see it like that. The only policy you will get will have a 'no cancer' clause.
 
#17
JJH, your link is very one-sided and it isn't really clear what these "death panels" will actually debate... other than what Sarah Palin's view of them are.

My opinion of the US Healthcare system isn't based on MM's reports, it's based on having lived in the States for 7+ years, my parents living there for 20 years and my sister for 36 years. My sister had a daughter who was born without thyroid glands and has needed medication all her life. This was fine when my sister was working and was either able to pay into an HMO or got medical benefits with her job, but when she wasn't working, she wasn't able to afford the medication and my niece went without or went to live with my parents who were able to afford the medication. How is that system any better than what is proposed? My father had to wait 5 years until he was virtually crippled before his HMO decided a hip replacement was necessary. How is that any better than what is proposed?
You are welcome to do your own research if you do not like my reference. I have done my homework and except perhaps for the tone, the substance of the article is in my view spot on.
 
#18
In England anyone can register a (dormant) Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare that can be taken up by the designated 'attorney' (nok, relative, friend etc) by application to the Court of Protection, in which you can lay down your own rules for the future in terms of e.g. pain relief. To my mind well worth doing while you still believe you possess a modicum of brainpower. Personally I have no ambition to be a living vegetable.
We have the same here but it is, at least for now a private matter for the patient and family--it is no business of the government. Once that begins the trajectory is inevitable. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR are not the anomalies many assume them to be.
 
#20
I do prefer the free market to a socialist government, yes.
A brave choice! It might work in some countries, but somehow I have a nervous twitch [treatable] about the purity of the motives of the businessmen and women behind major healthcare in the USA. It was one of the factors that stopped us continuing to think about retiring there, much as we love [parts of] it.

I agree on the Socialist government angle though ... look where it put the UK.
However, the nuances are probably beyond Mamma Palin.

Nice avatar, BTW ... is that new?
 

Latest Threads

New Posts