1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Stephen Hawking defends the NHS..

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Popeye, Aug 12, 2009.

  1. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    Well, I think I'll take the distinguished Dr Hawking's word, over that of IBD or any politician that is financed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

    [​IMG]


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...evil-Orwellian-high-level-US-politicians.html
     
  2. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Why is this relevant? I thought we weren't trying to model our system after the British model... Are you now suggesting that we are, or should, adopt a single payer system like that of Britain?

    Single payer leads to higher costs, ever growing debts, a reduction of services and rationing of care... But who cares about facts when there's a Progressive Utopian world of next Tuesday to be built? :rolleyes:
     
  3. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, Stephen Hawkings is just your normal street brain too. Come up with statistics where Joe Blow the kid who has ALS, In England, with National Health Care, gets the same treatment as Hawkings and this might matter.
     
  4. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    The reason Stephen Hawking is even in the news about this is because some right wing nutter decided to say:

    Of course implying that a British citizen and professor at one of the leading UK universities wasn't even from England and didn't have to deal with the NHS is nonsense, but that doesn't stop anyone from saying it.

    He came out to explain the facts that the original quote sort of ignored, that's why he's defending it.

    {1} the quote which originally appeared in the Investor's Business Daily has been removed after Stephen Hawking came out and said he was born in the UK and NHS did pay for his treatment.
     
  5. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Who?

    I could comb through the Left Wing Nutter blogs and come up with all kinds of factually inaccurate claims and purely lunatic fringe statements.

    The updated article has interesting insight into Obamacare's "end of life" provisions:

    Palliative care is any form of medical care or treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of disease symptoms, rather than striving to halt, delay, or reverse progression of the disease itself or provide a cure.

    How many of you Welfare Statists would prefer your own doctor to issue "Palliative care" rather than 'do everything' to make you well?
     
  6. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    It is a nation newspaper (originally called Investor's Daily) with a readership of 850,000 nationwide. It hardly can be called "a blog".

    You'll rarely see me point out an unimportant blogger of either left or right lean. I hardly consider them relevant, either to anything I'm saying for or con; sort of like your strawman "blogger" remark.

    Again context is very VERY key. palliative care is the ONLY care, for example, for Type I IDDM (Diabetes), there is no cure to provide, you can only continue to treat. This is true for ALL terminal and incurable diseases. Do I prefer they give me palliative care? yes, I do, that's why I'm alive and why I've been alive for the past 20 years since I was diagnosed. Now mind you, this provision does not address research into currently non-existant cures, this only covers application of what exists. Regardless of how you spin it, the facts remain the same.
     
  7. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    So you admit that you have no idea who authored the editorial... you just know it was some "right wing nutter".

    You're the one pulling a whirling dervish act...

    [​IMG]

    The definition clearly states that Palliative care seeks to treat the symptoms of a disease RATHER THAN "striving to halt, delay, or reverse progression of the disease itself or provide a cure."

    Spin away whirling dervish, spin away!
     
  8. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    It was a reporter for a nationally recognized news source. I'm not sure who wrote it because they didn't feel like telling me.
    http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cach...com&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    You're ignoring the facts I've already gone over. You cannot halt, delay, or reverse type I diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, sickle cell anemia, or cystic fibrosis. Mind you the definition is very distinct. "The disease itself," does not refer to the symptomatic effects of the disease which are treated.

    My sugar goes up when I eat and don't take insulin, so I take insulin to treat this symptom of my diabetes, of course there is no way to make my body produce insulin, so what do you call this type of care given the definition that is provided? It is absolutely palliative care, palliative care is the ONLY care.

    With sickle cell anemia, a genetic disorder, you can't fix the production of rigid RBCs in the sufferer. It cannot be cured, a cure does not exist. Do you suggest that palliative care, which absolutely increases the sufferers QOL and increases life span, not be provided?

    The problem you suffer from here is the lack of technical rendering of the definition. The "instead of" does not mean "in place of" it means "as opposed to" which can (and does) reference the lack of curative measures. I'm spinning nothing, it is simply your lack of understanding of the pliability of the English language and when to apply strict definitions to words.
     
  9. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    You're the one ignoring facts, if Palliative Care only applied to such incurable diseases, then why would the definition state that Palliative care seeks to treat symptoms of the disease RATHER THAN striving to halt, delay, or reverse progression of the disease itself or provide a cure?

    You can't answer that without spin, try not to get dizzy.
     
  10. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama

    Let me use it in a sentence as we learned to do back in grade school:

    "We have no cure for this disease, so we will treat the symptoms rather than cure the disease." See, not so scary and used JUST as it was in the definition.

    Mind you, the definition does not state that palliative care is ONLY applied to incurable diseases, I never made this assertion. Only that the intent behind the majority of contemporary palliative care scenarios are incurable and chronic diseases. I'm not trying to sway you, it is as it is. When all this is said and done, you'll see. Until then you can continue to post your cute images and argue the definition of words that are well grounded in contemporary medical lingo.

    To assume that this means that they'll not try to cure disease even if they have a cure is ridiculous as there is zero context for that assumption. The language used is as such "Palliative" because that is the technical term for what they're talking about.

    Not really many other ways to say it, to be quite honest. And you can't exactly accuse me of spin, since I'm using the definition as I know it, not only from the definition you linked but my 5 years of working in EMS, where acute palliative care is an everyday action and palliative care for chronic disease is often seen and heard.
     
  11. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Nah... You just implied it by using it only in the context of incurable diseases.

    Don't be jealous of my image library.
    [​IMG]

    It was you who was arguing the definition of the word but now you have stopped spinning and admitted that it doesn't apply only to incurable diseases. Had you done that from the start, there would have been no debate on the definition.

    You just love being wrong...

    That is the standard used by your single payer systems in the Progressive World of Next Tuesday.
     
  12. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    no, I am still insisting that in the language of the bill it refers to exactly that.

    Not jealous, it's just childish, distracting, and wasting my bandwidth.

    Again, as far as the health care bill is concerned that is what it means.

    It is only mentioned one time in the bill.

    In this context where it is mentioned it refers to people who have DECIDED THEMSELVES to speak to support services for end of life care. The senior MAKES this decision themselves and this is NEVER chosen or forced upon, it is granted upon request and ASSURED to be granted by this language. What happens here is that the doctor who is speaking to them in a support fashion discusses end of life (since there is no cure assumed for either terminal illness or old age that led to the decision of end-of-life healthcare consultation) palliative care as well as other services.

    This context fits 100% with my definition inference that you are arguing against.

    I know.

    Hey, I fixed that for you.
     
  13. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    So does the NHS in the UK deny care to people it deems less worthy. I suspect the article was alluding to the pre-born who have disabilities.

    According to this:

    http://prolife.org.uk/science-and-technology-committee-abortion-inquiry/

    "The UK legislates in favour of equality between disabled and non-disabled persons at all levels except in respect of the pre-born disabled."

    Which would make both the editorial and Hawkings partly right. Hawkings got great care because he was born. Had be been in utero he would have paid Charon's fare.
     
  14. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What you wingnuts chose to ignore is the FACT that the editorial was another Republican lie and they got outted for it. It's really just that simple.
     
  15. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    I did not read the article originally since a source was not provided. But I have found the article and read it now. It does not talk about preborns but it is about the elderly.

    The author was saying that the system in the UK that assigns a point value to a person's life is bad. These are his exact words:


    This is a relevant part of the article:

    "The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

    The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

    One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on.

    The more points you have, the more your life is considered worth saving, and the likelier you are to get care."
    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877

    somewhere in there the author also said:

    “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless,”

    As it turns out the authors attempt at a comparison failed because while he was trying to say that if Hawking were born in the UK his life would be worth less. Why did it fail? Because Hawking does live in the UK. And apparently the NHS did provide him with treatment. I guess he had enough points. If it were you instead of him and you were not a brilliant cosmologists would you have enough points sitting in a wheelchair?

    The author missed a pretty big detail and honorably retracted it as you can see if you link to the link. But he was dead on right that the system in the UK does assign a point value to your life.

    And did you know that a "quality adjusted life year" as they use in England is already written into law here in the stimulus bill? So if you hear someone say that it is not in the health care bill they will be right. If they say it is not being advanced here they will be wrong.
     
Loading...

Share This Page