Here's what to expect from Gov't Run healthcare...

911
10
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Lets see how it works in the UK:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

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.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

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.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

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.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

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.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.'

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: 'I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

'Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?'

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: 'When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.'
[h2]What the medical guidelines say...[/h2]
Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.

The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html#ixzz0Qd7IKAL0




This is what happens when the government gets to decide whats best for you...sounds great huh.
 
The government can barely run the DMV, I dont know what makes peolpe think they will be able to run health care efficently.

Its a good idea on paper, but will be a nightmare in real life.
 
hmm lets use one isolated incident to define an entire program. Good job OP you have a bright future ahead of you
 
Cool - you pulled up a bad example of how their system works, that's not anecdotal evidence or anything.


How about pulling up all the currents failures of the system we have in place now? Don't think people have needlessly died here as a result?
laugh.gif



How about showing the positives of both?

Quit with this smear campaign already
 
Originally Posted by southzeztpdot

hmm lets use one isolated incident to define an entire program. Good job OP you have a bright future ahead of you


Its not an isolated incident, someone with the intelligence to read before posting would know that. This is how ALL premies are treated in the UK. I wonderwhy you couldn't understand that? Hmmmm....bright future indeed...
 
Certain health insurance companies follow similar guidelines regardless. Sad as it maybe however based on scientific evidence, it was probably better that thebaby had died.
Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.
 
Cool, i can play this game too OP.


[h1][/h1]
[h1]The failure of U.S. healthcare[/h1]
February 28, 2009 in Medical Industrial Complex, Myths & Truths | 2 comments

failure.png
The U.S. spent 16 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - a cool $2 trillion - on health care in 2005.[sup]1[/sup] Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease, preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However, careful and objective review shows the opposite.

The U.S. ranks just 34th in the world in life expectancy and 29th for infant mortality. Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from bottom) for 16 available health indicators.[sup]2[/sup]

40 million people in this country do not have health insurance. The exorbitant cost of health care seems to be tolerated based on the assumption that better health results from more expensive care, despite studies that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive contraindicated care.[sup]3[/sup]

Even worse, a recent study by Dr. Barbara Starfield published in 2000 in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated that iatrogenic incidents (events caused by medical intervention) are the 3rd leading cause of death in this country, causing more than 250,000 deaths per year. Only heart disease and cancer kill more people.

Dr. Starfield estimates that, each year, medical errors and adverse effects of the health care system are responsible for:
  • 116 million extra physician visits
  • 77 million extra prescriptions
  • 17 million emergency department visits
  • 8 million hospitalizations
  • 3 million long-term admissions
  • 199,000 additional deaths
  • $77 billion in extra costs
As grim as they are, these statistics are likely to be seriously underestimated as only about 5 to 20% of iatrogenic incidents are even recorded[sup]4[/sup], and outpatient iatrogenic statistics only include drug-related events and not surgical cases, diagnostic errors, or therapeutic mishaps[sup]5[/sup] . Other analyses which have taken these oversights into consideration estimate that medical care is in fact the leading cause of death in the U.S. each year.

Starfield believes that a major contributor to the poor performance of the United States on health indicators is the high degree of income inequality in this country. Countless studies in the medical literature document the adverse effects of low socioeconomic position on health. New research suggests the adverse effects not only of low social position but, especially, low relative social position in industrialized countries.[sup]6[/sup]

Perhaps the words "health care" have given us the illusion that medicine is about health. In fact, western medicine is not a purveyor of healthcare but of disease-care. When the number one killer in a society is the health care system, that system has no excuse except to address its own urgent shortcomings. Unfortunately, until this happens partaking in allopathic medicine itself is one of the highest causes of death as well as one of the most expensive ways to die.



Just STOP it.
tired.gif
 
Originally Posted by Craftsy21

How about pulling up all the currents failures of the system we have in place now? Don't think people have needlessly died here as a result?
laugh.gif



How about showing the positives of both?


What are the positives of Government run healthcare....please, inform us.


Awaiting your response.
 
Anyone useing the WHO ranking is doing nothing but showing their ignorance. Tell me, where does the US rank in cancer and HIV/AIDS survival rates? Hmm.....
 
Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Cool, i can play this game too OP.


[h1][/h1]
[h1]The failure of U.S. healthcare[/h1]
February 28, 2009 in Medical Industrial Complex, Myths & Truths | 2 comments

failure.png
The U.S. spent 16 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - a cool $2 trillion - on health care in 2005.[sup]1[/sup] Considering this enormous expenditure, we should have the best medicine in the world. We should be reversing disease, preventing disease, and doing minimal harm. However, careful and objective review shows the opposite.

The U.S. ranks just 34th in the world in life expectancy and 29th for infant mortality. Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from bottom) for 16 available health indicators.[sup]2[/sup]

40 million people in this country do not have health insurance. The exorbitant cost of health care seems to be tolerated based on the assumption that better health results from more expensive care, despite studies that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive contraindicated care.[sup]3[/sup]

Even worse, a recent study by Dr. Barbara Starfield published in 2000 in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated that iatrogenic incidents (events caused by medical intervention) are the 3rd leading cause of death in this country, causing more than 250,000 deaths per year. Only heart disease and cancer kill more people.

Dr. Starfield estimates that, each year, medical errors and adverse effects of the health care system are responsible for:
  • 116 million extra physician visits
  • 77 million extra prescriptions
  • 17 million emergency department visits
  • 8 million hospitalizations
  • 3 million long-term admissions
  • 199,000 additional deaths
  • $77 billion in extra costs
As grim as they are, these statistics are likely to be seriously underestimated as only about 5 to 20% of iatrogenic incidents are even recorded[sup]4[/sup], and outpatient iatrogenic statistics only include drug-related events and not surgical cases, diagnostic errors, or therapeutic mishaps[sup]5[/sup] . Other analyses which have taken these oversights into consideration estimate that medical care is in fact the leading cause of death in the U.S. each year.

Starfield believes that a major contributor to the poor performance of the United States on health indicators is the high degree of income inequality in this country. Countless studies in the medical literature document the adverse effects of low socioeconomic position on health. New research suggests the adverse effects not only of low social position but, especially, low relative social position in industrialized countries.[sup]6[/sup]

Perhaps the words "health care" have given us the illusion that medicine is about health. In fact, western medicine is not a purveyor of healthcare but of disease-care. When the number one killer in a society is the health care system, that system has no excuse except to address its own urgent shortcomings. Unfortunately, until this happens partaking in allopathic medicine itself is one of the highest causes of death as well as one of the most expensive ways to die.


Just STOP it.
tired.gif



I'm about to add my two 10 page papers on this post myself to support universal healthcare that I wrote for a philosophical ethics and sociology. US ranksin the 20-30s in everything almost. Whether it's preventable deaths, life expectancy difference between the poor and rich, obesity rates, ect..
 
Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

What are the positives of Government run healthcare....please, inform us.
Regardless of INCOME level, it's available for everyone.




Piles of feces are also available for everyone, that doesn't mean we should stop eating steak and start consuming terds. So, great healthcare availablefor 85% of the country <<< Crappy healthcare for everyone?
 
We're like kids who don't think anything bad will ever happen to us, no matter how many examples we're given. Like telling a kid to wear his helmeton his bike, because if he doesn't he'll end up like Timmy down the street who cracked his skull open because he fell off his bike with no helmet.We're the ones sitting there saying "nuh-uh, I won't fall...Timmy just doesn't know how to ride a bike, I'm a better bike rider than him,so that won't happen to me...." We don't learn until its too late.
 
When did the proposed plan by Obama involve them taking over health care facilities?
as far as I'm aware of...the proposal is to have a "public option" provider....not a total revamp of medical guidelines
 
Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.
 
Originally Posted by J Burner

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

What are the positives of Government run healthcare....please, inform us.
Regardless of INCOME level, it's available for everyone.

Piles of feces are also available for everyone, that doesn't mean we should stop eating steak and start consuming terds. So, great healthcare available for 85% of the country <<< Crappy healthcare for everyone?


Wow.. this is your reasoning?
laugh.gif


You think 85 percent of the country has "great" healthcare right now? Yikes.

I'm not even going to discuss this with you until you do some unbiased research on the matter.
 
Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Cool - you pulled up a bad example of how their system works, that's not anecdotal evidence or anything.


How about pulling up all the currents failures of the system we have in place now? Don't think people have needlessly died here as a result?
laugh.gif



How about showing the positives of both?

Quit with this smear campaign already
Word. Obama is the best! Go get em Craftsy21! Yo, you wanna hook up later on our Obama iPhone apps? I heard he's gonna be dropping a newtwitter soon.
 
Originally Posted by HOVKid

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Cool - you pulled up a bad example of how their system works, that's not anecdotal evidence or anything.


How about pulling up all the currents failures of the system we have in place now? Don't think people have needlessly died here as a result?
laugh.gif



How about showing the positives of both?

Quit with this smear campaign already
Word. Obama is the best!
Yeah, cuz that's what I said.
eyes.gif


Again - is there anything you people can talk about that doesn't involve your childish party-line @!#%%!!*?

Seriously though hovkid - i see you running your mouth constantly on here about politics, i'm not sure you know a goddamn thing about anything youhaven't heard your right-wing spinsters throwing at you for ammunition.

How the *@!@ do YOU feel about the current state of healthcare? Not Obama's plan, not what you heard Sean Hannity tell you to say... how's the healthcare system treating you and your loved ones?
 
Originally Posted by J Burner

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

What are the positives of Government run healthcare....please, inform us.
Regardless of INCOME level, it's available for everyone.

Piles of feces are also available for everyone, that doesn't mean we should stop eating steak and start consuming terds. So, great healthcare available for 85% of the country <<< Crappy healthcare for everyone?

And what's the alternative? No health care?

Here are pictures of the free health clinic expo they had here at the Forum in Inglewood, CA a month ago. These are the uninsured and under insured peoplethat this Public Option will help. These people are hard working Americans who are not privileged enough to afford health insurance.

Isn't it pretty obvious there are countless Americans in need of health care?

48727690.jpg

A tearful Kimberly Anne Hall, right, and Jessie Barbour give each other a hug of support after receiving free medical and dentalattention.

48725752.jpg

Cynthia Davis, 47, catches up on much needed rest in the middle of empty chairs as the Remote Area Medical health fair andclinic winds down on its eighth day at the Forum in Inglewood. She spent four days at the clinic.

48729399.jpg

Danny Langston, 50, takes a nap while waiting for his new perscription eyeglasses toward the end of the eighth and final day ofthe Remote Area Medical health fair and clinic at the Forum in Inglewood.

48725992.jpg

Kevin Gonon, 7, is happy with his new prescription glasses that he got for free at the clinic.

48725994.jpg

From left, Esther Pool, Jessica Russell, Nadia Haitienne and Rosa Sanchez receive instructions on how to brush their teethproperly from Dr. Barbara Pampalone.

48639478.jpg

People line Kareem Court at the Forum in Inglewood on the third day of the Remote Area Medical clinic. Because of overwhelming demand,organizers decided to issue wristbands for entry, allowing patients to return for free care on another day.

48639505.jpg

Exhausted from waiting since 4 a.m., Adriana Viramontes rests her head on her son Edgar's shoulder. Inside the Forum, thefloor of the arena had been transformed into a huge medical clinic, where volunteer doctors, dentists, optometrists and other medical professionals providedservices.

48639716.jpg

Dental assistant Irene Woo with the Tzu Chi Foundation USA takes an X-ray of Mesarat Agonafer as the patient bites on a digitalfilm holder. In seconds, the finished photo of her sore tooth was ready.

moz-screenshot.jpg
48639777.jpg

Alicia DeLeon tries on a pair of eyeglasses from a selection of more than 250 frames. Once she picks a favorite, a pair of free glasseswill be ready to wear in two hours.

48639805.jpg

Ondrey Thomas, 54, celebrates the new eyeglasses she just received at the clinic. "Before, I couldn't even read alarge-type Bible," she said. "I don't have a dollar in my pocket, but right now I feel like I have a million bucks!"

48639931.jpg

A patient sleeps in the stands, waiting for her number to be called for medical treatment. More than 1,000 people a day havespent hours in line outside before being registered for free care during the eight-day Remote Area Medical clinic.

48597061.jpg

Shirley Powell, 53, tries to get some sleep before the start of the clinic's first day. She had been at the site since 10the night before and received her ticket for free medical care at 3:30 a.m.

48597142.jpg

Dozens of volunteer dentists work on patients at the free clinic.


Remote Area Medical Foundation organizers packed up Wednesday after running an eight-day free health clinic at the Forum in Inglewood. The final tally: Volunteers provided 14,561 services to 6,344 patients.

Organizers estimated that volunteer dentists, doctors and optometrists provided more than $2.8 million in services to the underinsured and uninsured. Some seeking assistance came from out of state and camped out for hours to receive medical treatment from the nonprofit Tennessee-based organization.

In all, 3,827 volunteers assisted in the medical undertaking. They handed out 1,984 pairs of new prescription eyeglasses, extracted 2,274 teeth, filled 5,483 cavities and performed 988 women's health services, such as mammograms and Pap smears, said volunteer coordinator Jean Jolly.

http://www.latimes.com/ne...2009aug20,0,802436.story
 
Isn't it pretty obvious there are countless Americans in need of health care?

They're just lazy - why should we have to pay for them because they can't go get a job and get their own healthcare?
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

When did the proposed plan by Obama involve them taking over health care facilities?
as far as I'm aware of...the proposal is to have a "public option" provider....not a total revamp of medical guidelines
exactly...

naysayers are scared jobs will stop offering them insurance and lump em into da public option....which is not gonna happen cuz there is mandates which aregonna prevent that

from happening.
 
Back
Top Bottom