O/T: Amazing

Page 3 of 10  
Just Wondering wrote:

But a "cold" can lead to a bacterial infection, such as pneumonia, by reducing the body's resistance. An antibiotic, in this case, can be considered prophylactic.
The vast majority of deaths attributable to the "Spanish Flu" epidemic were caused by pneumonia. Of course this was before both pneumonia vaccinations and antibiotics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 8:10 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

You are probably are more right than not on that comment. The housing bubble that started this latest mess in 08 was because people that could not afford houses were qualifying for loans to buy them since the government was guaranteeing the loans. And then the government had the nerve to blame the banks for the whole mess.
Had the government not guaranteed the loans this would not have happened. And yes the lenders did twist the qualification thresholds but the government expected them to do so, why else would they have guaranteed the loans. No need to guarantee loans for applicants that actually have the means to pay the money back!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The other necessary factor was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Without that, the banks would have had no way to dump their bogus paper on other banks. These same banks then bought bogus paper through the other door from other banks, never stopping to think that they were buying the same crap they were selling.

Yes, it was a government cluster-.... The banks did nothing illegal, only what the government wanted (in many cased demanded) them to do. Without Congress, both sides of the aisle, this would never have happened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Uh, they already did.
Well, not actually "require," but they made is so attractive that the vast majority participated.
It all started with the Community Re-Development Act under President Carter, but it really took off under the Clinton administration.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 6:32 PM, CW wrote:

The "individual mandate" was one of the biggest sticking points about Obamacare. What it amounted to was, either buy insurance or pay the feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going, Barack Hussein.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to get the poor subscribed without taxing them.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It underwent revolutionary changes in Holland in ~2006. It works in Canada (ask Robatoy), and it is working just fine in Massachusetts.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Working, yes. Working just fine? Debatable.
Rates keep going up even with everyone insured. Where is the big savings promised?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's a common refrain. In Holland too, they have had to adjust premiums upward. Probably savings come from the fact that there is no or far less cost caring for indigent. I wish I know how I could get healthcare costs to go down. On the other hand, several of my medications have gone generic, and they cost me far less now (and the cost to the insurance company is down too, probably).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
steve robinson wrote:

Giggle.
I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water for their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!
Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive, they live to be treated another day.
In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor treatment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than aggressive "life"-saving treatment?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:25:55 +0000, Han wrote:

He also forgot to mention that around 200,000 die each year in the US from medical mistakes - and that apparently doesn't include non-treatment.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

I read something that put it closer to a million a year. Gary Null says 480k from adverse drug reactions/medical errors. http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html
-- Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. -- John Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Right. Shit happens.
But bad drug interactions and mistakes are not DELIBERATE.
That's the difference I was trying to demonstrate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

US media propaganda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/2/2012 1:35 AM, Bob Martin wrote:

Yep ... alive, just not healthy enough to live without Big Pharma. There is no profit in a healthy population.

Agreed ... not to mention that the past three decades, approximately 109,000 people die DIRECTLY each year from drug interactions in the US ... to put that in perspective, about 30,000 die from automobile accidents.
A medical profession, and culture, where "nutrition" is not on the menu, plus government malfeasance while Food, Inc and Big Pharma poisons the population, insures profits.
There is NO profit in "healthy" for politicians, the medical and/or drug industries.
You are what you eat ...
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So the solution is simple - pay the medical providers on the basis of the health of their patients. Oh, wait, that's just bookkeeping ...
That was for the kidding. I believe some progress is being made in hospital reimbursements. No more reimbursement for preventable side effects (hospital-acquired infections, readmissions because something didn't go right during the first admission, etc).
Nowadays with the computerization of pharmacy records it is easier to flag potential drug interactions. But it's difficult in some respects, since almost everything you put into your body is a drug in some respect (if you're on coumadin, as some in this newsgroup are, either eating or not eating broccoli acts as a drug, becausethe vitamin K in broccoli prevents the coumadin from doing it's job).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Martin wrote:

Not US media at all. A cursory check, or neutral question, would have prevented a knee-jerk reaction on your part.
"[LONDON, June 21, 2012] An eminent British doctor told a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000 elderly patients that die while under the care of the National Health Service (NHS) have been effectively euthanized by being put on the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the terminally ill that he described as a "death pathway."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/1300000-elderly-patients-killed-every-year-by-death-pathway-top-uk-doctor /
And from a UK newspaper:
"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.
"[The Liverpool Care Pathway] is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent. It can include withdrawal of treatment - including the provision of water and nourishment by tube - and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1zT2ujcKn
To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing "LCP" on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different critter.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Everywhere it is really important that advance directives, living will etc are in order, legally speaking. Plus the next of kin need to know and be willing to execute the wishes of the patient. IMNSHO that is paramount and should govern the actions of patients, next of kin, doctors, hospitals, all to whom the care of the patient is entrusted.
However, there will always be situations where there is little if any hope that medical science will be able to "resurrect" an elderly or otherwise infirm individual to what I would call a quality life. Then the question is whether such a "vegetable" should be articifially kept alive in the sole sense of having a beating heart. It is of note that being kept alive could be extremely painful, physically, mentally or both, for the affected individual. The treatment-related questions then are soul searching to the max. If and when one gets to the point of having to make such decisions for others, he/she will (hopefully) lay awake long hours trying to make the correct decisions.
I could relate several stories in this respect, but they are kind of personal. One involves that an ambulance was called. "They needed" to take the patient to the hospital for care, because the relevant paperwork (living will, advance directives) couldn't be located. The patient might have expired without the care. Some may contend that "living" weeks or months longer at that point is something good, others that it isn't really living. My point is that we should comply with the wishes of the person involved, and not necesarily commit huge resources to keep someone alive who might not wish that.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.