Showing posts with label great britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label great britain. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Another Socialized Medicine Success Story

Do we really want socialized medicine? Really? You might want to get the opinion of Britain's Leslie Fletcher, who is being denied a drug – routinely given to others – to save her sight because she lives in the wrong area.

Economically, the cost of treating the bleeding under her eye is much less than the cost of putting her on disability – which is what will happen if she goes blind.

A National Health Service spokesman responded:
“Our Individual Case Panel makes decisions about whether to fund treatments for conditions which fall outside guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and are therefore not routinely commissioned by the NHS.”
Behold the power of stupidity of socialized healthcare by committee. By all means, let's follow Britain's example.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Yay for Universal Healthcare: Scratched by a Rat = Death

Here's a fun story from Britain's Daily Express reporting on how a woman got scratched by a rat, contracting a disease in the process, resulting in her death six days later.

But here's my favorite part:
Mrs Colburn heard the rat screaming in her back garden in Brighton and immediately went out to try to rescue it. She developed flu-like symptoms and Mr Colburn called their GP.

Two days later he rang the doctor again after her skin turned yellow.

A statement read to the court said: “When the doctor arrived she was cold and clammy and jaundiced. He called 999 immediately.”
So it looks like in England, if you get sick you call your doctor, who presumably says, "Tell me if it gets any better in a couple days." When it doesn't, the doc calls 911 for you so you can be rushed to the hospital, there to die. What a great medical system! Can we have some socialized medicine, too? Please?

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

I Should Be a Reuters Editor

So much of the global warming craze is taken at face value, it calls into question the journalistic integrity of almost all of the mainstream media. Reuters is no exception, so I've taken it upon my self to edit the following article:
LONDON (Reuters) - There is a 25 percent chance that a severe heat wave will strike England and kill more than 6,000 people before 2017 if no action is taken to deal with the health effects of climate change, a report said on Tuesday.

The report for Britain's Department of Health estimated more than 3,000 people could die in an intense summer hot spell in southeast England, with just as many more dying from heat-related deaths over the summer.

Until 2012, when London stages the summer Olympic Games, the odds of thousands dying in summer heat each year will be 1 in 40, the report said, and thousands more could die each year as a result of other effects of global warming and air pollution.

"In terms of conventional thinking about risks to health, a risk of 1 in 40 is high," the report said.

Here's a more accurate version:

LONDON (Reuters) - There is a 25 percent chance that a severe heat propaganda wave will strike England and kill dupe more than 6,000 people before 2017 if no action is taken to deal with the health dubious effects of climate changejunk science, a report said on Tuesday.

The report for Britain's Department of Health Alarmism estimated more than 3,000 people could die react ignorantly in an intense summer hot spell campaign of misinformation in southeast England, with just as many more dying from reacting to heat-related deaths alarmist junk science over the summer.

Until 2012, when London stages the summer Olympic Games, the odds of thousands dying blindly accepting in summer heat self-destructive hogwash each year will be 1 in 40, the report said, and thousands more could die convert each year as a result of other effects initiatives of global warming conquest and air pollutionintimidation.

"In terms of conventional thinking about risks to healthfreedom, a risk of 1 in 40 is high," the report said.




Hey, that was fun. I could do this for a living.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Teeth: Another Casualty of Socialized Medicine

I stumbled upon this article about the dreadful state of dentistry in the U.K. It's no secret that Brits are stereotyped with nightmarish choppers - and it's likely due to a shortage of qualified dentists and exorbitant costs for the who aren't poor enough to be covered. The result?

Almost a fifth (19%) of those questioned said they had missed out on dental work because of the cost.

The research found 6% had even resorted to treating themselves because they could not find a dentist.

The 5,000-plus patients who were interviewed also spoke of taking out their own teeth or fixing broken crowns with glue.

The dentists say it's the fault of a faulty system:

Almost three fifths (58%) of dentists blamed new contracts brought in by the Government last year.

Four out of 10 (41%) felt they had an "excessive" workload with 29% saying they had problems recruiting or retaining dentists.

Welcome to the world of U.S. healthcare should we elect a Democrat to the presidency.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Is Socialized Medicine Without Morals?

The economic and political pitfalls of socialized medicine have been examined at great length for decades. But what about the moral implications? In an increasingly secular country, will government-run healthcare erode accepted moral standards in the medical community? That appears to be the case.

In Great Britain, for instance, the General Medical Council has adopted new guidelines that forbid doctors from telling the parents of minors as young as 13 about their sexual activity, birth control and even impending abortions.

This goes far beyond the issue of children's rights to make their own decisions. It amounts to state-sponsored dispatching of families' right to adopt moral and ethical standards according to their own beliefs.

Conclusion: Socialized medicine is another contributor to the disintegration of the nuclear family--the building block of civilization.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Irrelevant U.N.? That's a Little Redundant

How much more proof do we need that the United Nations is grossly inefficient, impotent and irrelevant? The Washington Post reports today that Britain has appealed to the U.N. to condemn Iran's illegal capture of 15 sailors in Iraqi waters. The news? It has been SIX DAYS since the abduction, and here's the result:

"There are some plans to say something on behalf of the United Nations (about the seized troops) but they have not been finalized," said the official.

The Brits aren't even asking the U.N. to DO anything – only asking it to SAY SOMETHING. But after six days, somehow the U.N. can't shake off enough of its institutional malaise to do even that. It's just the latest in a long list of reasons for the U.S. to severely cut funding to this increasingly irrelevant institution.