Forum Post: Is this what FREE healthcare will look like?
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 20, 2012, 11:07 a.m. EST by BannedForTruth
(233)
from Christiana, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment[1] (also known as the Tuskegee syphilis study or Public Health Service syphilis study) was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.[1]
The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama; 399 who had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 201 without the disease. For participating in the study, the men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood," a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.
The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards; primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease they were studying. Revelation of study failures by a whistleblower led to major changes in U.S. law and regulation on the protection of participants in clinical studies. Now studies require informed consent (with exceptions possible for U.S. Federal agencies which can be kept secret by Executive Order[2]), communication of diagnosis, and accurate reporting of test results.[3]
By 1947, penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis. Choices available to the doctors involved in the study might have included treating all syphilitic subjects and closing the study, or splitting off a control group for testing with penicillin. Instead, the Tuskegee scientists continued the study without treating any participants and withholding penicillin and information about it from the patients. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to others in the area.[4] The study continued, under numerous US Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press eventually resulted in its termination. The victims of the study included numerous men who died of syphilis, wives who contracted the disease, and children born with congenital syphilis.[5]
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history,"[6] led to the 1979 Belmont Report and the establishment of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).[7] It also led to federal laws and regulations requiring Institutional Review Boards for the protection of human subjects in studies involving human subjects. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) manages this responsibility within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[8]
continued at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
Continued research for richardkentgates about healthcare myths: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=myths+about+canadian+helpcare#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=canadian+health+care+problems&pbx=1&oq=canadian+health+care+problems&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l1l40163l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=957448a6680b1d77&biw=1309&bih=661
One hundred plus comments, and nobody mentions that six hundred people were physically abused by their own government?
Many died from that abuse, or lack of duty of care, and their partners and children were infected by this treatable condition on purpose?
Are you really all that heartless?
It is absolutely atrocious this happened and is in different ways still happening. Whats even more sickening is the doctors did this because they hate blacks. Even if you are a racist scum that believes in eugenics, you are building the world your family will live in.
The doctors were public servants. Probably low-level science researchers of chemists.
This was a government department, rather than a privateer organisation.
Easy to believe when you realise that some kind of dirty nuclear bomb has been used in Iraq, and by the IDF in Palestine.
A large premiss of the eugenics movement is racial hygiene and it remains one of the driving factors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene
Are you talking about the DU that is killing many with cancer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFqyK8kB1Vk and the dumb ass troops don't realize they will die from it to they are breathing it.
Naah, it's worse than that, buddy.
It sickens me. I'll just give you the link. I don't want to read through it again.
http://rt.com/news/uranium-birth-defects-fallujah-729/
wow even more phucked
It's genocide. Sickening.
And you're right, the troops are exposed to it as well.
Repatriating veterans costs a squillion. Better to have them die young.
i am sure some probably agree with you sarcasm too.
i personally have grown up in a free state run medical system. its call TRICARE. its what you get when your in the military. from my long experience with it i can tell you that it is absolutely amazing when it comes to setting a broken arm, fixing a cough, and things like that. but when something major comes up like ACL surgery, get in line. there could be a wait for several months. when my uncle living in England discovered that he has mesothelioma, he had to wait for 60 days to see a specialist. it was incredible. once they realize that you could die, they kick back and wait. in short, socialized medicine works great for the little things but is HORRENDOUS for anything else.
Yeah, the reason the lines are shorter in a for-profit system is because you're taking people out of line for not being able to pay. I am not willing to take people out of line just to see a doctor sooner. I'd prefer they make it efficient in other ways and still treat everyone.
Hey everyone, make health care efficient in other ways! Well that takes care of that problem.
Boiling down the argument i get from the universal healthers is: The systems are basically equally as shitty but they want the government to deiced who dies not money. humm fishy
This is a fair point, although I'm not an expert on this, and I don't know whether your anecdotal experience applies broadly, but we should be open minded--and if objective evidence shows that private insurance can deliver better quality healthcare, then fine.
However, I'm inclined to think the picture is more complicated than this. Medicare insures our senior citizens for significantly less than the cost of private insurance for young workers, and our senior citizens are very happy with Medicare. Also, Tricare (something I'm familiar with as a service member) is pretty good, assuming you have Tricare standard (where you use civilian doctors). There is obviously a co-pay, and active duty members have to use Tricare prime (no co-pays, but you're stuck with the TMC or the hospital on base as your primary provider, so you obviously lack choice, and there can be longer waits in some cases).
On the other hand, my understanding is Medicaid is absolutely terrible (although I have no personal experience with Medicaid). Also, there's hybrid medical insurance providers, like third party administrators, which do a good job of restraining costs, while achieving good patient satisfaction rates.
My point is ... we should appreciate the complexity of this issue, however, I strongly believe we must insure everyone (though I'm open to how we do it).
Thank you for your story, it is funny people that have never dealt with it try to act like they know everything about it.
Equating 'free at the point of use', Universal Healthcare with the terrible events which happened at Tuskegee is deeply disingenuous and the actions of a de facto Troll !
Your exhortation for continued supine acceptance of the healthcare status quo in the U$A and your invitation for people to behave like 'Turkeys voting for Christmas', is actually immoral and may well have Karmic perturbations and implications, for you personally !!
Go and see if Canadians, Japanese, Antipodeans and Europeans wish to give up their Universal Healthcare. Like anywhere in the world, the very best healthcare can probably be purchased by the extremely wealthy wherever they are, but what of The 99% ?!!! Does your heart & mind stretch to consideration for them and their welfare ?!!
Or are you a 'mind managed' ; 'Free'-Market Funda'mentalist' ; pro-Corporatist ; Randian Psychopath, who has swallowed the Puerile Propaganda of The Prophets of Profit ?!
Good luck with securing corrective treatment for your possible psychopathy &
nosce te ipsum ...
"healthcare can probably be purchased" Still living on HOPE and CHANGE? still voting Obama?
Dolt ! Unable to address the points & still talking outta your (x) I see !! F*ck Oblah-blah, he's just a Crypto-Corporatist, who isn't even that 'crypto' !!!
[Removed]
Why would you base your free health care on something so old. Just look at Canada, Sweden, and other modern developed countries for inspiration.
As being a person who has actually dealt with Canadian healthcare no thanks. Its great for things like overly prescribed medicine but don't get a serious problem you just may die waiting.
you bring up a great point about over-subscription and over-utilization. that's what socialized healthcare (eg., medicare) leads to. it is inevitable. and that means it costs the taxpayers alot of money; and also that the big pharma companies can dip their hands in the public coffers.
Considering that health care costs in countries that have a universal system are about half of what they are in the USA, your speculation about "inevitable" rising costs are inverted. Although the costs for Medicare are rising, they are doing so at a lower rate than they are in private health care. What's more, in publicly controlled health care systems, the price of meds is controlled, unlike in for-profit systems. So once again you are inaccurate.
true that other countries allocate their health capital much better than the US gov't does, ours is bigger and more difficult to manage and produces lesser results. however, while unit costs (like say a pill or MRI) may come down as the government dictates, literally, what it will pay, it is very well accepted by CMS that overutilization occurs in the current system and they predict it will get worse--they study it and there are many many academic and other studies that i've read. i used to be an executive at a radiology company with 23 centers, which is why i read all that esoteric material. anyway, the causes are that there are profit motivated care providers, profit motivated suppliers of drugs and equipment, and it's tough to second guess doctors. in addition, from my experience the marketing, such as pharma sales reps. or our radiology reps. really do alot of damage--sometimes they sleep with doctors, bribe them with tickets, or vacations, then they get their bonuses... some of this is illegal under the anti- kickback statute, but it still is rampant.
I absolutely agree that medicine for profit is the problem. That's an argument for ridding this country of the fee for service, private model in favor of single payer, universal health care.
As to Big Pharma, I agree. I had a roommate who became a physician assistant. He used to regale me with the stories of the pharma reps hosting lunches, giving away all sorts of freebies, etc, in order to get the medical students in their pockets. (This roommate never once accepted so much as a ball point pen or sandwich, but noted how many of his peers were eager to take everything offered.)
i agree totally. so why did it seem like you were deriding me? the blockade to the single payor universal health system has always been for profit entities + AMA fear mongering that we need huge profits if you want us to innovate and we'll lose medical talent to other fields if the government gets involved. which will result in lower quality of care. their sales pitch is that providers would be dealing with a monopoly that would seek to squeeze profits, but I think the overutilization as well as just having more people covered would offset losses from lower pricing... volume based profits like wal mart business model.
My apologies. When you mentioned over-utilization, I thought you were talking about it in relation to universal (so-called "free") health care which clearly is not the case.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Any sources for your supposed facts?
Lots. Look them up. Google is a wonderful tool. Unlike you, I check my facts BEFORE posting.
I won;t provide you with links. You will, as you have always done, simply deny their factual basis, without providing any of your own sources. Besides, you don't deserve the effort, troll.
So you have none? lol and lol
I have plenty. Go find your own.
Is that a tear running down your cheek? You are such an obvious liar it is insane or you are just insane.
"You do realize that the us has social medicine right?"
No, idiot, it doesn't. That's the WHOLE POINT.
I'm done with you, You can copy and paste any other unrelated drivel you want, I will no longer respond.
I will say this though, and it is without a thimbleful of malice. I really think, seriously, that you need help. I have never encountered, except when I was working with kids with learning disabilities, anyone with as disorganized a thought process as you. I suspect you have ADHD. Get help. Get a diagnosis, Get on meds. Something. You have a real problem and it needs to be addressed. I'm not joking or trying to hurt your feelings. Get some professional help before your life gets worse. Many learning disabilities can be managed, and there is no shame about them. the only shame is not getting the treatment you need.
Hello, pot, meet kettle. Time to start taking your meds again.
You secretly like me don't you, are you a female? LOL You make an argument with no proof then get mad that i ask you for a source. I am LOLzing hard at your style here.
I simply don't throw pearls to swine.
You have been shown proof on many occasions, all of which you have dismissed. Go find your own. It's easy.
You are the only one that has made this particular claim __"Considering that health care costs in countries that have a universal system are about half of what they are in the USA, your speculation about "inevitable" rising costs are inverted. Although the costs for Medicare are rising, they are doing so at a lower rate than they are in private health care. What's more, in publicly controlled health care systems, the price of meds is controlled, unlike in for-profit systems. So once again you are inaccurate"_ So where is your proof? Also what i have been doing with you and others is called debate and that is how people learn more and come to better understandings.
Reply to post below.
Look at ALL of Europe. Medical outcomes are better. Life expectancy is better. Preventative care is better. On virtually every single measure, universal health care comes out as better than our fee for service, for-profit care.
I noticed you did NOT rebut my response to your your last post. You just throw some dirt into the air. Did you not notice in the article you pointed to that the USA is ranked BELOW the UK for the very same thing? This is why you are censored. You don't even read your own sources.
As for bankruptcy is better to be broke or dead? Maybe try filing bankruptcy!!!
That was a rebuttal you showed how many people die in the "un-socalized" US for lack of healthcare coverage. So i showed you that the UK the prime example almost all social medicine advocates use has some of the most preventable deaths in the world as well. Look at the damn link it is the London telegraph. So your argument holds no water.
reply to your idiocy below.
The government decides what, exactly, with a single payer system? Did you NOT read ANY of the links you demanded and I finally agree to provide? Not ONE????? Really? Not a single one?
Or did you read one and then, 5 minutes later, forgot what it said?
ALL public (as opposed to private) health care systems have BETTER results than ours. EVERY SINGLE ONE. It is NOT a "utopian" system. It exists. ALL OF EUROPE has a version of it.
Pull the "morality card"? This WHOLE MOVEMENT is about morality. It is about the immorality of corruption, the immorality of subverting democracy with money, the immorality of obscene income disparity, the immorality of no universal health care. You're damned right i pulled the morality card, idiot. Anyone who would prefer to see 45,000 people a year die in the US because of lack of access to health insurance, is a scumbag. Anybody who says "let them declare bankcrutpcy if they want to live, is a scumbag, That's you, scumbag.
Your insane solution to a health care system in crisis is for individuals to declare bankruptcy or die. And you've got the unmitigated GALL to imply that I'm a Nazi?
Fuck you.
"As for bankruptcy is better to be broke or dead? Maybe try filing bankruptcy!!!"
How is that a response to my post? Jesus, it's like pushing on string with you.
Bankruptcy is a valid health care solution? Impoverishing yourself and your children is good health care policy?
You are either extremely stupid, or you need some health care of your own: psychiatric.
I would prefer bankruptcy to death but maybe id just die if i had kids to worry about. IDK Funny that you would pull the morality card. You want to switch to a system with almost as many preventable deaths that in effect lets the government decide who lives or dies and i am the bad guy? So how do you purpose we pay for this utopian system? Maybe we can do what the most famous National Socialists did , kill?
reply to post below.
You claimed there was socialized medicine in the US. I responded. Your putting up this health care issue in the UK has NO BARING on that.
What's more.........
Did you not notice in the article you pointed to that the USA is ranked WELL BELOW the UK for the very same thing? If nothing else, it provides more evidence for MY side of the argument.
You don't even read your own sources.
What's wrong with you?
Well almost right under it i see but the US has socialized medicine to. So what is the point of switching to something just as bad? You do realize that the us has social medicine right?
United States See also: Health care in the United States, Health care reform in the United States, and Health insurance in the United States
The Veterans Health Administration, the military health care system,[122] and the Indian Health Service are examples of socialized medicine in the stricter sense of government administered care, although for limited populations.[citation needed]
Medicare and Medicaid are forms of publicly funded health care, which fits the looser definition of socialized medicine.[citation needed] Part B coverage (Medical) requires a monthly premium of $96.40 (and possibly higher) and the first $135 of costs per year also fall to the senior and not the government.[123]
A poll released in February 2008, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Harris Interactive, indicated that Americans are currently divided in their opinions of socialized medicine, and this split correlates strongly with their political party affiliation.[124] Two-thirds of those polled said they understood the term "socialized medicine" very well or somewhat well.[citation needed] When offered descriptions of what such a system could mean, strong majorities believed that it means "the government makes sure everyone has health insurance" (79%) and "the government pays most of the cost of health care" (73%). One-third (32%) felt that socialized medicine is a system where "the government tells doctors what to do".[citation needed] The poll showed "striking differences" by party affiliation. Among Republicans polled, 70% said that socialized medicine would be worse than the current system. The same percentage of Democrats (70%) said that a socialized medical system would be better than the current system. Independents were more evenly split, with 43% saying socialized medicine would be better and 38% worse.[citation needed] According to Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health, "The phrase ‘socialized medicine' really resonates as a pejorative with Republicans. However, that so many Democrats believe that socialized medicine would be an improvement is an indication of their dissatisfaction with our current system." Physicians' opinions have become more favorable toward "socialized medicine".[citation needed][124]
A 2008 survey of doctors, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that physicians support universal health care and national health insurance by almost 2 to 1.[125]
Reply to post below.
Our "social programs" for health care are a bad joke. 45,000 people a year die from lack of access to health insurance in the USA. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
The number ONE reason for bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/ http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
Rationing care is hardly a factor. Access is the issue.
UK 'among worst for preventable deaths'
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
12:01AM GMT 08 Jan 2008
Britain has one of the highest death tolls from treatable conditions despite record investment in healthcare, new research shows.
In a blow for the NHS, the UK is still languishing near the bottom of a league table, ranked in 16th place out of 19 developed countries for deaths from treatable conditions.
More than a quarter of deaths among men and a third of deaths in women under the age of 75 in the UK in 2002-03 were from conditions considered treatable, compared with 15 per cent for men and 25 per cent for women in France.
The league table was devised to measure the quality of different healthcare systems in similar countries.
The calculations, by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, were based on deaths from conditions such as bacterial infections, treatable cancers, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and complications of common surgical procedures. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574906/UK-among-worst-for-preventable-deaths.html
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_on_hea_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/runaway-health-care-costs-were-1/ http://www.creditloan.com/blog/2010/03/01/healthcare-costs-around-the-world/
We have many social medicine programs here at both the state and federal level, so you have to take that into account for our out of control costs. Also the reason they are so expensive here, is America is very unhealthy, rationing care is also a factor. See this is the purpose of debate even though we disagree we put our points out there and maybe others will help with their analysis.
You know how I can tell you're full of shit? I also had a friend back in my 20s that traveled back and forth, he never decided to move here. I won't lie and say I have personal experience with the Canadian healthcare system, but I would say by your regurgitation of a american conservative talking point, the fact that we get Canadian tourists her every winter that I get a chance to talk with, that you don't either.
here i missed this sorry https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=myths+about+canadian+helpcare#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=canadian+health+care+problems&pbx=1&oq=canadian+health+care+problems&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l1l40163l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=957448a6680b1d77&biw=1309&bih=661
Maybe the reason you talk to people that are happy with it is because e they never had a major problem.
Are you prevented from purchasing private healthcare in Canada? So that was more of a "couldn't afford it" situation. Guess what happens when you can't pay for cancer treatment here? There is no waiting list in the US for those that cannot afford it, so I would say that the guy had to wait for assistance is better than none at all when you can't afford it. The beauty in the healthcare reform we have is that doctors will not be compensated any less from the mandate to carry health insurance, so they will be just as motivated when the mandate goes into effect as they are now. The increase in the number of insured will fund research, create jobs and drive medical manufacturing to new heights. The healthcare reform that passed will also reduce the number of people that qualify for government healthcare and opens the door to doing away with workers comp as that would be an overlap of coverage and your employer would be paying a portion of that just as they would for workers comp. The legislation is far from socialized medicine, it's closer to the truth to call it forced capitalism. Let us not forget the cost of unpaid bills now are a tax deduction or added to the operating cost of hospitals and drive up the cost to those who can afford it, the mandate will stop shoving the cost of these unpaid bills onto paying customers and make everyone responsible and able to pay their own medical bills.
Right it is better to die waiting then be able to get it if you can afford it? Not to mention that is medical fascism and a completely failed system. Also government involvement is what drives those prices up making that "death panel" list grow and grow. Competition lowers prices FACT http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4345
Yes, competition does lower prices. How does the legislation reduce or constrain competition? The mandate is to carry private health insurance, so I think you may be drifting with the notion of government involvement. The absurdity of death panels and the other portion of your rebuttal tell me you are not actually familiar with the facts of the legislation. I have no interest in debating with those who are to lazy to familiarize themselves with fact before raising a debate on the issue. Get back to me once you have familiarized yourself with the actual legislation or are willing to have the hard debate without acting like a child.
Obamacare driving up prices already:. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/business/health-insurance-costs-rise-sharply-this-year-study-shows.html?pagewanted=all Death panels explained: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/5747-reality-check-obamacare-a-death-panels
And i can't stand Palin
The price increase is a last minute cash grab before price controls go into effect. They are primarily from the manufacturers because they know competition will become fierce once the legislation goes into effect and insurance companies because the Dod-Frank legislation will soon bring an end to the incestuous relationship between deposit banking and insurance companies.
Your first article is prefaced with "How much of that is due to ObamaCare is debatable"
The second article has this caveat
What that says is that the decisions to withhold healthcare resources are a state budget problem, it's happening now(the legislation has yet to be implemented). The article itself contradicts it's own title.
Are you reading this stuff before using it to back you argument? So far it only makes you look like your grasping at Fox straws rather then thinking for yourself to form your own argument.
What are you talking about?
I played hockey for 15yrs i competed in the Silver stick hockey tournament in Canada. It is the North American junior hockey finals but hey i could be lying. http://topnews.us/content/245219-patients-dying-while-waiting-medical-treatment
That was a user submitted story, not one officially presented by any reputable reporter. Secondly, the article you provided was for Australia. You can read I assume?
so fact check it you lazy apathetic sloth.
Probably not.
Really did you get your H1N1 shot?
No.
No, it'll look more like the Post Office that still denies the existence of email.
Sound like nazi Germany. Everybody knows FDR was scared shitless of Japanese Americans, but to pull a study like this off? Sicko. The push for medical records to be in one government data base is a horrible invasion of privacy. I don't want Obama care.
Notice they already censored this thread. It does not show on the right hand column ----------------->under public forum.
Censorship is totally un-American.
I think that IF you were able to honestly reflect, you'd find "censorship" is Very American !!!
It's just that after a life time of 'mind-management' and programmed propaganda from The Corporate MSM (ABCNNBCBS, FUX-SNEWzzz et al), you just don't see or feel it !!
A bit like the 'slowly boiling frog' !
ad iudicium ...
So is socialism
WTF do you think you really know about "socialism" that has NOT been spoon fed to you by your Corporate Overlords, you 'mind-managed' propagandised Gimp ?!
Ever heard of the "Stockholm Syndrome" ?!!
'Gnothi Seauton' !!!
I know the Nazis were national socialists. I know that social programs run at the state level is not socialism. I know that healthcare run at the national level is a failure and socialism. I know that social programs can fail at the state level too and is preferable to a national failure. LOLOLOL You mad bro?
NAZIS ?!!!
The only thing that you should know and meditate upon is The Undeniable Fact that you don't know SH!T "bro" !!
Please read : http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defence-of-the-broad-church-of-socialism-from-t/ ... IF you wish to at least attempt to start to 'de-programme' yourself and reclaim your own mind from Your Dark Overlords and Their "Corporatism" !
fiat lux ...
Show me an example of socialism working? BTY maybe the reason you think so many are brainwashed is because you are?
The short answer to Q1 is, The Great British NHS !!! + BTW it's "BTW" and from your Q2, it's clear that Any Answer I give is unacceptable to you, ipso facto !!
Click the link in my reply above and at least attempt to engage and re-start what has been left of your brain, after a lifetime's mis-education ! Actually, bypass your brain and see if you can jump-start and activate your 'Heart Centre' instead ;-)
It's Friday night & I'm off out now but I promise to answer any genuine questions, later on.
pax et lux ...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=e8MZT7KKIumSiQLvns3jCA&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQBSgA&q=british+national+health+care+system+failure&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ba3c19829345ca2f&biw=1296&bih=661 the British system failed
Oh Dear !!!
You think that you know better than 60 million Brits, do you ?!!
Further, you put "failure" in your search criteria and 'surprise, surprise' you managed in obtaining some results ! Whereas you could simply have looked in any mirror !
I'd have had a proper exchange with you if you hadn't have been such a 'Darkside' & 'Sith Programmed' Dolt so instead I'll laugh about you with my mates down the pub ~{:-p)
Have a nice life ...
What makes you think all brits like their "free" healthcare? I know and have heard many complain about the wait list and options for a long while.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=briton+died+waiting+for+health+care&pbx=1&oq=briton+died+waiting+for+health+care&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12255l14887l0l15540l16l13l0l0l0l10l698l5508l3-2.7.3l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=ba3c19829345ca2f&biw=1296&bih=661
hey dipshit -
you and your paranoid ravings have no basis in reality . . .
the thread you are on does not appear on the right column -
you fool
You are right i am wrong, just so used to being censored here.
Do you realize that the issue of Human Experimentation is entirely separate from and independent of Universal Health Care?
The Boston Globe ran a series of articles over a four day period in 1998, illustrating that violations of the principle of informed consent were common among a portion of the population of mentally ill -
they documented instances of what is called:
where a mentally ill individual was taken off their medication, with the consequence of suicide in many cases.
There were also ketamine experiments.
The issue of who will pay for healthcare is completely unrelated to the basic,
and very important question
This has, in fact, been a subject of some . . . interest . . . of mine,
It is not entirely separate as you could read above. As medicine is a practice they always test on the public like H1N1. And the reason this ties together is because last year many politicians and doctors wanted to make H1N1 vaccine mandatory. Obviously they could not do that but they then decided with universal healthcare they can choose to not cover you if you don't do as your doctor says like take the H1N1.
I've been taking vaccinations of a variety of kinds all my life - with no discernible adverse affects.
That may not be true for everyone - and we do need some reliable science free from political or economic influence on this issue.
As far as I can tell, the H1N1 as a vaccine was far less experimental than the issues raised in your forum post.
the earth has been swept by pandemic before - the 1918 flu, the plague of 1348, and given that our society is far more mobile today than at any time in history, it stands to reason that any similar event will sweep through the global population much faster than ever possible before.
Given the fact of global warming it seems entirely likely that we will at some point in the near future, perhaps within this century, face such a challenge as that posed by pandemic.
You do raise an interesting point regarding mandatory healthcare - one that should perhaps be addressed if it has not - yet it seems great care must be taken to ensure that CDC efforts to safeguard the public are not undermined in the process.
Notice how long it has been for a major pandemic in the modernized world? Notice it coincides with the advent of sanitation?
What?
Europe of 1348 had engaged in a process of sanitation . . .
I had not heard that -
We could perhaps examine the issue of geopolitical conflict of the era and come to some completely other conclusion . . .
What using buckets of water to run the piss and shit into their canals, real clean. You do realize they threw their filth in the street right?
you are the one who said:
not me.
Meaning that since we started using sewers and all that pandemics have stopped. I mean really did you not get that or are you trying to confuse the issue?
Um, no. The influenza pandemic of 1918 killed millions, far more that all the deaths caused by WW1. There were sewers by then. The pandemic of AIDS in the 1980s and currently occurs in all countries, regardless of their sewer systems.
The reason we have seen fewer pandemics today is BECAUSE of things like the H1N1 flu vaccine.
What a fool.
Do you just fart "facts" out your ass at will?
The "pandemic" of AIDS is also caused by lack of sanitation better put a rubber on your jimmy stupid._ The influenza epidemic of 1918 is perhaps one of the deadliest natural disasters our planet has ever experienced.
With an estimated 50 million deaths or more, the 1918 flu, which some believe was actually an H1N1 epidemic, killed more people than World War I. (1)
Could something so devastating happen to us again?
In 1918, the average man only lived to be 53, and the average woman to 54. Infant mortality was high as well. Illnesses that seem like an annoyance to most people today, such as diarrhea, were often deadly at this time in history.
Part of the problem was a lack of sanitation. People didn’t understand the significance of germs, and they came to believe that dirt was the cause of illness.
While the resulting focus on cleaning up the cities and improving sanitation certainly helped, it did not present the whole picture. The Evolution of Medical Science
During the 1918 flu, doctors were also not as skilled as they are today. Even though doctors were required to have actual medical training as early as 1900, those that had been practicing medicine previous to that time were allowed to continue.
The combination of untrained doctors and the lack of understanding regarding germs, viruses and bacteria, meant that many people were not properly diagnosed and not properly treated. (2)
Fortunately, today we know far more about the actual causes of disease, as well as the importance of proper sanitation.
Doctors receive many years of rigorous training and the general public is far more educated about ways to prevent and treat influenza.
Does that mean we are completely safe from a future pandemic?
Consider that in 2009, a variant of the H1N1 influenza virus of 1918 again struck fear into the world. Thankfully, it was not as deadly as the 1918 flu outbreak. What We Know Could Kill Us
However, it’s important not to forget that scientists have created a new strain of H5N1 (bird flu) that is extremely contagious and deadly.
So deadly, in fact, that the government has asked scientists to leave details out of their reports that cover how the virus was mutated, in order to prevent the information from being used by bioterrorists.
1918 fluOne scientist, virologist Ron Fouchier, said it is “one of the most dangerous viruses you can make.”
Paul Keim, chair for the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, said of the virus, “I can’t think of another pathogenic organism that is as scary as this one.”
His previous work was on anthrax, which he said isn’t scary at all compared to this new virus mutation. (3)
What makes this virus so terrifying is the fact that it is spread through the air. An innocent-sounding cough could result in the spread of an incredibly deadly flu virus.
Today, people are far more mobile than they were in 1918. This simple fact could help the virus spread like wildfire.
What if this lethal virus somehow made its way – intentionally or not – out of the lab? What if bioterrorists discovered how to create it themselves?
Would the mutated virus cause another epidemic as devastating as that of 1918? Some scientists believe it to be a very strong possibility. And with the government trying to censor the details of these findings, will the public really be protected?
Or will that censorship simply prevent faster progress toward learning how to control the beast that they have already created?
What does this have to do with sewers? You wrote: "since we started using SEWERS and all that pandemics have stopped"
Obviously not.
Flu shots, provided by the government, have prevented pandemics in our lifetime. Vaccines, provided by the government, have all but stopped the Polio pandemic of the 1950s. (Doctors and the public knew about germs by then, so the pandemic wasn't caused by lack of hygiene.) Measles, Mumps, and Rubella pandemics have slowed to a crawl because of government provided vaccines.
Go to mommy. Her tits are calling.
OMG I was using examples of sanitation. Here you go for an example of vaccines not helping at all http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/14/health/main5242168.shtml
I see you didn't make much headway . . . I'm not really sure what the point of the copy/paste is below, if not to instill and so capitalize on some latent degree of paranoia . . .
Kinda reminds me of the African leaders who refused medical treatment for HIV on the basis of a complete lack of trust . . . . given that trust is such a fundamental component in human interaction, I find one more very good reason for
LOL Here comes zendog the wannabe Stalinist. Why is it these utopian ideas always need a "great culling" to work? The reason they run is the mass death that follows the "love" jab. The people know about Eugenics and killers like you. http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/03/eugenics-vaccine-kills-more-children/
No, actually, it won't look like that. :/
You sound very confident do you ever read the insert for your shots?
Oh, I am very confident. In fact, I probably have more knowledge of the US history of experiments and eugenics movement. What you are attempting to do is utilize fear mongering. It won't work. I'm sorry that it will cut into your profit.
I take only the shots that are required by my work and no more. I don't do flu shots.
"required by my work" ... so none? A job forcing you to take shots is not freedom. So are you a slave? Also i noted you did not say you read the insert. Ill tell you a summery of the insert it has a better chance of killing you then stopping a cold. http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa011604a.htm - http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/25/university-of-minnesota-flu-vaccine-study/ - http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html
required by "work" is not the same as required by "employer." I can think of any number of jobs that require inoculation. Too many of us make erroneous assumptions based on how we read a statement, and then react to our assumption. Most assumptions about people and places about which we are personally ignorant are usually wrong.
None require it nor can they even make Nurses.
Bwahahahahaha. No. I have required vaccinations. I work with people that may or may not have some type of untreated medical conditions. But, hey the reality is that you are fearmongering. I am not a slave, but thanks for your concern.
If the truth scares you then maybe you should stick your head back in the sand. I could call you and your leftist friends fear mongers cause id be scared shitless if you and yours ever had real power.
It is not truth that is scary; it is people who dredge up past events that have long been known and thoroughly renounced by all to scare people who may not have heard of them. Good grief, there are plenty of things going on right now that are scary enough!
We do have real power. See, it's people like me and Jart that run the web and guess what, we just faced down Hollywood's' last gasp for political domination and we are winning. We are now, we are your future. Welcome.
I would have never guessed the site was run by commies big shock. Is that why the site censors so much? Is that why the numbers and visitors on the site have shrunk so much? Would have never ever guessed!! Guess what OWS is mostly Ron PauI supports on the ground. LOLOLOLOL
Really? I'm a pro-capitalist and hate Ron PauI. But your heading in the same direction everyone heads when they are backed into a corner of fact and articulation, so I'm assuming your done defending you troll post now.
Oh am i then why do you have no facts or argument then? I have posted no lie and you have posted no rebuttal.
Did you not click the link I provided you?
I see you have a profile to point people to like zendog but that has nothing to to with this thread. What are you even debating?
Why Are you here? You obviously don't like this place. It keeps censoring you. Gee, I wonder why. What do you actually think this site was set up for? Do you even know? You were obviously weened too soon and need attention now. Go ask your mommy if you can suck on her tits again.
I am an occupier i just see things differently then some on this site but not on the ground. Our system is broken i want our liberty back. I want to brings the federal reserve and wall.st to justice for ripping us off. Why are you here?
You occupy nothing but a wheelbarrow full of shit. Your presence hurts the movement. You are a troll.
You complain that you have been censored, but never asked yourself why with any level of honesty. You're lucky I'm not a mod: I would not have censored you: I would have banned your sorry, 1% loving, libertard ass.
I didn't post my profile or a link to it on this thread, how is that relevant? I'm guessing you have nothing further since you just did exactly what I just said you are doing.
What great truth do you have, Banned? History? I probably know that history better than you.
We have people that do not receive medical treatment. We have people who cannot afford medication. We have medicaid divorces. We have medical treatment denied. We have pharmaceutical companies that no longer make medication because there is no profit in it.
And the best that you have is fear. You are a joke.
All systems have those flaws at the moment, what we need is reform not a failed system.
No, Banned, all systems do not have those flaws at the moment.
The flaw here is insurance companies and profit on the misery of others.
Do you have hospitals in your state that pay property taxes? Most of them don't. Most of them don't have to, based on charity, that they pick and choose who receives. So, the rest of the people cover the taxes that they don't pay for them to pick and choose who receives what.
It's BS.