HEY, any of you fuckwad leftists still think socialized medicine is OK? I am FUMING after reading this.

Anybody who wants socialized medicine after reading this should go fuck themselves! I don't care if I get banned, any leftist that supports socialized medicine beware, I'll unload on you like never before!

Anybody who wants socialized medicine after reading this should go fuck themselves! I don't care if I get banned, any leftist that supports socialized medicine beware, I'll unload on you like never before!

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-09 15:40:48

Yep King I still support socialized medicine, I will wait patiently.

I don't think it will be much longer before I begin openly rooting of Britain's radical Muslims to overthrow the government. As opressive and backward as Sharia law may be, they at least let their kids grow up enough to be decent-sized human shields.

Yep King I still support socialized medicine, I will wait patiently.

2009-09-09 15:55:23

Since you obviously have no problem with this innocent life, why don't you kill yourself to show us how much you're willing to support socialized medicine.

I have absolutely no sympathy for fuckwads like you who accept what happens and only hope that you will have to suffer far more than this innocent baby had to suffer. I would enjoy watching you suffer while you utter, "I love socialized medicine, I love socialized medicine."

Maybe when you're suffering, I can laugh at you and make jokes about it.

There, I said it, what are you going to do about it? If I'm banned, so be it.

quite apart from the financial implications of trying to save a child as tiny as this. The NHS is not capable of financing extraordinary efforts to save one person's life.

- Caroline, Glasgow

Once upon a time, Caroline was once as tiny as this baby yet someone had the compassion to let her live.

Well, so much for the idea of "universal" health care. Or have the Libs already stopped claiming that "everyone would be covered" under such a horrible system?

Too bad nobody had the forethought to toss whats_up into the trash when he was only a clump of cells. The world would have been better off for it.

Easy for you to toss somebody else into the trash when you're alive, isn't it whats_fucked_up?

Easy for you to toss somebody else into the trash when you're alive, isn't it whats_fucked_up?

2009-09-09 17:17:37

Liberals are all for killing a child seconds before it is born. Why shoudl they have any compunction about killing that child AFTER it is born.

Obama would do it.

How much money would it cost to "save" a "baby" like Jayden?

Why? Are you worried about profits?

That is money that cannot be used to do other things on the NHS, like save children who are already with us on this planet and maybe have cancer or have been hit by a car and need to have an operation.

Ah, so human lives will now have priority. I guess the "upper crust" of British society have priority.

Choices have to been made – not all are easy.

When you need medical help, perhaps someobdy will make the "hard choice" and let you die. That will save a lot of money.

There needs to be a cut-off, unfortunately, this means that things like this can happen but if any of us had to choose between a foetus and a child who was already born but maybe had a disease or an accident – how many of us would choose to spend the money on a foetus who would probably not survive?

There does need to be a cut-off. I say let all liberals die since they're only parasites to society. Not only will we save health care costs but we won't have freeloaders taking from the treasury.

Once again, selfishness rears its ugly head. Let the "less deserving" die to save the "enlightened." Interesting how everyone considers themselves to be worthy.

If it was between a foetus and my child, I know who I would chose.

Fortunately, in our system, third parties cannot make the choice. That will change when Obama is in power.

There needs to be a cut-off, unfortunately, this means that things like this can happen but if any of us had to choose between a foetus and a child who was already born but maybe had a disease or an accident

2009-09-09 17:30:24

The really sad and pathetic part of her letter is that this child WAS BORN, and was then denied the medical care necessary for him to remain alive.

Here is another compassionate Liberal who has decided that they can determine when life begins.

The next time they have a child in this situation, I suggest that they immediately kill Elizabeth in Cambridge and use her medical care to treat the child.

The NHS is universally despised in England and it serves as a severe, awful warning, like a pile of skulls writhing with maggots in the road: don't go here, don't go even close.

Because they cannot get rid of the National Health Service now, its permanent until England finally collapses entirely. Don't even take a step toward this, because if its not perfect and handled with exactitude and care… you'll be trapped under the crushing burden of such an evil here too.

Government programs don't go away, they just get bigger and worse.

You can see the desparation in those comments. The one saying that the NHS should help a child who has cancer instead of trying to help a newborn who came into the world a bit early. It's the rabid warfare of citizen against citizen as they all scramble for what little care is offered to them. None of them care who has to suffer and die for lack of the resources they took up.

Posted by aharris

2009-09-09 19:19:26

Well said.

Naturally, the supporters are in favor of NHS helping THEIR children but screw the others.

"Problem with this is we don't know any hardcore facts. We have a mother screaming that he was breathing on his own."

Fact is this kid would have at least gotten care if he had been born in the United States.

You liberals want to bring us a system where babies are left on a shelf to die because some government bureaucrat wrote an arbitrary guideline.

No, instead you blame the mother and call her a liar (based on your vast medical expertise, I'm sure) just because you can't possibly say anything that would damage Obama and his march to fascism.

I thought Ayn Rand was exaggerating when she said collectivist liberals worship death. Thanks for proving her right.

Posted by libliever

2009-09-09 19:15:18

"Anybody with rudimentry knowledge knows that this is just not possible."

Anybody with rudimentary knowledge knows that it is quite possible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-437236/…

and as stated in the article which is the topic of this thread, a baby has been born at under 22 weeks and survived. The fact that the baby survived two hours with no care shows that with proper neonatal care it at least had a fighting chance.

"Premies lack surfactant and the more premature the more likely they will have respiratory distress to say the least."

The fact that it is possible, or even probable, is not enough for douchebags like you to have the power to snuff out their life.

"I would like to read a first hand account by the MD who was at the scene and know for example if surfactant was an option or not."

From the article it was obvious that the doctors didn't examine the child. They aren't allowed to. It was treated as a miscarriage before it was even born.

From the article that you didn't read:

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.

So bureaucrats, not doctors are setting the rules about whether someone lives or dies…

In the end, by separating the powers of insurance, medical care, and governmental regulation, you end up with a more expensive, but far higher quality healthcare system. Combine two of the entities into a single unit, and you end up like the airline passengers stuck on a tarmac while the toilets overflow. Nobody has the courage to defy the bureaucrats for fear of losing their careers. Combine it all into a single entity and you end up like baby Jayden, dead because it's dictated so by higher ups. Nobody is even willing to question whether the regulations are humane.

Oh and get back to me when you have done a gig on a neonatal unit.

2009-09-09 19:47:26

Get back to us when you have evidence that you've paid for other people's health care out of your own pocket.

And this "gig" that you did, are you a doctor?

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-09 17:02:01

King you make me laugh every day, this rant was pretty good, sad but good, keep it up man, keep it up.

King you make me laugh every day, this rant was pretty good, sad but good, keep it up man, keep it up.

2009-09-09 20:20:09

Good, maybe we'll be lucky and somebody will put a bullet into your head. Then I'll be laughing.

How's that for a rant?

Yep King I still support socialized medicine

I see we have Whats_up openly supporting what can only be called the murder of infant children. Any other liberals want to join him?

What a bunch of fucking hypocrits, Lib will stand there and calim conservatives are heartless and mean beacuse we don't to pay for another persons healthcare through a govt plan, but have no problem snuffing out an innocent life that MIGHT cost more money to save.

Well WU you and anyone else who supports this kind of hypocritical BULLSHIT can fuck off and DIE!! You are monsters for supporting a system that allows this to happen to people who are innocent and are NEVER GIVEN A SAY IN THE MATTER!!

Well WU you and anyone else who supports this kind of hypocritical BULLSHIT can fuck off and DIE!!

Better yet, I hope somebody takes care of whats_up for the rest of society's benefit. Very painfully.

Maybe when he's in the hospital, we can pull the plug and end it.

Posted by libliever

2009-09-09 19:47:26

If this kid had been 2 days later they would have helped, Lib. TWO FUCKING DAYS DICKBAG! 2 DAYS! Also you have no idea what anyone on this site has gone through. So I say this with all my heart. Take your post, print 5 copies of it, wad them into a ball, shove the ball down your throat and choke on it.

I see your logic is failing you again, I dont support murder of infant children, never have claimed to,

But your failure of outrage proves you wrong.

I do support socialized medicine so that others wont die because they cant afford medical care, why do you want them to die mighty?

2009-09-10 11:31:24

Tell that to the mother of this baby. The baby couldn't afford heath insurance, where is he now?

Now fuck off and die a horrible death.

Please track down the % of people who die here because they can't afford med care vs. the % of people who die because of socialized medicine. Oh, I forgot. research to you = facts to you= sunlight to vampires.

2009-09-10 11:51:51

The only addition I would make to your excellent comment is the % of those people who died were denied care under Medicare, Medicaid or SCHIP.

You're right, however, whats_up isn't interested in facts.

"…we've been deficit spedning in healthcare for years and its catching up to us."

Do tell. Do you have concrete evidence of this deficit spending (I'm presuming you mean as a nation), or are you just engaging in a bit of good old-fashioned hyperbole? Right now, it would be hard to attach the blame for our national deficits to any one programme. That's not to say that we're not overspending, it's only to note that no one budget line item is the one which is at fault. When looked at individually, Medicare is paid for through block grants to the states and represents just one more line item in the budget every year. Medicare, as poorly as it's run, still isn't bankrupt – but again, since it's just another line item on the budget, who's to say that Medicare is causing our deficit.

Now, if you meant to say that some of our public health care funding programmes run at a loss, you'd be right, although loss isn't really a very meaningful concept when it comes to government spending.

My health is fine.

I have a number of suggestions which would improve Medicare.

1. – Do away with Part D – the Bush monstrosity – and replace it with a tightly analysed formulary. Wal-Mart manages to make a profit selling a formulary of the ~300 most prescribed generics. I'm sure the geniuses in DC could do the same. Let patients foot 80% of the cost of off-formulary prescriptions. Let patients express their outrage to their providers when they prescribe BigDollarDrugs™ instead of other less costly alternatives.

2 – Get Congress out of the business of setting Medicare rates directly. Neither your representatives nor mine know jack-shit about what procedures, supplies and durable medical equipment are worth, so they shouldn't be the ones deciding on that.

3 – Take Medicare off that convoluted DRG system of billing and replace it with a system which mimics what the private sector does.

4 – Eliminate the multiplier effect of 'levels of care'. If a provider knows to ask half-a-dozen questions during a patient visit, they can charge almost four times more for the consult. That's FWA just waiting to happen.

5 – Do more to audit the system and crack down on FWA. It's endemic in Medicare and needs to be stopped. Maybe hiring more independent auditors is the answer.

6 – Stop making Medicare the primary insurance for seniors who have other policies. Plenty of them have other insurance which is better and more comprehensive, but Medicare insists on being primary.

7 – Introduce a needs test for Medicare – my folks retired to a community which was crawling with seriously rich people in multi-million dollar homes – do they really need to get the full Medicare programme, or could they be needs tested to a less costly alternative.

8 – Revise the reimbursement rates for Medicare – the fact is that in large sections of the nation, a majority of providers don't take new Medicare patients, or worse, don't take Medicare period. What good is health insurance if you can't find a provider to take it? It's the low reimbursement coupled with the massive paperwork requirements which chases providers away. Here too the private sector has a much better track record in keeping providers satificed.

Do those eight things and Medicare can be turned into a self-sustaining programme, even with the baby boomers thrown into the equation. My standard challenge to this administration is to make Medicare work, if for no other reasons than it's the most broken part of our health care system, and it would be a good way to demonstrate that their ideas for saving money actually work before they try them out on the rest of us. The idea that we need this massive reform is a myth which has been out of wholecloth by political operatives with massives agendas. I would liken this whole reform movement as trying to swat a fly with a pine tree – I suppose it's technically possible to do it, but it begs the question as to why not just use a flyswatter. The truth is that about 85% of Americans have insurance, and of them, about 85% are satisfied with their insurance. That calculates out to 72% of Americans being satisfied with the way things are – why in God's good name are we imposing government into some which frankly ain't that broken?

Just one question lib – with regard to imposing needs testing e.g. treating people differently based on income, how is that any different in theory and in practice than progressive income tax? If we can tax the bejeezus out of wealthy people, while letting people who make less than $50k skate on taxes, why can't we force those who can afford it to pay more for Medicare (or conversely reduce their benefit levels)? To not do so seems very inconsistent with the whole thrust of our tax policy of the past 80 years.

Your statement that they paid their taxes and should be given their due seems upside-down to me. The wealthy have paid more into the system, and if they were to really 'get their due' they'd get more from the system than those who'd contributed less. The man or woman who's earned up to or above the FICA limit every year has contributed more to SS than the person who's only earned half of the FICA limit over the same period of time – nobody bats an eye when the higher earning person gets a bigger SS cheque every month – it's intuitively fair that they get more, since they put more in. But when it comes to Medicare, Medicare tax applies to all income, so if you make $1MM, you pay the 1.45% on the whole amount. Applying the operating theory behind SS, shouldn't that entitle you to better benefits or lower co-pays or some other advantage?

What I'm proposing is the exact opposite of progressive tax – it's progressive cost. Based on need, people's benefit from Medicare should be scaled up or down. At a time when the system is headed toward bankruptcy, doesn't it make sense to look for opportunities to cut costs where it won't negatively impact people's lives?

What I'm proposing would fit nicely with an effort to get seniors who can afford their own insurance off of Medicare. Hell, give seniors who purchase health insurance on their own a big fat deduction for every penny of premium cost on their tax returns. That'll make it not only fair, but attractive to many wealthy retirees to clear out of Medicare forever, thus unburdening the Medicare system of those fiscal liabilities.

I have no problem with government safety net programmes to help those who're less fortunate and unable to meet their own needs. But I think we need to get past this idea that Medicare is an entitlement just because someone paid into the system. That entitlement mentality is what's breaking the system. The fact is that one size doesn't fit all – which is why we have progressive income tax, progressive SS benefits and a whole host of other needs-sensitive benefits.