Karl`s PC Help Forums

National health works!
LSemmens - 7-8-2009 at 14:03

For all the complaints about National Health, especially from those who have never experienced it, I shall share a little personal story.

Whenever SWMBO needs to receive Intra Venous anything, or give blood for a blood test, it is a major issue, her veins just will not remain open long enough to allow more than a minute drop of blood to flow. (She'd never be ab;e to commit suicide by slashing her wrists). Her last surgery was held up by over an hour whilst several anaesthetists worked to find a site for a drip! During her last visit to a specialist, he ordered a specialised blood test that required an IV injection followed by three blood tests over a couple of hours. After half an hour of trying to find a vein, the bleed nurse who was most apologetic for poking and prodding for all that time and still not getting anything, suggested this as a solution to her ongoing problem, and to talk to her GP about it. The GP knew nothing about the product as it is only fairly new to these shores but suggested we talk to Deb's specialist. After a couple of phone calls, we had a call from a radiologist who knew of the product and asked many questions. We suspect that she (the Radiologist) must have spoken to one or all of the anaesthetists who have worked on Deb. To cut a long story short, we received in the mail today a letter, booking SWMBO in to have the implant access port fitted next week! Without them actually physically seeing her in relation to this procedure! Deb rang and asked some questions about the procedure as it has to be inserted into her Jugular vein, including, costs, the response..... Medicare will pay for it!

As we live on half a pension, we have no private health insurance. I can tell many wonderful stories of our treatment under the publicly funded and free, medical system. The only time that I've ever had cause to be dissatisfied is with particular personalities, never with the standard, or timing, of the care received.


scholar - 8-8-2009 at 23:06

I'm happy to read Mrs. Semmens is going to get a solution to her blood-access problem.:D


marymary100 - 8-8-2009 at 23:27

Never doubted it for a moment Leigh. I think that might be the same as a shunt which we use here for multiple tests etc.


LSemmens - 9-8-2009 at 12:31

You may be thinking of a Picc line which performs a similar function but is only temporary and not suitable for regular daily life as it can be easily dislodged. A shunt is used to transfer fluids around inside the body. SWMBO has a Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt fitted.


marymary100 - 12-8-2009 at 10:05

In order not to start yet another thread on the NHS I'm including this information here.

I'm sure this will astound you, but vested interests are spreading falsehoods about the NHS in America. Not that anyone here would be foolish enough to believe the slick ads I'm sure.

Guardian

The British way of doing things is to quietly correct the blatant falsehoods of people like Chuck Grassley in the background but sad to say this means that the lies, damned lies and statements of vested interests continues.


Daz - 12-8-2009 at 10:51

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
In order not to start yet another thread on the NHS I'm including this information here.

I'm sure this will astound you, but vested interests are spreading falsehoods about the NHS in America. Not that anyone here would be foolish enough to believe the slick ads I'm sure.

Guardian

The British way of doing things is to quietly correct the blatant falsehoods of people like Chuck Grassley in the background but sad to say this means that the lies, damned lies and statements of vested interests continues.


Amazing that anybody buys into that nonsense. A simple Google, looking at news sites, not blogs, would surely throw up a hefty dose of reality and truths regarding the NHS, at least enough to make you question the evidence, surely....?


marymary100 - 12-8-2009 at 10:53

If you were intelligent I think you would do that.

However no-one ever lost money underestimating the laziness of the voting public.


scholar - 12-8-2009 at 11:49

Limbaugh did not compare "the Swastika" to Obama's health organizing symbol. He said Obama's symbol reminded him of a WWII symbol (which includes the swastika). Compare for yourself. Obama's symbol, which features wings above an Obama symbol:


scholar - 12-8-2009 at 11:54

Here is a WWII symbol, which includes an eagle (with its wings) above a swastika.

Obama's symbol uses a version of the traditional symbol for medicine, with two snakes entwined. I think a couple of snakes is indeed a fitting symbol for U.S. politicians forcing through government-controlled health care.


LSemmens - 12-8-2009 at 12:26

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
If you were intelligent I think you would do that.

However no-one ever lost money underestimating the laziness of the voting public.
Sadly, there you are correct, Mary. Deb was in day surgery today and had to be delayed owing to an emergency, and elderly patient with a blood clot got precedence. About half of the people in the recovery room were well over retirement age. I guess they were there just to warm the beds. :D


marymary100 - 12-8-2009 at 14:51

Those of us with a classical education would not have seen the swastika, rather the caduceus.

It's a shame that Americans don't seem to have a wide range of history to draw from. My American school was in a minority in providing a quality, classical education.

Americans might be better served by the Rod of Asclepius in their symbolism however.


scholar - 12-8-2009 at 16:04

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Those of us with a classical education would not have seen the swastika, rather the caduceus.

It's a shame that Americans don't seem to have a wide range of history to draw from. My American school was in a minority in providing a quality, classical education.

Americans might be better served by the Rod of Asclepius in their symbolism however.
To be sure my point is not missed: The Obama symbol reminded Rush of the Nazi symbol (he did not say the Obama symbol was a swastika, and he did not focus on the swastika part of the Nazi symbol. The resemblance is in the wings of the caduceus over a political symbol, compared to the wings of an eagle over a political symbol.. The IRONY (my main point) is that the UK Guardian got the details wrong in its article, even as it criticized some opponents of Democrat health reconstruction for getting details wrong in describing UK NHS.

For the record, I agree with the Guardian that references to the NHS should be accurate and factual. Graessley's reference to Senator Kennedy's care is one example. I remember reading an early article about Senator Kennedy's care, which mentioned, that his treatment included use of a specific very expensive medicine (named in the article) for which the NHS would not pay. It had been considered/evaluated, and it was not thought to be worth it to spend so much money for the medical benefit that it would be to some people. So, it would be correct to say that Senator Kennedy would not have gotten exactly the same treatment from the NHS that he got here--which is a far cry from saying he would not have been treated!shocked_yellow

Presently, there are many kinds of health insurance, and the laws governing them are different from state to state. Some states burden everyone in the state by listing lots of things that all the health insurance policies must cover--with the result that the policies in that state become much more expensive. If a national law were passed which said one could buy any policy, written in any state, then we would have the savings of free market competition. For example, men could buy policies for themselves that do not include coverage for mammograms. People who do not engage in HIV-risky behavior could buy policies which do not cover it at a cheaper price. People for whom mental health coverage was important could pick a policy from a state where premium coverage has been written for it.

As Badgergirl has fairly written, in the NHS, some people will be happy, while some will be disappointed, depending on whether their needs line up with what the NHS is approving. If the US expand insurance opitions to hundreds, instead of shrinking them toward a single US government standard, we have more chances of getting it right. Since the US government has mismanaged the finances of Medicare and Medicaid, and the VA hospitals have horror stories, and Indian health care is a miserable failure, it doesn't make sense to hand over the parts of health care that the U.S. government has not yet ruined to the politicians.


scholar - 12-8-2009 at 16:09

But, let's return to the point of the original post. Mrs. Semmens has gotten good care during a trying illness. AND, health care people looking out for her suggested a device which will improve the administration of intravenous medicines as needed, significantly. They were looking out for her welfare, and came up with a good plan that will result in a continuing benefit to her. Well done!

Just because U.S. politicians have done a bad job on every aspect of health care they've touched, doesn't mean it can't work anywhere else.:)


marymary100 - 12-8-2009 at 16:31

BG hasn't written in this thread at all has she?

In any case it would be more accurate to say that the vast majority would be satisfied and a small minority would not be.


Redwolf5150 - 12-8-2009 at 17:26

If this uneducated, ill informed, anti-Obama PROPAGANDA (THERE'S something that is related to the Nazi movement) is allowed to continue, you can count TWO less members of this forum.

Myself and Jackie!

To compare the classical symbol of the health care profession with one of the most hated and reviled symbols of the 20th Century is taking the regurgitation of the bile being spouted by Rush Limbaugh and the like just too freakin' far, IMHO.

You are aware that Jackie is a medical professional, aren't you? She is very, VERY upset.

I could see you being misinformed. But to repeatedly ignore information that would correct your misinformation is not only undignified, but an insult to anyone who purports themselves to be an EDUCATED individual.

You do NOT deserve to call yourself 'Scholar" as you are an insult to all REAL scholars.

Again, Jackie and I are seriously thinking of leaving this forum if this propaganda is NOT brought under control NOW!


marymary100 - 12-8-2009 at 17:35

Of course RW, he(?) could just be trolling.


Redwolf5150 - 12-8-2009 at 17:36

And you say my "graphical replies" to your biased, BS propaganda is driving people away from this forum?

I would beg to differ that your continued tirades, despite the overwhelming majority of the members of the forum who are regular posters begging you to STOP, are doing far more damage to the integrity of Karl's Forums than my little humorous postings in response to your BULLCRAP!

If you had half a brain or a shred of common sense, you'd see this. But you are too interested in drawing attention to yourself here with your posts and "discussions" and thread hijackings than demonstrating that you have either.


Redwolf5150 - 12-8-2009 at 17:40

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Of course RW, he(?) could just be trolling.


He doesn't EVEN want to really get me worked up. I held my own for 10 days against one of the worst trolls I've ever known in 15 years on the Internet!

If he is, in fact, trolling, that is all the more reason to tell him to cease or BAN HIM!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


marymary100 - 12-8-2009 at 17:57

Just because he says it doesn't mean that:

1) it's true or
2) he believes it

Yes, everyone else seems to be fed up with it. I know this from the many U2Us I get on the topic of scholar's posts. Are you reading this scholar?

People whose posts were at least varied and well thought out have left because they had enough of the monotony which saddens me.

There are many ways to ruin a board. Trolling is just one of them. Being a one trick pony is another.

It is a shame that you RW/Jackie would consider leaving rather than pointing out just how ludicrous the positions being taken are.

But, as a matter of interest, under which of our rules would you ban him?


Redwolf5150 - 12-8-2009 at 18:03

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100


But, as a matter of interest, under which of our rules would you ban him?


Quote:
2. Any member who joins the forums and causes disharmony or disruption to the forums, in our view, may have their account removed without warning.


That good enough? His bigoted, hateful and inaccurate "one-tick pony" posts have crossed the line to causing disharmony and disruption.

I've moderated boards before, and have even owned a few (I think I still have a YahooGroup board that is inactive right now) and I would have pushed the "eject" button on him long ago.


Redwolf5150 - 12-8-2009 at 18:09

I don't mind being the "point man" on this, or even being the one who takes the heat from the rest of the mods on this subject. (I thank you Mary for being even-keeled about this and not deleting my posts)

But I KNOW that Jackie and I are not alone in how we feel about this. NOW is the time to repeat after Howard Beal in "Network."

"I'm Mad as HELL, And I'm NOT going to Take This Any More!"


Dreamweaver - 13-8-2009 at 00:52

You can both be the bad/good guy here, but bear in mind how "we" as a forum would view this, please take your differences to U2U and leave the rest of us out of your problem... I don't really worry about who is wrong and who is right but I have others to think about.
Neither of you have broke any rules here, but one or the other has certainly "upset" one or two.So without either knowing who has upset who lets try to get along as adults ok?
To quote "one mans meat is another man's poison..........


Redwolf5150 - 13-8-2009 at 00:59

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
You can both be the bad/good guy here, but bear in mind how "we" as a forum would view this, please take your differences to U2U and leave the rest of us out of your problem... I don't really worry about who is wrong and who is right but I have others to think about.
Neither of you have broke any rules here, but one or the other has certainly "upset" one or two.So without either knowing who has upset who lets try to get along as adults ok?
To quote "one mans meat is another man's poison..........


Then I guess Jackie and I will be leaving the forum.


Dreamweaver - 13-8-2009 at 01:32

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
You can both be the bad/good guy here, but bear in mind how "we" as a forum would view this, please take your differences to U2U and leave the rest of us out of your problem... I don't really worry about who is wrong and who is right but I have others to think about.
Neither of you have broke any rules here, but one or the other has certainly "upset" one or two.So without either knowing who has upset who lets try to get along as adults ok?
To quote "one mans meat is another man's poison..........


Then I guess Jackie and I will be leaving the forum.


Why? Because I,you or A.N Other does not believe what another poster believes?
Is that another way of thinking "it's my way or the bye way?" I think you know, I (or other members )wouldn't want you to leave Red (or Mrs Red) but the ethos remains............... I can't believe because one person does not agree with you, you would consider cutting out all of us!!!


scholar - 13-8-2009 at 03:42

Redwolf, I don't want you or Jackie to leave KF.

But, it seems so very strange to me that you would choose this thread, about a personal experience in Leigh's family that showed how the Australian NHS did a good job (as I applauded) in helping Mrs. Semmens with her need for an intravenous port. How is this any example of disruption, or criticism of Obama?

Marymary posted a link to a UK article about false information concerning the UK NHS, and which itself indicated a false understanding of something Rush Limbaugh had said. If you didn't like these topics considered, how is it that you attacked me, instead of Marymary?

I indicated support for people discussing the UK NHS accurately, as the article also suggested. Surely that is not objectionable? I pointed out, accurately that if Senator Kennedy would have gotten only UK NHS treatment, it would not have included a very expensive drug that their decision board does not support, but Kennedy did get it in the US. I have no doubt that he could have gotten it at his own expense in the UK as well. In the U.S., he is covered by a platinum-premium health care plan with at least ten coverage choices, and the plan he authored for the Senate specifically says that Senators get to keep their priviledged coverage, at the same time the bill forces less fortunate people to have the coverage mandated by the US government. Obama did not write either the Senate bill or the House of Representatives plan--so, why do you fault me as if this were some sort of attack on Obama?

I accurately noted that the Obama symbol for health care reminds Rush of a WWII symbol. Again, what does this have to do with saying anything against Obama? Do you really think that President Obama designed that logo for a new national health care program? Of course not! It uses one of his campaign logos, and he may well have signed off on it, but so what? It isn't his fault that a caduceus and an eagle both have wings; it is a coincidence.

I did mention that Medicare and Medicaid are financial failures, that the Veterans' Administration has problems, and that Indian health care from the U.S. government has been tragically bad. Do you disagree with any of those statements? Did Obama put any of those programs in place? Of course not! They were in place, and in trouble, years before Obama became President. When I point them out as examples of failure in government health care, THEY ARE NOT SO BECAUSE OF OBAMA! Indeed, the whole country will be greatly impressed if Obama will show wisdom, skill, and leadership by fixing those government programs FIRST, before the government takes even greater control.

Redwolf, Jackie, it is manifestly unjust for you to jump on me for attacking Obama on a thread which does not attack him.

Instead, how about some applause and encouragement for me, for sticking to the issues without making anti-Obama remarks?:)smokin:


LSemmens - 13-8-2009 at 11:00

You, Scholar, first raised the point regarding Limbaugh. It was a passing statement in Mary's link and you have chosen to focus on it. This is causing distress and disruption to the smooth running of KF. I'm sure that the other mods are finding the majority of your posts regarding the American systems and the "problems" becoming quite tedious.


marymary100 - 13-8-2009 at 14:23

Tbh the lack of self reflection makes it difficult for anyone to engage with scholar on these and other issues.

I hope he enjoys rattling around here on his own because that is going to be what the eventual outcome will be.


delanti - 15-9-2009 at 02:23

After watching this, I can't wait for our new health care plan.

Brain surgery


Daz - 15-9-2009 at 09:54

Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
After watching this, I can't wait for our new health care plan.

Brain surgery


Given that was back in what, 2005, 2007...? What was the out come of the case...?


Dreamweaver - 15-9-2009 at 10:46

Quote:
Originally posted by Daz
Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
After watching this, I can't wait for our new health care plan.

Brain surgery


Given that was back in what, 2005, 2007...? What was the out come of the case...?



Seems it is still ongoing as of 22/6/09


Mary2 - 15-9-2009 at 11:57

A Canadian health scare/care story indeed.


LSemmens - 15-9-2009 at 14:21

There is always the exception to prove the rule! I had to take SWMBO down to the hospital where she'd recently had surgery to collect some medication and a device for administering said medication so that the staff in our local surgery could administer it as necessary. Upon our arrival there we spoke to the sister in charge of the day surgery suite where Deb had been who stated that it would be inadvisable to get the nursing staff at her GP's surgery to administer this stuff without prior training but offered to take her across to another part of the hospital and talk to the staff there, who also held the specific device needed, too. She escorted us to the opposite side of the hospital (at least 10 minutes walk) and introduced us to the staff there who confirmed that it was inadvisable to have our doctor's staff to do the procedure without training. Despite the fact that it was late in the day, the staff all stayed back to "squeeze" Deb in and perform the procedure required, despite them not having a free appointment, nor expecting her to come. They took the time to, not only, perform the procedure, but also train me in the process, too. They then arranged for a representative of the manufacturer of the device to visit our Doctor's surgery and provide training to their staff when next Deb needed treatment. This involved many long distance phone calls and a lot of time on our behalf at the end of a busy day for these people. We are not able to pay for our medical treatment, but are reliant upon our public hospital system. At no time were we treated any differently because we were public patients. I have nothing but praise for our public hospital system and will sing their praise loud and long.


As an aside, we do have the choice in OZ of paying the money for private care if we wish to. The story to which Delanti refers tends to indicate that this is not an option in Canada which, to me, does seem quite scary. At least we do have the option, and, in some cases, private care may be advantageous.


delanti - 15-9-2009 at 16:52

It is apparent that there are some important differences in health care programs from country to country. I can not say at this point that I am either for or against a health care program in the US because so far there is no definitive program that has been developed. So far many of the proposals contain things that I do not care for.

My concern is that the government is attempting to get a program passed asap without debating thoroughly the advantages and disadvantages of some features. They attempted to get it through before Kennedy died while they had the 60 votes to ram it through.

Now that he is gone they are having to court at least one Republican Congresswoman, Snow hoping to get her to side with them. They are also now willing to negotiate some items that they were not willing to discuss before. That gives me some hope that they might come up with something more functional than before.waveysmiley