Doctors refuse to fix builder's broken ankle unless he quits smoking

[BoogyMan]

I wonder how long before they refuse to help people because they are overweight, or any other problem society calls into question.


Source: Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481617&in_page_id=1770&in_poll_id=18353)

A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a Health Service hospital has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking.

John Nuttall, 57, needs surgery to set the ankle which he broke in three places two years ago because it did not mend naturally with a plaster cast.

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/StairstoFlatCP_468x461.jpg

They have told him they will treat him only if he gives up smoking. But the former builder has been unable to break his habit and is now resigned to coping with the injury as he cannot afford private treatment.

He is in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine.

Mr Nuttall, of Newlyn, Cornwall, broke the ankle in a fall in 2005. Initially he refused surgery because he had caught MRSA at a different hospital four years earlier, and was terrified of history repeating itself.

He hoped the fractured bones would knit together with a standard plaster cast to immobilise his ankle.

But six months and three plaster casts later, it became clear that an operation to pin the bones was the only solution.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/JohnNuttallCP_468x643.jpg

However, the hospital told Mr Nuttall, who no longer works because of smoking-related chest problems, that he would have to give up smoking before an operation could be carried out.

Mr Nuttall said: '"I am in agony. I have begged them to operate but they won't. I have tried my hardestto give up smoking but I can't. I got down to ten a week at one point but they said that was not good enough.

"I spent 12 months trying to give up and used patches and everything, but nothing works.

"I have smoked for over 40 years and it's not going to happen.

"We were brought up at a time when cigarette advertisements were everywhere and there were no warnings.

"I want to warn other smokers that they could be denied medical treatment and there is nothing we can do about it.

"I have paid my dues as a taxpayer-and now the NHS won't treat me."

Mr Nuttall, who is single, uses a walking stick to get around and fears his bones will now be so 'calcified' that an operation would not work even if he were allowed to have it.

"It is very painful," he said. "If I walk more than a few steps I can feel it grinding."

A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly."

[Drocket]

I'd be upset if they were denying him care simply because they don't like smoking, but it sounds like they're refusing to operate because his smoking risks serious medical issues if the operation is performed. That's a completely legitimate reason. It doesn't sound any different from refusing to perform surgery on someone who can't keep their diabetes under control, something doctors do quite frequently (and something my family had to deal with at one point.) It's the Hippocratic tenant of 'do no harm'.

[lily]

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

I have to agree with you, Drocket. Smoking reduces circulation especially in the legs. I think the doctor's worries are gangrene. If I was this man, I'd weigh the risks......do I want to have a foot that hurts constanly or do I want to lose it.

[Oedipus Rex]

Heck, let the guy go to Canada or Cuba. I hear they have some of the best free medicine in the world.

[dgun]

I think he should be more worried about those male boobs. My 2 cents.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/StairstoFlatCP_468x461.jpg

[preservanation]

This is the kind of thing that Hillary care will bring.
Care can be refused if you do not meet gov requirements.
It would be possible to deny citizens care if the do not meet certain criteria.
If the gov decides that you are over weight they might not give you that cardiac-bypass until you lose 20 pounds.

Remember...Anything the government has the power to give you they also have the power to take away

[3.14]

I do not think the hospital's stance is justified. They've told the guy that he may have to get his leg (or part of it) amputated if he doesn't quit smoking. He's an adult. He knows this. If he STILL decides to smoke, then: -

a) The hospital should not be legally (or, in any way) liable as they informed him about the possible complications if he continued to smoke.

b) They do not, in my book, have a right to refuse to operate provided the guy is paying, which it seems like he can do.

c) Boogyman is right - this is yet another example of intrusive nanny statism making it's way into our lives. Deplorable.[hr]
Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

I have to agree with you, Drocket. Smoking reduces circulation especially in the legs. I think the doctor's worries are gangrene. If I was this man, I'd weigh the risks......do I want to have a foot that hurts constanly or do I want to lose it.


The choice is more like "do I want to have a foot that hurts horribly all the time, or should I give up smoking to get these doctors to do an operation?".

Regardless, if he chooses to smoke KNOWING that there is a possibility his leg (or part of it) might be amputated, then I feel he should have the right to do so and should not be denied an operation.

3.14

[Oedipus Rex]

Its not unheard of for the English to deny lung transplants to smokers and kidney transplants to alcoholics.

[Elrathin]

I see everyone is so quick to jump on the hospital without first asking if their insurance (that would cover malpractice suits) covers them if they do the operation while knowing there could be complications because of his smoking.

If their insurance would not cover it( or if they risk being sued in general), then that is the fault of the insurance companies and not the hospital. Just a thought.

Nowadays with lawsuits being thrown around like candy I don't really blame the hospital for denying him the surgery IF that is the main reason. If not and they have NO RISK of being sued for complications that would arise from his smoking, then they should do the operation. I am not a lawyer so I can't say if they would be liable.

[bobbylien]

Its not unheard of for the English to deny lung transplants to smokers and kidney transplants to alcoholics.

Good, give them to non-drinkers and non-smokers who need them. Why should those retards get them just so they can ruin them? If you choose to destroy what you've got, don't expect others to bail you out. There are plenty of people who need these for reasons other than their own stupidity. Brilliant idea here... don't drink or smoke if you want to live a long life. :rolleyes:

[Drocket]

Its not unheard of for the English to deny lung transplants to smokers and kidney transplants to alcoholics.

They do that in the US, too. And as I said before, they also frequently deny surgery to diabetics unable to control their eating habits. They do that EVERYWHERE, in fact, because it's utter stupidity to waste scarce resources on cases that are basically guaranteed to fail.

[ViolaLee]

I think they should do the operation and make him sign a disclaimer that he might have to have an amputation because he didn't quit smoking. Then no one can sue (although Europe doesn't sue like the USA does).

I think to deny an operation which would end painful suffering is inhumane.

[lily]

Heck, let the guy go to Canada or Cuba. I hear they have some of the best free medicine in the world.



Why would he want to do that when England has free health care?[hr]

Regardless, if he chooses to smoke KNOWING that there is a possibility his leg (or part of it) might be amputated, then I feel he should have the right to do so and should not be denied an operation.

3.14


I suppose you could find some docotr to do it if you really wanted to. The hippocratic oath though is first do no harm.

3.14....the doctors told him that due to smoking and his circulation, problems would arise. I don't think it's a nanny state, where you are given a choice. I'm a smoker with poor circulation. I think if my doctor said stop smoking or lose your foot, I would stop smoking. I've grown attached to my appendages.

Hospitals will turn you away from an operation if you eat or drink anything 24 hours in advance. What is the difference between that part of your health and telling you the operation would cause more trouble than you are already facing? Sounds like a sound judgement to me.

I'd like to see a follow up........I would bet after this paper hitting the news that there would be some hospital that would be willing to take the risk, if nothing else but for the advertising.

[hr]Oedipus Rex Wrote:
Its not unheard of for the English to deny lung transplants to smokers and kidney transplants to alcoholics.

When organ donation becomes so common place that we have spares, then you'd have a case. They won't even give an organ transplant if you have no one to help or take care of you after.

[DANG]

He should quit smoking. Problem solved.

I used to chain smoke... I also thought I would/could never quit. I was wrong.

Any idiot can go 20 minutes without a smoke. If he can go 20 minutes, he can go an hour. If he can go an hour, he can go 2. Etc. ad infinitum.

He just needs to stop telling himself the little lies. Every cigarette he smokes is a response to a set of lies he has been telling himself for years. They are still lies, he just needs to address each one in his conscious mind.

Smoking is an irrational habit that addicts rationalize with faulty "facts".

He just has to hate cigarettes 1% more than he loves them.

Would he rather be healthy and happy...... or enrich Big Tobacco?

It has always been his choice. He just doesnt think so.

[preservanation]

This is not about smoking this is about the gov withholding health care unless people conform.

Anyone out there overweight?
How would you like it if the gov said they wouldn't treat you until you lost 30 pounds?
By then in may be to late to receive like saving drugs or treatment.
Oh well, bye, bye.
One less body spewing deadly co2 to destroy the planet.
Good riddance.

[Drocket]

How would you like it if the gov said they wouldn't treat you until you lost 30 pounds?

They already do that. Again, if your behavior risks serious complications with surgery, doctors can and do refuse perform them. They won't turn you away in life threatening circumstance ("Doctor, he's having a heart attack! Do something!" "Well, the fat fuck should have thought about that before he ate that Whopper."), but you're going to be on the bottom of any heart transplant list unless you're doing everything possible to help yourself. They WILL turn you away unless you lose weight, lower your cholesterol, eat less salt, stop smoking, etc.

It's not about smoking or weight or whatever: it's about doing whatever you can to help ensure your patients don't die, which is exactly what doctors are supposed to do.

[preservanation]

It's not about smoking or weight or whatever: it's about doing whatever you can to help ensure your patients don't die, which is exactly what doctors are supposed to do. Correct, doctors.
I'm sorry, I don't have that same blind faith in Government!
They will be the ones making the decisions, not doctors.
Don't you get it?[hr]
I think he should be more worried about those male boobs. My 2 cents.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/StairstoFlatCP_468x461.jpg

Yeah, but when did Ward Churchill move to the UK?

[DANG]

Preserva, you are acting like they wont operate unless he gets a haircut. Its not about conforming. Smoking is bad for you in spite of your denial.

If your body is trying to fight off poisons from toxic smoke, its healing power cannot focus on healing/mending flesh and bone, after surgury.

[preservanation]

Preserva, you are acting like they wont operate unless he gets a haircut. Its not about conforming. Smoking is bad for you in spite of your denial.

If your body is trying to fight off poisons from toxic smoke, its healing power cannot focus on healing/mending flesh and bone.

I want to let a DOCTOR make that decision in consultation with myself and my family.
Not the GOVERNMENT in consultation with congress, regulations and tax revenues.

[DANG]

Its the way it is.

They insisted my Mom quit before her operation here in the States.

[preservanation]

You libs have way to much faith in the government.
When did you all get so goldarn friendly with the Man????
What happened to you guys!?
Maybe Patchouli is a neurotoxin.

[DANG]

It is because the doctors decided it. Standard Operating Procedures.

You think tobacco lobbyists would allow tobacco ADDICTS to stop without a fight?

The gov has little to do with it.[hr]
You libs have way to much faith in the government.

Right. And Iraq had WMD's.

[preservanation]

Do you realize that if you fall for this, there is never going back?
Once gov takes over it is gone from the people forever!
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
Don't be suckers.
You are being duped into thinking that gov can do it better than anybody. Just like Katrina.
You were all pretty happy about how that went, weren't you?[hr]
It is because the doctors decided it. Standard Operating Procedures.

You think tobacco lobbyists would allow tobacco ADDICTS to stop without a fight?

The gov has little to do with it.[hr]
You libs have way to much faith in the government.

Right. And Iraq had WMD's.

Dang, you are fixated and need help.
But I will not treat you until you stop driving your car and use only one square of TP to wipe your dirty tush.
Get back to me in three months.
"Ding."
Next!

[DANG]

Some things the gov does perfectly well.

Remember before Haliburton, when the military cooked their own meals in a mess hall? They did their own laundry? Check This:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/meals_to_oil.html

As for Katrina.... that was a hate crime.

[preservanation]

Yeah, gov was great before Haliburton.
Snore.....

[lily]

As for Katrina.... that was a hate crime.



Well.....if you want to get down to the facts......Halliburton had a hand in ripping us off in Katrina too.

[DANG]

Haliburton was given the contract to rebuild after Katrina.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/hurricane_katrina.html

See, the bush admin is working hard to prove government doesnt work. Doing a heckuva job too. Brownie.[hr]Beat me to it lily ;)

[Drocket]

I want to let a DOCTOR make that decision in consultation with myself and my family.Not the GOVERNMENT in consultation with congress, regulations and tax revenues.

Except we're not talking about the government - we're talking about the doctors.

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because...

Do you see the words "the government has decided to refuse treatment" there? No. DOCTORS are refusing treatment, because of the potential complications.

This, by the way, is actually better than the US system, since in the oh-so-horrible English system, decisions actually ARE made by doctors, unlike the US system where decisions are regularly made by insurance companies. (Sorry, but we can't treat your cancer. It just wouldn't be profitable.)

[PatrickHenry]

If the guy really wants his pain to end...and he won't stop smoking...he could fly to Thailand or India and pay cash.

I understand their hospitals and doctors are top-notch and very affordable.

And he shouldn't whine about medical decisions taken by doctors in his nation of residence.

[3.14]

I see everyone is so quick to jump on the hospital without first asking if their insurance (that would cover malpractice suits) covers them if they do the operation while knowing there could be complications because of his smoking.

How can the guy file suit if he's been told that smoking could cause damage in no uncertain terms? If he chooses to go ahead with the operation, I don't see why the hospital should be held liable in any way.





Regardless, if he chooses to smoke KNOWING that there is a possibility his leg (or part of it) might be amputated, then I feel he should have the right to do so and should not be denied an operation.

3.14


I suppose you could find some docotr to do it if you really wanted to. The hippocratic oath though is first do no harm.

3.14....the doctors told him that due to smoking and his circulation, problems would arise. I don't think it's a nanny state, where you are given a choice. I'm a smoker with poor circulation. I think if my doctor said stop smoking or lose your foot, I would stop smoking. I've grown attached to my appendages.


And thats the right choice to make, a sensible one. However, if he wishes to make a foolish choice, then who are we to stop him from making one? :)

[Elrathin]

I see noone has refuted what I had said in page 1, please look back.

[lily]

And thats the right choice to make, a sensible one. However, if he wishes to make a foolish choice, then who are we to stop him from making one? :)



A responsible doctor?[hr]
I see noone has refuted what I had said in page 1, please look back.



I can't......I agree with you

[3.14]

And thats the right choice to make, a sensible one. However, if he wishes to make a foolish choice, then who are we to stop him from making one? :)



A responsible doctor?

A responsible doctor should advocate it, sure. But forcing someone to do something is another story altogether.

If the guy broke his arm someday, would it acceptable for the doctor to deny him treatment (and affect his capacity to work) if he did not stop smoking?

[ViolaLee]

Here's the facts, straight from my best friend, a nurse.

When you find yourself in the hospital, deny, deny, deny. If they ask do you smoke? Say no. If they ask do you drink? Say no. If they ask do you do drugs? Say no. If you say yes to any of those things, they will not treat you as well as those who say no.

This is the inside scoop, my friends.

[3.14]

LOL - true enough. Just say "no" to all those questions they ask on the initial forms! :D

(I've done it myself - I've said in the past I'm a "moderate" drinker, when the amount of beer I consumed the night before would certainly disqualify me from being a "moderate" drinker!!!!).

[Drocket]

A responsible doctor should advocate it, sure. But forcing someone to do something is another story altogether.
They're not forcing him to quit smoking: they're just refusing to be involved with a surgery that has high risks of being a disaster and making his situation worse. Are you proposing that doctors should be forced to perform operations that they don't believe will be successful?

If the guy broke his arm someday, would it acceptable for the doctor to deny him treatment (and affect his capacity to work) if he did not stop smoking?
No, because smoking wouldn't have anything to do with a broken arm. If, however, fixing his broken arm while he continues to smoke is going to make things worse, then the correct and ethical decision WOULD be to not treat him.

Basically, it sounds like the guy wants a doctor who doesn't give a shit about him and will just do what he says, even if it's to his own detriment. I can even understand that. I'm sure the guy will find an unethical doctor to "treat" him sooner or later...

[3.14]

A responsible doctor should advocate it, sure. But forcing someone to do something is another story altogether.
They're not forcing him to quit smoking: they're just refusing to be involved with a surgery that has high risks of being a disaster and making his situation worse. Are you proposing that doctors should be forced to perform operations that they don't believe will be successful?


I'm not proposing forcing anyone to do anything.

I just think that the right thing to do in this case is for the doctor's to alleviate the guy's suffereing. Some people don't have the will power to quit smoking cold turkey - perhaps this guy is one of them.

And in any case - if he has been TOLD that smoking would cause complications, then I see no reason why the doctor shouldn't treat him. Perhaps it goes against the doctor's personal ethics - but it wouldn't go against mine, given that the person is an adult and is making an informed CHOICE to continue smoking.


If the guy broke his arm someday, would it acceptable for the doctor to deny him treatment (and affect his capacity to work) if he did not stop smoking?
No, because smoking wouldn't have anything to do with a broken arm. If, however, fixing his broken arm while he continues to smoke is going to make things worse, then the correct and ethical decision WOULD be to not treat him.

Well, let's say it DOES have something to do with it - what then?

And how would this be a correct and ethical decision? Remember, the guy can't work if his arm is broken - how would he then support himself?


Basically, it sounds like the guy wants a doctor who doesn't give a shit about him and will just do what he says, even if it's to his own detriment. I can even understand that. I'm sure the guy will find an unethical doctor to "treat" him sooner or later...


Ethics are subjective. . .[hr]
I see noone has refuted what I had said in page 1, please look back.


I did in my first statement on the thread, on page 1. ;)

[Drocket]

I'm not proposing forcing anyone to do anything.
Of course you are. You're proposing that the doctors be forced to treat him, even though they don't want to be involved in the situation because the guy's a moron who can't quit smoking. Despite preservanation's crazy rambles about the evil government, the only thing that's preventing the doctors from treating him is because they believe that doing so will only make things worse. If the guy can find a doctor who disagrees, he can get them to do surgery. Doesn't sound like he can.

If no doctor is willing to perform the surgery of their own free will, and you think he should have the surgery, then clearly the only possible solution is to force a doctor to do it.

[3.14]

I'm not proposing forcing anyone to do anything.
Of course you are. You're proposing that the doctors be forced to treat him, even though they don't want to be involved in the situation because the guy's a moron who can't quit smoking.

Isn't it the doctor's job to treat a patient though? Does asking the doctor to do his/her job qualify as "forcing"?


Despite preservanation's crazy rambles about the evil government, the only thing that's preventing the doctors from treating him is because they believe that doing so will only make things worse. If the guy can find a doctor who disagrees, he can get them to do surgery. Doesn't sound like he can.

It's got nothing to do with evil government - it's got everything to do with this guy's situation.

Smoking affects all parts of the body. We could go a step further and say that doctors could refuse to treat all heart patients because they smoke a few cigarettes a year, for instance - would you be for that too?


If no doctor is willing to perform the surgery of their own free will, and you think he should have the surgery, then clearly the only possible solution is to force a doctor to do it.


Well, we don't know that no doctor is willing to perform the surgery.

3.14

[Drocket]

Isn't it the doctor's job to treat a patient though? Does asking the doctor to do his/her job qualify as "forcing"?
It's a complicated situation. It does, for example, have similarities to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B because they think it's immoral. The thing here, though, is that the doctors aren't refusing to treat him because they don't like his smoking - they're refusing to treat him because they don't believe they can do so successfully, and doing so unsuccessfully will make things worse.

You can make the argument that doctors should simply obey the orders of their patient, even when the patient's requests are stupid/unhealthy/bad (say, amputating limbs for no particular reason (there's actually a mental disorder that makes people want to do that...), desiring massive amounts of painkillers or antibiotics, or something like that.) Society, though, has basically decided that doctors are supposed to work for the good of their patients, even when the patients are too stupid to have good judgement.

It's got nothing to do with evil government - it's got everything to do with this guy's situation.
I was referring to preservenation's weird insistence that this was the fault of government-financed healthcare, which it has nothing to do with. It's just about whether doctors can refuse to provide services that will be bad for their patients.

Smoking affects all parts of the body. We could go a step further and say that doctors could refuse to treat all heart patients because they smoke a few cigarettes a year, for instance - would you be for that too?
If treating the patient if going to make things worse, then yeah.

[3.14]

The only problem I see with that line of reasoning is that there are many activites which are technically harmful to our bodies. We could for instance say that air pollution is harmful to the lungs, and thus a doctor could refuse to treat an asthama ridden patient if he insisted on going outside to work and thus breathe in fumes.

So - where do we draw the line?

[preservanation]

I think it boils down to the fact that most people here think that the gov can do a better job at managing health care than doctors and the private sector, so be it. I disagree
Remember Hillary's plan in the 90's mandated what specialties doctors had to go into, based on the need. This is the equivalent of installing a job chip in every doctor. Faced with that reality, and the huge drop in pay that will occur, I think less people will choose that very noble profession so the quality of our care will suffer.
Is this what you want for our society?
Why are some people so afraid of freedom?[hr]Here is one Doctor's opinion, so you all can see I am not alone in my skepticism of socialized medicine. Please read this, for it gives credence to everything I have been saying. Maybe this will enable you to think about this in the context I have been presenting here.
By James L. Hirsen, J.D., Ph.D.


Choice. Abortion advocates have been reciting this mantra for decades. Yet it seems when it comes to health care, personal choice is not a component worthy of protection. Hillary Clinton's now discredited health care task force aggressively sought to eliminate for all Americans the option to choose a physician. Although she previously failed, her new attack on our health care system has commenced. As of January 1, 1998, seniors were selected as the first group of citizens to have decisions regarding the delivery of health care determined for them by federal dictators.

Despite rejection of the idea by the public three years ago, the President is reconstructing Hillary's socialized health care program in neat little incremental pieces. Buried in the hundreds of pages of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, President Clinton inserted a two-page amendment, Section 4507, that restricts the amount that doctors who treat Medicare participants can be paid and limits the medication that seniors may receive. Payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients are preordained and subject to approval of governmental bureaucrats. If either the patient or doctor believe that additional treatment or tests are necessary, the patient is prohibited from paying the doctor out of his or her own pocket to obtain the needed treatment.

The doctor is not allowed to take any money from the patient unless he or she signs a sworn statement not to treat any Medicare patients for the following two years. To insure compliance, a physician who violates this section of the law is subject to prosecution. So the only doctors who will be allowed to accept money from seniors are those who agree to "opt out" of the program for two years. Since this scenario is highly unlikely, health care decisions will effectively be removed from both the physician and the patient and placed in the hands of the government. (Great minds think alike, read on [sic])

No longer will a person be allowed to directly compensate a family doctor for a recommended diagnostic test. Gone are the days when direct payment can be arranged for an extra office visit desired by an aging parent. After an individual has worked throughout life and the government has proceeded to tax, dilute and retax earnings, one would assume any decisions on how, when and where to disburse the remaining assets would be within the strict purview of the individual. Have we really come to the point when government is going to dictate how we can spend our own money?(Seems that is exactly what people want, sad. [sic])

Apparently the Clinton Administration believes that government alone knows what is best when it comes to the purchase of health care. Opting out of the increasingly austere Medicare system in any way, shape or form cannot be tolerated. It would appear that the radical egalitarianism displayed in the first lady's health care program demands that medical services for all Americans be rendered at the exact same mediocre level.

The relationship between a physician and a patient is traditionally one where an expectation of privacy is protected by law. This is reflected in the law of evidence where a physician may not testify concerning the medical treatment of his or her patient. In fact, the freedom to care for one's health and decide matters concerning personal treatment is often used by supporters of abortion and assisted suicide. It seems as if our leaders in Washington, D.C. only invoke Constitutional rights when the interests in question match their ideology.

According to these central planners, failing to give retirees the same freedom other Americans have to arrange personal payment with their doctors is an acceptable first step in their master plan. Evidently, one senior citizens group has already taken action to reclaim their rights. They have asked a federal judge to block the pertinent section of the law. The United Seniors Association sued Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, asking the U.S. District Court to block enforcement of the new rules.

This lawsuit is a good sign. It shows that some Americans still understand and believe that when personal liberty is relinquished to an insatiable government, it will not stop until it has devoured even the leftovers of freedom.http://www.firstliberties.com/hillary_care.html
More troublesome FACTS concerning the Hillary care redux...
Yet, Hillary can’t wait to reignite her failed universal health care plan that was overwhelming rejected in 1994, “her number one issue”.The plan introduced in 1993, was over 1,000 pages, yet buried in those pages were restrictions and aspects of the plan which were truly troubling.

The plan aimed to cut the number of doctors (called "cost centers" ) by one quarter in order to cut demand by limiting supply. It also aimed to cut costs by cutting the number of specialists in half.

The following fines were also prescribed under the plan:$5,000 for refusing to join the government mandated health plan.

$5,000 for failing to pay premiums on time.

15 years to doctors who receive “anything of value” in exchange for helping patients short-circuit the bureaucracy.

$50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment.

$100,000 a day for drug companies that improperly filed federal claims.

So, what exactly would this universal health care plan really be like if it ever returns and becomes mandated?

The average wait time for treatment, would dramatically increase. In Canada for instance, the average wait time if you go to an emergency room , depending on urgency is anywhere between 8-10 hours for a doctor to see you.

There is evidence all over the world that this does not work.
How can supporters of this be so blind?
Throughout Canada, the total number of procedures for which patients are waiting for surgeries in 2006 is 770,641. Many patients die while waiting to have surgeries.

Recently in Canada, a patient complained to his doctor that he had headaches, and was having seizures. His doctor determined that he possibly had a brain tumor, and an MRI was needed to be sure. He was then told his wait time to have an MRI was 4 months. Frustrated by this, he went to New York, and within days had an MRI. He returned to Canada with the results from his MRI, showing he did have a brain tumor.

He was told that he would have to wait 8 months for surgery. He ended up having surgery in the U.S., and he now is trying to sue the Canadian government because they refused to reimburse him for the surgery. http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/walter_reed_a_clear_warning_on_hillary_care

There is so much more of this out there.

Arm yourself with knowledge and reject this very dangerous idea of socialized med.
If we as a nation are willing to turn a $300 bil a year industry over to the gov, I shuddertothink what else we will be willing to do.

Think before you support this.
When the gov takes something over there is no getting the toothpaste back into the tube. EVER

[PatrickHenry]

Talk about an off topic rant...

[preservanation]

It is not off topic.
This is what socialised med gets you.

Hillary will bring it and bring it hard...She already is.
DES MOINES, Iowa - For months, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a plan to bring health care to every American.

She was to make good on that pledge Monday, unveiling a sweeping proposal requiring everyone to carry health insurance and offering federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage.

With a price tag of about $110 billion per year, Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" represents her first major effort to achieve universal health coverage since 1994, when the plan she authored during her husband's first term collapsed.

The former first lady says she has learned from that experience, which almost derailed Bill Clinton's presidency and helped put Republicans in control of Congress for years to come. Aides say she has jettisoned the complexity and uncertainty of the last effort in favor of a plan that stresses simplicity, cost control and consumer choice.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care;_ylt=Ap79AAi7EvsMRwgrY71BSe.yF z4D

If you think this will end up costing only $110 mill, you do not understand gov (which, to me, is obvious)
The cost of Bush's drug plan cost three times what they said it would.

[Deadshot]

Why is it that we trust the Government to run the military? We trust the Government to run our schools. We trust them to run our law making and law enforcement bodies. We trust them to keep us safe and keep the economy on track...but we don't want to trust them with health care, even though they have the Health Care responsibilities for the majority of our elderly.

I just don't get it how many Conservatives put down the Government saying that they couldn't run Health Care right, yet when a Liberal questions another Government institution, the military, most Conservatives have a fit. :unreal:

Right now there is a problem with Health Care and the private sector. Many doctors admit that the HMO's and the private sector running things have FUBAR'd health care. So let's try a pilot program in say California with Government run medicine and see what happens.

Why can we just trust in the intelligence and competency of the Government when it comes to the War or when the Fed lowers rates to help the economy, but not to manage Health Care?

[preservanation]

OK, our school system is a disgrace and IMO a failure to our children and costs way too much because of massive bureaucracy, greed corruption and no accountability for performance, or even benchmarks, which the NEA and the teachers union vehemently oppose.
Libs can bash the military all they want but it is one of the few agencies which is enumerated in the Constitution to keep us safe and free. Without those, all other possibilities for our future are null and void.

Most all other entities should be relegated to the states and not the Feds.

[Deadshot]

OK, our school system is a disgrace and IMO a failure to our children and costs way too much because of massive bureaucracy, greed corruption and no accountability for performance, or even benchmarks, which the NEA and the teachers union vehemently oppose.

Not my school district. Mine's fine, in fact it's one of the best in Missouri. I'm right next door to the Kansas City School district, which is pretty shitty, but is getting better. But you've failed to realize my point.

Though it's not the best, it's workable - it can be fixed. The KCMO district is doing MUCH better then 20 years ago. Test scores are up, less people dropping out and a better quality all the way around. It's getting better because instead of a company running things for a profit, the government runs it, not for a profit, but for the betterment of it's citizens.

Profit is not always a good thing. Sometimes things should be done for the right reasons, not the profitable ones. Back on the Health Care thing, HMO's decide things based on profitablity, sometimes against the ideals and wisdom of doctors. If run like a School District, Health care would be run by Doctors, as Schools are run by teachers, and while their will obviously be problems, one must hope that those who's job it is to help others, Doctors and Teachers, will err on the side of their patients/students, and not on the side of profit.


Libs can bash the military all they want but it is one of the few agencies which is enumerated in the Constitution to keep us safe and free. Without those, all other possibilities for our future is null and void.

Most all other entities should be relegated to the states and not the Feds.


Again, pres, you missed the point. The GOVERNMENT runs the Military.YOU said that we couldn't trust the Government to run Health Care because they'd fuck it up. YOU said "I think it boils down to the fact that most people here think that the gov can do a better job at managing health care than doctors and the private sector, so be it. I disagree"

I'm simply pointing out that you have total trust in the Government to run the military. So why not extend that trust to Health Care?

[preservanation]

Artical 8The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; That is it, no more.
Unfortunately some in Congress have interpreted the "general welfare" as every thing from abortion on demand and universal health care.
I maintain that is NOT what was intended by our founders, because the rest of the document is dedicated to expressly keeping the Fed gov out of our lives and preserving our God given rights.
I know a lot of people don't like this but it is the piece of paper which has successfully guided us through these 231 years.
It is possible to amend it but the bar is set very high, and for good reason.

[Deadshot]

Artical 8The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; That is it, no more.
Unfortunately some in Congress have interpreted the "general welfare" as every thing from abortion on demand and universal health care.
I maintain that is NOT what was intended by our founders, because the rest of the document is dedicated to expressly keeping the Fed gov out of our lives and preserving our God given rights.
I know a lot of people don't like this but it is the piece of paper which has successfully guided us through these 231 years.
It is possible to amend it but the bar is set very high, and for good reason.


But in those 231 years you realize that the document has been ammended, right? The founding fathers would be aghast if they saw our society today. Woman and African Americans voting! They set the ground work that would allow our country to grow. They had the foresight to say that we could add, and subtract (Repeal of the 18th Ammendment), as needed. Of course Defense of the Nation was provided for, we had just been through a war! But they left it open to change. They realized that our people would change.

Pres, it wasn't until the 1950's that we said that, as a Nation, we wanted to take care of our elderly with Social Security and Medicare/caid.

We as a people would change, the founders knew that. They gave us a document as a guideline, not as a Bible.

[Marley]

"Woman and African Americans voting!"

More myth making.

Skin color didn't matter, white folks were enslaved too, as well as both/all colors possibly indentured.

Slavery just "was." A fact of life.

Not the racist myths being taught today.


But women voting might be the doom of democracy yet.

[preservanation]

But in those 231 years you realize that the document has been ammended, right?Uh...yes
25 to be exact.
So it is possible just difficult.
Unfortunately you have to convince other people to agree to it too. You can't just do it by fiat.
A shame, is it not?
ME:It is possible to amend it but the bar is set very high, and for good reason.

[Buck Laser]

But in those 231 years you realize that the document has been ammended, right?Uh...yes
25 to be exact.
So it is possible just difficult.
Unfortunately you have to convince other people to agree to it too. You can't just do it by fiat.
A shame, is it not?
ME:It is possible to amend it but the bar is set very high, and for good reason.

Preserves, I hate to picky, but it's 27 amendments to be exact. When you make a statement about exactitude, it's kinda nice to have your numbers accurate.

[preservanation]

But in those 231 years you realize that the document has been ammended, right?Uh...yes
25 to be exact.
So it is possible just difficult.
Unfortunately you have to convince other people to agree to it too. You can't just do it by fiat.
A shame, is it not?
ME:It is possible to amend it but the bar is set very high, and for good reason.

Preserves, I hate to picky, but it's 27 amendments to be exact. When you make a statement about exactitude, it's kinda nice to have your numbers accurate.
oops:embarrased:
I now feel about that big.
Hate it when that happens...just ask my wife!

[Truth_and_Power]

This is the kind of thing that Hillary care will bring.
Care can be refused if you do not meet gov requirements.
It would be possible to deny citizens care if the do not meet certain criteria.
If the gov decides that you are over weight they might not give you that cardiac-bypass until you lose 20 pounds.

Remember...Anything the government has the power to give you they also have the power to take away


Here in america we would do the operation and then the doctor's insurance would pay a 10 million settlement for the amputated leg. That's so much better..

[preservanation]

This is the kind of thing that Hillary care will bring.
Care can be refused if you do not meet gov requirements.
It would be possible to deny citizens care if the do not meet certain criteria.
If the gov decides that you are over weight they might not give you that cardiac-bypass until you lose 20 pounds.

Remember...Anything the government has the power to give you they also have the power to take away


Here in america we would do the operation and then the doctor's insurance would pay a 10 million settlement for the amputated leg. That's so much better..

I'm not really sure where you are going with that, but it sounds like a slam against John Edwards.

[Truth_and_Power]

This is the kind of thing that Hillary care will bring.
Care can be refused if you do not meet gov requirements.
It would be possible to deny citizens care if the do not meet certain criteria.
If the gov decides that you are over weight they might not give you that cardiac-bypass until you lose 20 pounds.

Remember...Anything the government has the power to give you they also have the power to take away


Here in america we would do the operation and then the doctor's insurance would pay a 10 million settlement for the amputated leg. That's so much better..

I'm not really sure where you are going with that, but it sounds like a slam against John Edwards.


Unlike you, not every comment I make is directed against a presidential candidate or political party. I was simply debunking the american pastime of slamming the way europe does things and pretending that the american way is perfect without even examining reality.

[DANG]

Preservas off topic rant would please only the richest people in the world who can afford Americas inflated healthcare costs. The middle class simply cannot afford insurance for their family. An illness can destroy a family. How is that good for America?

Anyway, suffer me to make an ON TOPIC remark.
3 pages into the thread.... has anyone mentioned:
http://www.pelletieresurgery.com/FAQs.aspx

Q: How does smoking effect surgery and my surgery results?

A: Smoking can greatly compromise your ability to heal after surgery. Smoking constricts the small blood vessels in your body, decreasing blood flow to areas. After surgery, this can lead to poor blood flow to healing areas, resulting in slower healing and, sometimes, persistent non-healing wounds. Some studies report a 50% complication rate when comparing elective cosmetic procedures in smokers vs. non-smokers. As a rule, a patient should stop smoking at least three weeks prior to surgery and continue this until at least a month after the surgery. This includes the use of nicotine patches or gum (nicotine constricts your blood vessels as well).

As for this guy THINKING he cant quit. He is wrong. He has been trying to quit with the patch. Do alcoholics quit drinking by INJECTING booze into their skin? How about heroin or meth addicts? Can they stop with a heroin or meth patch? How absurd is that?

He needs to stop saying "I need a cigarette" ... that is the biggest lie since bushs' mushroom cloud lie in his SOTU Address.
The human body doesnt "NEED" a cigarette. The sooner he stops saying it, the sooner he will be free.

[Marley]

Preservas off topic rant would please only the richest people in the world who can afford Americas inflated healthcare costs.

You mean like the "richest" Brits who can afford healthcare after having the government take their earnings for healthcare but rendering inferior services?


It's simple folks, if government takes over the healthcare industry, working people will no longer have to choose between food and medicine, the government will TAKE more of their earnings and promise medicine, leaving them to starve!

Rich Americans will pay the tax they can afford and pay again on top of that for the health care services they desire.


I just gotta love all these leftists advocating INSURANCE too! Not how the argument is about guaranteeing a usury arangement -- insurance premiums and coverage -- guaranteeing the patient pay the shareholders of an insurance company a return on their capital in addition to paying providers for the medical services they render.

Just amazing.

[preservanation]

This is the kind of thing that Hillary care will bring.
Care can be refused if you do not meet gov requirements.
It would be possible to deny citizens care if the do not meet certain criteria.
If the gov decides that you are over weight they might not give you that cardiac-bypass until you lose 20 pounds.

Remember...Anything the government has the power to give you they also have the power to take away


Here in america we would do the operation and then the doctor's insurance would pay a 10 million settlement for the amputated leg. That's so much better..

I'm not really sure where you are going with that, but it sounds like a slam against John Edwards.


Unlike you, not every comment I make is directed against a presidential candidate or political party. I was simply debunking the american pastime of slamming the way europe does things and pretending that the american way is perfect without even examining reality.
Insurance costs are high mainly because of greedy overzealous trial lawyers who cripple the system with lies and uninformed juries who grant huge settlements against competent Drs.
Edwards is their poster boy

[Deadshot]

Insurance costs are high mainly because of greedy overzealous trial lawyers who cripple the system with lies and uninformed juries who grant huge settlements against competent Drs.


But aren't those trial lawyers simply using the laws the Constitution protects...you are not suggesting that maybe the Constitution is wrong and needs to be ammended are you? Or maybe that just our laws, which the Constitution protects, needs to be changed, are you?

Who would change those laws? The Government, through the will of the people, right? So why not change the Health Care system, by having the Government do it through the will of the people?

You want the Government to do something about greedy trial lawyers, but don't trust them on Health Care. How can you trust them to fix a system they run, yet not trust them to create a system to run?

[preservanation]

Oh c'mon.
I'm sure you support them.
The abuse of the system is a classic example of the redistribution of wealth.

[Deadshot]

Oh c'mon.
I'm sure you support them.
The abuse of the system is a classic example of the redistribution of wealth.


No, YOU, c'mon. You are against the Government being involved with Health Care because you fear the system being FUBAR'd under Government control. Yet you have no problem with Government reforming our laws.

On one hand they're not to be trusted, on the other they're supposed to be our saviors!

As to redistribution of wealth, there are 40 Million people without Healthcare, how many people - and I'd like a source - have cleaned up on the Medical profession this year from trial lawyers? You see the point - almost 14% of the country without Health Care vs. what probably isn't more then a million people who get that "redistributed" wealth. So it would be 14% vs. less then .34%.

[preservanation]

Bottom line is that the American people will and should reject socialism when given the chance.
That is what "Universal"(scary in it's own right) health care is.
What you libs want is not to even give the American people the chance to make that choice.
Classic.

[Deadshot]

Bottom line is that the American people will and should reject socialism when given the chance.
That is what "Universal"(scary in it's own right) health care is.
What you libs want is not to even give the American people the chance to make that choice.
Classic.


But the American people have already EMBRACED medical socialism! Go out there and tell a candidate to say "I'm doing away with MediCare and MediCaid!" See how that goes.

While you're at see what happens to your fictional candidate when they say they're going to do away with Social Security also.

The American people have ALREADY made a choice and taken the first steps, us libs are just going to the next logical step...

[heyjude]

Medicare works. I know that for a fact. And it is far better than the super expensive private insurance I paid for. The fact is, Republicans are trying to eliminate the middleclass. They have declared war on it.

[preservanation]

I wish we had A politician with enough gumption to do just what you suggest.
If the people were allowed to put all that money which they paid in medicare,etc taxes into a saving account like the proposed HSA, they would never have to worry about paying for health care again. They would be filthy rich.
Same with Social Security taxes.
I chalk it up to propaganda and false faith in gov that we are not clamoring for such a thing.

[Deadshot]

I wish we had A politician with enough gumption to do just what you suggest.
If the people were allowed to put all that money which they paid in medicare,etc taxes into a saving account like the proposed HSA, they would never have to worry about paying for health care again. They would be filthy rich.
Same with Social Security taxes.
I chalk it up to propaganda and false faith in gov that we are not clamoring for such a thing.


But no politician TRIES to touch "the third rail in politics" for a reason. They'll get crucified by the public. The American people LIKE to take care of the elderly and WANT a guaranteed retirement.

As to your assertion about people getting filthy rich by savings...Do you know how many people pull from their 401k's, even with the 30% penalty? I've got a buddy who works at Hallmark Cards, where they have profit sharing. He's been there 35 years and has about 700K. His brother dipped into Profit Sharing, three times - a divorce/buying a house/send a kid to school - his brother started two years before he did and is in a higher paying job, he's got less then 200k with 37 years in!!! With people having access the money would be touched. What would you do to those who touched their money and were not rich? Or what about the people who invested in Enron or unwisely and lost their money?

Social Secuirty and the Medi's are PROTECTED by the Government. No matter what you'll get something...and when you run out of money for healthcare at say 85 years old, the government will STILL take care of you. THAT's why Social Security and the Medi's will NEVER be touched, even though they are pure socialism.

American's want that sure thing...

[preservanation]

I agree and they were started by LBJ, one of you heroes.
All I'm asking is that maybe we can put some of it in an account so that it remains our money and not the gov to steal for pet projects and dole it out to us as they see fit.
If you trust the gov more than yourself, let'em have it.
All I'm asking for is a choice.
I thought you guys were all about choice.

[Deadshot]

I agree and they were started by LBJ, one of you heroes.
All I'm asking is that maybe we can put some of it in an account so that it remains our money and not the gov to steal for pet projects and dole it out to us as they see fit.
If you trust the gov more than yourself, let'em have it.
All I'm asking for is a choice.
I thought you guys were all about choice.


If you were about choice then why aren't the Republicans endorsing Gay marriage? Liberals are for personal choice, i.e. what you do in the privacy of your home, to your body and with another consenting adults. But when it comes to money we believe that the safest bet is the one with the Government.

They cover all, no matter what happens. I give you control of your money and you blow it or invest it unwisely, I won't leave you by the roadside to die. I'm a Liberal, I'll try and help you and ask for others to help. So my party put into place something that protects against SOME peoples unluckiness or unwise financial decisions or just plain stupidity. We're for 100% of the people, not just the savy investors.

[DANG]

Here's the facts, straight from my best friend, a nurse.

When you find yourself in the hospital, deny, deny, deny. If they ask do you smoke? Say no. If they ask do you drink? Say no. If they ask do you do drugs? Say no. If you say yes to any of those things, they will not treat you as well as those who say no.

This is the inside scoop, my friends.
Bad advice. I am going to do everything possible to help those who are trying to help me. Why would your friend suggest sabotaging anyones path to recovery? Dishonesty creates more troule than it fixes. All drama and tragedy start with a lie.


LOL - true enough. Just say "no" to all those questions they ask on the initial forms! :D

(I've done it myself - I've said in the past I'm a "moderate" drinker, when the amount of beer I consumed the night before would certainly disqualify me from being a "moderate" drinker!!!!).
Did you lie to save face? Are you aware, you could die.... choking on your own vomit because of the oxygen mask strapped to your face. Eh, so what, right? At least you wont be aware of them looking down on you for not caring about your own life.


Preservas off topic rant would please only the richest people in the world who can afford Americas inflated healthcare costs.
It's simple folks, if government takes over the healthcare industry, working people will no longer have to choose between food and medicine, the government will TAKE more of their earnings and promise medicine, leaving them to starve!I dont believe the current admin should be allowed to touch it with a 10 foot pole. They have a record of hiring the worst possible candidate for any position.

To name only a few:
1) Brownie had ZERO experience in emergency response. And it showed.

2) John Bolton suggested blowing up the UN.... so your presiturd makes him US Ambassador to the UN.

3) More recently we had the Mine owner (Stickler) with the worst safety record PLANTED as Dept head of MSHA: The political crony overseeing the government’s response is Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) head Richard Stickler, who spent 30 years as a coal company manager with Beth Energy. The Senate twice rejected Stickler’s nomination because the mines he managed “incurred injury rates double the national average,” so he had to rely on a 2006 recess appointment by Bush.

Like both Brownie and Rove, Stickler has been tragically inept at leading a crisis. By law, MSHA is supposed to be in charge of managing the Utah mine tragedy. But Stickler largely stepped aside and allowed the mine’s owner, Bob Murray, to control the disaster. It took MSHA at least two days to gain public control of the situation. In an Aug. 7 press briefing, Murray used a media appearance to criticize global warming proponents, and only later “emphasized that his heart and his priorities are with the trapped miners and their families.” Many experts have also questioned why MSHA allowed “anyone, including rescuers, into the still-dangerous mine.”

Throughout his administration, Bush has allowed political considerations to outweigh safety concerns about mining. According to a 2006 AFL-CIO analysis, the Bush administration has cut 170 positions from MSHA. It has also decreased major fines for safety violations, and in many cases, has failed to collect any fines at all. Instead, Bush appointed former coal industry officials like Stickler and J. Steven Griles, the Deputy Interior Secretary who was recently sentenced to 10 months in prison in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Additionally, the coal industry has donated approximately $10.6 million to Republicans since the 2000 election cycle.

4) Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzalez; "The Geneva Convention is quaint"

Not to mention NO-BID contracts to crony malefactors.

Do I think the bush regime and house of torture should be in charge of Health Care? ...... F_ _ _ Y_ _!!



Insurance costs are high mainly because of greedy overzealous trial lawyers who cripple the system with lies and uninformed juries who grant huge settlements against competent Drs.
Edwards is their poster boy
OK, so its your position that there are NO legitimate cases against greedy, overzealous doctors and companies who have harmed people via incompetance? That they should not be punished financially?

[Elrathin]

Bad advice. I am going to do everything possible to help those who are trying to help me. Why would your friend suggest sabotaging anyones path to recovery? Dishonesty creates more troule than it fixes. All drama and tragedy start with a lie.


Actually it is very sound advice. Look at the guy in the article, he told the truth. What did that get him? No surgery. If he would have denied he smoked, he would have gotten the surgery.

Hate to say it, but in some cases, it is best to deny things like smoking. Of course its obvious if they are taking an xray of your lung you can't deny it, but in this case he should have IMO.

[heyjude]

There is not one thing stopping people from investing some of their money in the stock market and bonds. Join a mutual fund. And pray the market doesn't do what it is doing right now. I don't know diddly about the market, but a woman I worked for once,(she was rich) said that all gains are paper, but all losses are real. I don't know what that means, but she seemed very unhappy with Reaganomics.

Why do you all sound like you cannot invest money unless someone else does it for you, effectively forcing you to?

[Deadshot]

Look at the minimum wage. Look at what the avg. household income is, here in the KC area it's around 50K for a family of four. There's not a lot of money to invest, so unless it's a sure thing - like Social Security which GUARANTEES a postive return, people have to be careful investing.

Be careful when looking at the Republican plan, there's a reason that Bush couldn't pass it. American's like this form of socialism!!!

[DANG]

Bad advice. I am going to do everything possible to help those who are trying to help me. Why would your friend suggest sabotaging anyones path to recovery? Dishonesty creates more troule than it fixes. All drama and tragedy start with a lie.


Actually it is very sound advice. Look at the guy in the article, he told the truth. What did that get him? No surgery. If he would have denied he smoked, he would have gotten the surgery.Or he could have quit smoking and had a succesful surgery.... you left that part out. Its on him! The doctor isnt telling him to stop smoking because he is mean spirited. Its because....
Repost:A: Smoking can greatly compromise your ability to heal after surgery. Smoking constricts the small blood vessels in your body, decreasing blood flow to areas. After surgery, this can lead to poor blood flow to healing areas, resulting in slower healing and, sometimes, persistent non-healing wounds.(In case you didnt see it before)


Hate to say it, but in some cases, it is best to deny things like smoking. Of course its obvious if they are taking an xray of your lung you can't deny it, but in this case he should have IMO.You have a right to be wrong. And the doctor has a right to refuse treatment if the guy is going to rub sh!t into his wound (or smoke)

[Marley]

Diabetics don't heal well either. So what?

Why can't a person be free to live as they choose? You know, freedom.

[Truth_and_Power]

Diabetics don't heal well either. So what?

Why can't a person be free to live as they choose? You know, freedom.


Are you under the impression that an out of work former roofer would be able to afford this surgery in the US?

[Marley]

Anyone can afford anything.

It's all in one's priorities.

Unless those priorities are being infringed upon by the raw power of government.

Which cost more? a surgery or a house?

Anyone who wants a house in America has a house!

[Truth_and_Power]

Anyone can afford anything.

It's all in one's priorities.

Unless those priorities are being infringed upon by the raw power of government.

Which cost more? a surgery or a house?

Anyone who wants a house in America has a house!


I was unaware you and Fanny Mae had solved the health care gap in america. That's great to hear.

[DANG]

Diabetics don't heal well either. So what?So what? Diabetes is a disease. While Nicotine addiction may arguably be considered a "disease" it is a disease of choice. A diabetic can't quit being diabetic for a few weeks. This guy CAN quit (whether he thinks so or not) smoking

Why can't a person be free to live as they choose? You know, freedom.He has that choice. He is free to smoke. If he wants his foot worked on, however ....... he has some criteria to meet. Its not as hard as he thinks, to quit. In fact it is only as hard as his own mind makes it.

[Marley]

You are surely unaware of many many things!

Which costs more? A surgery or a house?

Suddenly you want to talk about me and not stay focused on the topic huh?

[DANG]

Its as easy as letting go.

[Marley]

A diabetic can't .

I'm diabetic.

I quit being a diabetic.

I changed my diet and exercise and quit being diabetic!

I could easily "quit being diabetic for a few weeks."


See how much trouble your ignorance gets you in?

[Truth_and_Power]

I see no evidence this man owns a house.[hr]
A diabetic can't .

I'm diabetic.

I quit being a diabetic.

I changed my diet and exercise and quit being diabetic!

I could easily "quit being diabetic for a few weeks."


See how much trouble your ignorance gets you in?


Why don't you quit being a jerk too it'll help your blood pressure.

[DANG]

A diabetic can't .

I'm diabetic.

I quit being a diabetic.

I changed my diet and exercise and quit being diabetic!

I could easily "quit being diabetic for a few weeks."


See how much trouble your ignorance gets you in?
Your 1st sentence is present tense. 2nd sentence is past tense.

I suspect you are still diabetic. It just fluctuates with your blood sugar level. I am not a doctor. It seems you are the ignorant one if you are arguing that this guy cant quit. I know diabetics who have lost limbs because they continued to drink alcohol after doctors told them not to. Same thing with this topic. This guy could concievably get gangreen and lose his foot if he smokes before/after surgery.

[TheStripey1]

I wonder how long before they refuse to help people because they are overweight, or any other problem society calls into question.


Source: Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481617&in_page_id=1770&in_poll_id=18353)

A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a Health Service hospital has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking.

John Nuttall, 57, needs surgery to set the ankle which he broke in three places two years ago because it did not mend naturally with a plaster cast.

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/StairstoFlatCP_468x461.jpg

They have told him they will treat him only if he gives up smoking. But the former builder has been unable to break his habit and is now resigned to coping with the injury as he cannot afford private treatment.

He is in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine.

Mr Nuttall, of Newlyn, Cornwall, broke the ankle in a fall in 2005. Initially he refused surgery because he had caught MRSA at a different hospital four years earlier, and was terrified of history repeating itself.

He hoped the fractured bones would knit together with a standard plaster cast to immobilise his ankle.

But six months and three plaster casts later, it became clear that an operation to pin the bones was the only solution.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/JohnNuttallCP_468x643.jpg

However, the hospital told Mr Nuttall, who no longer works because of smoking-related chest problems, that he would have to give up smoking before an operation could be carried out.

Mr Nuttall said: '"I am in agony. I have begged them to operate but they won't. I have tried my hardestto give up smoking but I can't. I got down to ten a week at one point but they said that was not good enough.

"I spent 12 months trying to give up and used patches and everything, but nothing works.

"I have smoked for over 40 years and it's not going to happen.

"We were brought up at a time when cigarette advertisements were everywhere and there were no warnings.

"I want to warn other smokers that they could be denied medical treatment and there is nothing we can do about it.

"I have paid my dues as a taxpayer-and now the NHS won't treat me."

Mr Nuttall, who is single, uses a walking stick to get around and fears his bones will now be so 'calcified' that an operation would not work even if he were allowed to have it.

"It is very painful," he said. "If I walk more than a few steps I can feel it grinding."

A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly."



A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly."

They don't want to do the surgery not because he smokes, but because his recovery will be hindered by his smoking. There's a difference.

And I agree with them. IF a patient wants to take up physician time and hospital infrastructure, they should be willing to do EVERYTHING within their powers to help with outcome of the procedure. If they decline to help themselves, then the hospital should not have to help them. It's all about PERSONAL responsibility.

I'm also against giving liver transplants to people who abuse alcohol.

Bottom line... if you smoke, don't go to the United Kingdom when you need an operation.[hr]
Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

I have to agree with you, Drocket. Smoking reduces circulation especially in the legs. I think the doctor's worries are gangrene. If I was this man, I'd weigh the risks......do I want to have a foot that hurts constanly or do I want to lose it.


he has a third option... stop smoking and then have the operation... once he has healed from it... I'm sure he could take up pounding down those coffin nails once again... to his heart's desire... or demise as the case may be...

[hr]
This is the kind of thing that Hillary care will bring.
Care can be refused if you do not meet gov requirements.
It would be possible to deny citizens care if the do not meet certain criteria.
If the gov decides that you are over weight they might not give you that cardiac-bypass until you lose 20 pounds.

Remember...Anything the government has the power to give you they also have the power to take away


Universal Health Care beats NO health care, paws down... have you seen Sicko, preserv? I bet not... How about you Mr and Ms Lurker? Have YOU seen Sicko! yet? I recommend it... It's an eye opener...

If the patient is required to have a certain level of well being to get an operation, then fine... then THEY should be willing to do what is neccessary to improve their health and stop their addiction. Do you think that the patient bears no responsibility in their own health? Do you think that a patient's health is the sole responsibility of the medical staff?





[hr]
This is not about smoking this is about the gov withholding health care unless people conform.



Wrong...

A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly."

IF you want the operation, then quit smoking. Simple.

Or you can go to another country... and try to get one there...

[hr]
It's not about smoking or weight or whatever: it's about doing whatever you can to help ensure your patients don't die, which is exactly what doctors are supposed to do.

Correct, doctors.
I'm sorry, I don't have that same blind faith in Government!
They will be the ones making the decisions, not doctors.
Don't you get it?[hr]


preserv? The topic here is about a hospital in Britain tying an operation to a tobacco addict's stopping his filthy habit...

not Universal Health Care...

correct me if I'm wrong... the doctors who told this man to quit smoking in order to get the operation work at the hospital in question. Correct?

They don't work for the government.



[hr]

Preserva, you are acting like they wont operate unless he gets a haircut. Its not about conforming. Smoking is bad for you in spite of your denial.

If your body is trying to fight off poisons from toxic smoke, its healing power cannot focus on healing/mending flesh and bone.

I want to let a DOCTOR make that decision in consultation with myself and my family.
Not the GOVERNMENT in consultation with congress, regulations and tax revenues.


preserv? you have wound yourself up over nothing... it's not the government telling him anything... that is in YOUR imagination only... the DOCTORS at the hospital told him to stop smoking... IF he wants the operation, he has two options... leave the country and go where they don't care or stop smoking...

lurkers? isn't this a hoot? :ecstatic: preserv has apparently wound himself into a knot over something only he is seeing... :ecstatic: there is absolutely NO MENTION of the government in the article... just doctors, the hospital and the patient... no government involvement whatsoever...

[AnnEsthesia]

Has no one else noticed that HE put himself in this situation by REFUSING surgery when he first injured himself? They offered to fix it right away and he refused. So, frankly, I do not feel sorry for him at all. Quit smoking and get it fixed or deal with the bed you made for yourself.

[TheStripey1]

And thats the right choice to make, a sensible one. However, if he wishes to make a foolish choice, then who are we to stop him from making one? :)


In my opinion, he is making a foolish choice every time he lights up a cigarette.

If his continuing to pound down those coffin nails is the cause for his not being given treatment, then so be it. He can either quit or he can leave the country to get the operation.[hr]
If the guy broke his arm someday, would it acceptable for the doctor to deny him treatment (and affect his capacity to work) if he did not stop smoking?


It was he who didn't allow the hospital to treat him when the bone was broken back in 2005... he seems to have a history of bad choices...

...snip

Mr Nuttall, of Newlyn, Cornwall, broke the ankle in a fall in 2005. Initially he refused surgery because he had caught MRSA at a different hospital four years earlier, and was terrified of history repeating itself.

He hoped the fractured bones would knit together with a standard plaster cast to immobilise his ankle.

But six months and three plaster casts later, it became clear that an operation to pin the bones was the only solution.

...snip


[hr]
The only problem I see with that line of reasoning is that there are many activites which are technically harmful to our bodies. We could for instance say that air pollution is harmful to the lungs, and thus a doctor could refuse to treat an asthama ridden patient if he insisted on going outside to work and thus breathe in fumes.

So - where do we draw the line?



why draw the line anywhere? Why not just stick to the facts as they are presented IN the article... It's not the evil government like preservanation thinks, it's not about being overwight as boogy proffered, or any other ailments...

it's about one hospital in England, refusing to perform an operation on one man because he's a tobacco addict and his addiction is detrimental to the outcome of the procedure.

simple.

[hr]
Talk about an off topic rant...


I know... just do what I did... use the scroll bar...



[hr]
Bottom line is that the American people will and should reject socialism when given the chance.
That is what "Universal"(scary in it's own right) health care is.
What you libs want is not to even give the American people the chance to make that choice.
Classic.



what is painfully obvious is that you have hijacked the thread because you want to bash liberals for wanting everyone to have health care. Do you, as the hard core conservative you appear to be, applaud when grandmothers and grandfathers have to choose between eating and buying their medications?

IMO... The hospital is justified in refusing to treat the tobacco addict. [hr]
Diabetics don't heal well either. So what?

Why can't a person be free to live as they choose? You know, freedom.


you have the freedom to pound down as many coffin nails as you want to do... just don't expect the doctors from that hospital in England to operate on the broken bone you refused treatment for two years earlier... UNLESS you cease smoking...

and I agree with them... no personal responsibility, no operation...






[hr]
Anyone can afford anything.

It's all in one's priorities.

Unless those priorities are being infringed upon by the raw power of government.

Which cost more? a surgery or a house?

Anyone who wants a house in America has a house!


psssssssst... emale... the bloke in question is in England... are you aware of that fact?

[hr]
You are surely unaware of many many things!

Which costs more? A surgery or a house?

Suddenly you want to talk about me and not stay focused on the topic huh?


the topic isn't about affording a house or a surgery... it's about a hospital refusing to perfom an operation on a man who refuses to quit smoking...

lurkers? have you ever seen this many right wingers make such an ado over nothing? why they're winding themselves up as tight as a drum... y'all be careful...

:shock:they're liable to snap at any moment...:shock:



[hr]
Has no one else noticed that HE put himself in this situation by REFUSING surgery when he first injured himself? They offered to fix it right away and he refused. So, frankly, I do not feel sorry for him at all. Quit smoking and get it fixed or deal with the bed you made for yourself.


yes... but apparently there are folks here who comment on the topic without actually reading the article that is the basis for it... so obviously they don't have all the facts...

:madlaugh:

it is fun to see them wind themselves up like a top tho...

:ecstatic::lmao::ecstatic:

[lily]

A responsible doctor should advocate it, sure. But forcing someone to do something is another story altogether.

But you're ok with forcing the doctor to do something that he thinks will make the man end up worse?

If the guy broke his arm someday, would it acceptable for the doctor to deny him treatment (and affect his capacity to work) if he did not stop smoking?

Nope.......that would be an emergency.[hr]

Actually it is very sound advice. Look at the guy in the article, he told the truth. What did that get him? No surgery. If he would have denied he smoked, he would have gotten the surgery.

Hate to say it, but in some cases, it is best to deny things like smoking. Of course its obvious if they are taking an xray of your lung you can't deny it, but in this case he should have IMO.


El....it's as simple as the doctor putting his fingers on your foot and taking your pulse. Low pulse, low circulation. There is no way this man could lie about it and get away with it.

[preservanation]

TheStripey1 Wrote: there is absolutely NO MENTION of the government in the article... just doctors, the hospital and the patient... no government involvement whatsoever...They don't work for the government. You do understand what socialized medicine is don't you? It means the gov runs it, the docs work for the gov and nothing gets done without express permission from the gov.
A doc can't pick up a stethoscope without gov approval.
Socialized medicine can refer to any system of medical care controlled and financed by the government. The term is often used to describe publicly administered health care systems such as the British National Health Service.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
Controlled and Financed by the gov!
Stripey Please understand this.
It is very, very important.