Universal Health "Care"

Hillary and Bernie.

To visit Slowman and Phyllis?

SWMBO is afraid that I'll retire and get in her way. I have a decade or two of puzzles to solve in the queue. I don't need "work" for that.

god damn right

Original. I think and from a very long time ago. I can't rule out having heard something like it in the dim and distant past though.

My choice of phrasing has evolved over the years. Here is a previous instance from sci.astro.amateur in 2014

$2C$20wealthy$20sci.astro$20martin$20brown/sci.astro.amateur/MHTvDeH2Hsc/V-0eW-6_VxQJ

My accumulated time in the USA is slightly under a year. Some in very remote observatories and the rest in Silicon valley or big universities.

How long have you spent in the UK or in Europe?

One of the things that put me off taking up a US post was the fact that my would be boss very nearly lost his first born child because of a fight over exactly what his company linked medical insurance covered maternity wise. In the end the insurers paid up after a 4 hour delay but it very nearly ended up with a dead baby since they were way more concerned about getting paid than the welfare of a new born infant requiring immediate intensive care for breathing difficulties.

I have several good friends in major US institutions and some of my clients are US based.

You certainly are a loser. Clueless about reality outside your bubble.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

Yes, that's always a useful question.

The supplementary question is whether he has experience of both systems.

Horrifying. I've heard similar things from Brit ex-pats in the USA.

Presumably the medics were less afraid of a malpractice suit than they were of not getting paid.

A relative, who has worked in San Diego since the 60s, has deliberately kept up his entitlement to NHS treatment because he expects one day not to be able to afford US medical treatment (currently he has workplace insurance).

Having seen both systems over the decades, for himself and his parents (died at 96 (choosing to refuse offered treatment) and at over 100), he knows which makes him feel nervous - i.e. the US system.

Leftpondians find that difficult to believe, until they relevant experience.

Worse; he chooses to be clueless, and regards it as a virtue. That isn't uncommon in the elderly.

For me he's been Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson since at least 24th April 2014 (which is the earliest example Google picks up).

I don't think it's an age-related defect - he's been an ignorant red-neck s ince he grew up in West Virginia. Less ignorant than the other red-necks, s ince he eventually got to MIT, but fixed on the idea of learning only what he could see would make him money, and avoiding any other education as a po intless waste of time. John Larkin shows much the same kind of tunnel-visio n, though Tulane seems to have offered him a lot less to ignore.

Neither seems to recognise Trump as lying snake-oil salesman, which is a bi t odd - recognising that kind of character ought to be part of red-neck bas ic education, but maybe they expect all politicians to be morally defective , and don't bother discriminating between degrees of infamy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Maybe inactivity is always safe...

Mike.

Obviously not, in this particular case.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

There are always exceptions. Seatbelts without shoulder harnesses weren't a great idea but that's all ancient history.

There are a hell of a lot of ejection cases. It's a real bad idea to leave the vehicle until it comes to a complete stop.

Ironically, the explosive charge is set assuming that you're not wearing the seatbelt. It need not be as strong as it is.

Good analogy. I think Jurb's problem is that if he's told that he has to breathe, he'll hold his breath forever, just to prove he's in control.

breathe, he'll hold his breath forever, just to prove he's in control. "

Hardy har har.

NO, I am not that type of obstinate, but I do make my own decisions. There are certain ways I prefer not to live. On a motorcycle, I would rather have my skull broke open and be dead than to be a quadriplegic who can't even s hoot himself. And yes I would and I believe it is my right to do so. In fac t I have a standing do not resuscitate order.

Life may be 'precious" but it is not worth prolonging at all costs. I do no t practice all this safety shit. For others yes, like the neighbor has kids ad I have that table saw with no guard. So when I am cutting and am done w ith a piece and go to install it I unplug the saw so if they wander over an d get curious they are not that likely to get hurt. They already lost a kid recenttly. he was over Grandma's and they lost track of him for a minute o r so, he climbed the fence and wandered around the neighborhood and drowned in one of the neighbor's "ponds". Who do you sue ? That is what goes throu gh many peoples' minds.

Go ahead and be safe.

to breathe, he'll hold his breath forever, just to prove he's in

e are certain ways I prefer not to live. On a motorcycle, I would rather ha ve my skull broke open and be dead than to be a quadriplegic who can't even shoot himself. And yes I would and I believe it is my right to do so. In f act I have a standing do not resuscitate order.

It's your right to be a quadriplegic? Ok, go ahead. You are so selfish, j ust don't expect the rest of us to pay for your care!

not practice all this safety shit. For others yes, like the neighbor has ki ds ad I have that table saw with no guard. So when I am cutting and am done with a piece and go to install it I unplug the saw so if they wander over and get curious they are not that likely to get hurt. They already lost a k id recenttly. he was over Grandma's and they lost track of him for a minute or so, he climbed the fence and wandered around the neighborhood and drown ed in one of the neighbor's "ponds". Who do you sue ? That is what goes thr ough many peoples' minds.

There are times you make no sense and there are times you just ramble. Was there a thought in all that?

Rick C.

Yet you run your life like they're causing you mommy problems.

No joke.

Oh, but you are. ...or at least say so here.

The point is that you don't practice it because someone tells you that you have to.

When possible, sure.

Yup, it's a thoroughly ghastly idea:

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

I don't know how it is in the USA but in the UK a patient who is fit to make their own decision can choose not to have treatment even if it will shorten their life provided that so doing does not endanger others (ebola, paranoid schitzophrenic, TB, other contagion). ISTR Steve Jobs did this too in the US although based on some misguided beliefs.

DNR is generally for the situation where the damage likely to be done to the patient by resuscitation for cardiac arrest outweighs the benefits.

People have unreasonable expectations of how well a defibrillator actually works successfully in a hospital setting. Frail and elderly patients tend to get badly bruised and/or broken ribs by CPR attempts.

ISTR the odds of success are about 1:12 in the hospital population but closer to 1:3 with athletes on a sports field vs 1:2 in hospital soaps.

People have unreasonable expectations of the crash team medics.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

Of course anyone able to make their own decisions in the US can refuse medi cal treatment. The issue is when a person is not able to make their own de cisions. In those cases, we do not allow people to die unless they have pr eviously written an advanced directive indicating such or a guardian has de cided in the person's stead.

Wouldn't that normally be a medical issue for the doctor to decide? In the US DNR is a personal choice, often elected when a patient is terminal.

CPR and defibrillator are two different things.

Why would people have any experience with this?

Rick C.

Dumbshit, I wasn't responding to you.

See the "crazy" part. You have to be of sound mind for any such document to be honored.

No, it's generally used for terminal patients so unusual life-sustaining measures aren't used. Not resuscitating someone in cardiac arrest means they die.

Defibrillators won't bring someone back from cardiac arrest. It will correct fibrillation but rarely cardiac arrest.

The odds aren't bad if the issue is V-Fib but they'll likely go right back in. 1/12 is probably high for cardiac arrest.

CPR and defibrillator are two different things. "

Be it known that part of your quote was not me. the possibility of injury during defib or whatever is not a factor in my decision at all.

Why would people have any experience with this? "

Again, not me. I have no expectations.