Posted on 04/29/2012 7:06:05 AM PDT by John W
A majority of doctors in a United Kingdom survey supported measures to deny non-emergency medical services to smokers and the obese, The Observer newspaper reported Sunday.
Although the survey by the networking website doctors.net.uk was a self-selecting poll, the site's chief executive called the response "a tectonic shift" for the profession.
The results feed into a British debate about "lifestyle rationing" by the National Health Service, the Observer reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at vitals.msnbc.msn.com ...
They don’t mean early care by doctors, they mean early care for yourself. They ( doctors) don’t think that people who smoke or are obese, deserve to live.
Some insurance doesn’t cover it anyway. A friend of mine was denied coverage for knee surgery because she is obese.
Oh, I know, no one would do that. They would spend the savings on donuts.
Sorry, I lost my head for a moment.
In the U.K., smokers and the obese pay taxes at the same rate as everybody else to support the NHS. If they were not taxed, they would use those moneys to fund their own treatment for conditions they had imposed upon themselves. How fair is it then, for the government to take their money and deny them treatment?
While that might be true in some cases it almost certainly isn't in other cases.My parents are a great example.Both were major league smokers.My Mom died,at 52,of lung cancer.She spent some time in hospitals but not nearly as much as many do today (there was a lot less they could do for you back then).My Dad,OTOH,developed COPD (smoker's lung disease) and,for the last 15-20 years of his life,was in and out of hospitals regularly.IOW,I think the "system" saved $$$ in my mother's case but most certainly did *not* in my father's case.
Isn't that at the heart of the matter? First, convince people that everyone should pay equally for health care. Next, decide that certain people are less deserving of health care than others. Would such a scenario happen if the burden of paying for health care were shifted back to the individual instead of the collective?
The ambitions of the insurance companies have NOTHING to do with health. They are looking at risk management ~ they pass through any additional costs to the insured parties ~ but the insurance company minimizes its own risk even if they don’t minimize your own.
ok i’m just pointing out hypocrisy... ;)
54% of the doctors in this poll would simply tell them tough, go away and die, when they first presented with a smoking related illness. Even given everything folks say and think regarding behavior that leads to poor health, that poll result scares me somewhat. We’ve come a long way and unfortunately it seems to be the way of the culture of death.
There is something she is not telling you. More likely she did not make an effort to lose weight and was denied over concerns from her doctor.
A guy at the gym was obese and they required he lose 90 lbs before they did the transplant because if he was the same weight he would not be able to do the grueling rehab that is required for the transplants to be successful.
Kill everyone over 22.
The biggest fear the liberals have is that there are/will-be too many people on the earth. They want only 30 million people on this planet. That’s why gun control is so important to them. They want to control who the guns get pointed at. They want to determine who gets to live. Yes, they are that heinous.
Continue to believe what you want. Preventive care works. Every doctor will tell you so.
No they don’t. They used to.
People still won’t live any longer. The opportunities for coroners will continue to be optimal.
This is where we are heading and it makes perfect logical sense.
If I’m paying for someone else’s health insurance, I’m not going to pay for someone drinking, smoking, being fat, engaging in risky sex, riding motorcycles, hang-gliding, etc. (the list is endless).
This is where we are heading and it makes perfect logical sense.
If I’m paying for someone else’s health insurance, I’m not going to pay for someone drinking, smoking, being fat, engaging in risky sex, riding motorcycles, hang-gliding, etc. (the list is endless).
This is where we are heading and it makes perfect logical sense.
If I’m paying for someone else’s health insurance, I’m not going to pay for someone drinking, smoking, being fat, engaging in risky sex, riding motorcycles, hang-gliding, etc. (the list is endless).
No, she has made efforts to lose the weight, including recording every bite that she eats. The doctors have decided that her problem is hormonal. She is actually fairly active, as well. She runs a small farm with cows and goats. The county gave her too much trouble over the pigs, but she used to raise them, too.
The insurance representative told her that even if it was a heart attack, they would not cover it, if the doctor attributed the heart attack to her weight.
The insurance was union insurance. Her husband is a member of the electrical workers union.
But just as at the 2008 and 2009 Chicago Marathons, Frighetto was unable to finish because of injury.
Frighetto, a self-described former couch potato, said that since she first decided to run a marathon in late 2006, she has seen doctors for a stress fracture in her foot, plantar fasciitis and iliotibial band syndrome. The activity that promised to make her healthier was actually increasing the frequency of her doctor visits, a fact that makes amateur athletes like her a problematic group of people for health insurance companies to insure. And as more and more people become marathoners — the 2011 Boston Marathon sold out in eight hours — distance runners are becoming a hard group to ignore.
“Insurance companies love runners because they’re healthy people... But, he added, because they train so hard, they have injuries and accidents that can sometimes make them difficult to insure.
. Distance running, in particular, has a documented history of injury: a 2007 study published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine found rates of injury to the lower extremities were as high as 79 percent in long-distance runners.
The survey...found that 593, or 54 percent, of the 1,096 doctors who participated answered yes to this question: “Should the NHS be allowed to refuse non-emergency treatments to patients unless they lose weight or stop smoking?”
54% is a pretty high rate of moronic incompetence to have in a healthcare system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.