Posted on 10/18/2017 8:34:14 AM PDT by rktman
The British National Health Service (NHS) has provoked a firestorm by temporarily banning surgeries on people who smoke, and those who are obese. Patients who smoke must quit for at least 8 weeks before non-urgent surgery and obese people must lose weight before the NHS gives the go ahead.
The Telegraph:
In recent years, a number of areas have introduced delays for such patients - with some told operations will be put back for months, during which time they are expected to try to lose weight or stop smoking.
But the new rules, drawn up by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in Hertfordshire, say that obese patients “will not get non-urgent surgery until they reduce their weight” at all, unless the circumstances are exceptional.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
When liberals consider conservatives by definition crazy, very easy to say no, no extraordinary care for you, no antibiotics for the kid’s ear infection, until you’re certified sane again.
California essentially decriminalizing giving people HIV was absolutely the WRONG direction to go with this.
Giving people a fatal disease that costs hundreds of thousands to slow down is both murder and costly to society ... and they act like it is giving someone herpes.
“How obese?”
That’s for your betters in the government to decide, you silly peasant.
After all the government makes up the stats and pays for everything.
Fat bureaucrats and politicians are of course exempt.
That’s really smart. “Don’t go to the doctor unless you’re healthy,” will cut down on usage substantially.
This is what happens with national healthcare, like the Dems want in this country. It is used by the “elites” and bureaucrats to enforce approved behaviors and punish unapproved behaviors by withholding healthcare.
No. Private healthcare has always been available here in the UK. I have private insurance as well as using the NHS.
Socialized medicine forces those who
choose a healthy lifestyle to pay
for those who choose the opposite.
If this is the chosen path, then it
would make sense to not pay for
dentures because someone had not taken
care of their teeth, or treat a
prostitute for certain diseases because
of his/her profession. For me, it is a catch 22 because quitting smoking has
been shown to cause obesity in some
but not all cases.
What happens to those who have thyroid
problems where obesity is a direct
result, and is not treatable?
A doctors oath is to promote and
preserve life, not to choose who lives
or dies.
“Did your wife ever stop to think that maybe the woman needed help with her knee so she could be come more mobile and lose the weight?”
Wont work. A 5’0” woman with replacement knees will damage the replacement knees. I have a 900 lb horse. If he ate until he weighed 1800 lbs, he’d have leg problems too.
Need to lose weight? Start with eating less. There were no fat inmates in the Nazi work camps. Eat, less, repeat as needed, and weight WILL come off. Having fought the battle of the bulge for 60 years, I know it isn’t EASY. But a 300+ lb woman who is 5’ 0” tall will have painful knees. And knee replacement surgery will not allow her to take up jogging.
“I understand your point about who is paying for elective surgery, but in England - you pay no matter what, as part of taxes...”
Yes, and since England is unwilling to increase taxes even FURTHER to pay for never-ending medical care, someone is going to lose out on their “free health care”. Because no health care is “free”. So....let those lose out who have issues that can be dealt with by lifestyle changes. And those in the final weeks of life might lose their lives a few weeks early.
Oh well. The only way to control your health care is to pay the bills yourself.
It all boils down to this: SOMEONE has to pay. And the people who WANT free things will always exceed those willing to BUY them free things.
My horse hurt his leg recently. I had to choose: Pay $500+ for a vet to come out and tell me he has a sore leg, or try to reduce his movement while the sore leg heals. I chose option #2. I do the same thing when it involves myself. And when it is government provided health care, then the government gets to choose. If their choices are not in line with the voters, they will become the FORMER government.
NHS is not ‘punishing’ its patients because of their lifestyle choices. They are basically trying to make limited resources available to some for whom the outcome is likely to be better.
Smokers don’t do well in surgery. Ask any surgeon or anesthesiologist. Smokers also have a longer recovery period than non-smokers.
Overweight people don’t do well in surgery. Ask any surgeon or anesthesiologist. Their recovery will take longer and they will wear out any new artificial knees faster.
Socialized medicine brings with it rationing. Sarah was right. Death panels.
It’s Orwellian
Maybe not...but since we don't know the details specifically...it's hard to stand in judgment.
Is it your view that anyone who has problems which may have been previously self-inflicted are now irredeemable and shouldn't have any procedure which would make their life more bearable or productive?
Isn't their a certain group which tends to engage in high risk sexual behavior? Will this group be denied care? In fact isn't promiscuous sexual behavior a cause of many health problems? They shouldn't be allowed to get surgery either.
What about alcoholics?
The pubs should have health monitors in them. Anyone caught drinking too much-no healthcare.
And finally- I'm sure that the British people can rest easy knowing that their obese and smoking politicians will probably still be able to get healthcare. The NHS policy likely won't include them, ot they will pass a law to exempt themselves from it.
“Maybe not...but since we don’t know the details specifically...it’s hard to stand in judgment.”
Since my wife was a nurse listening to MDs discuss options, she KNEW the details. She did not share them all with me.
“Is it your view that anyone who has problems which may have been previously self-inflicted are now irredeemable and shouldn’t have any procedure which would make their life more bearable or productive?”
DEPENDS. Something as expensive as knee replacement surgery, and something with as little a chance of success given the patient’s weight...yeah, I think it is STUPID to pay for surgery which has almost no chance of success. If someone wants me to pay their bill, then there needs to be some reason to believe there are no cheaper yet more effective solutions available!
If YOU want to pay for the morbidly obese to have new knees, go ahead. But don’t ask ME to pay for their new knees. What YOU do with YOUR money is YOUR business. What YOU do with MY money is MY business.
Don’t want me to judge? Don’t send me the bill!
I’m a nurse as well. My job is to give excellent care regardless of that patient’s financial status..lifestyle choices or physical impairments. No one I know is a “perfect specimen of health”. Be careful...for one day they may deem you too old, too poor and not productive enough in society to deserve their time and attention.
Then you are a fool. You CANNOT give excellent care which ignores the patient's lifestyle choices. Or their self-induced physical impairments. You might as well hand out Band-Aids for headaches!
Morbid obesity causes many problems. You cannot treat the symptoms without addressing the cause.
And financial status? In my wife's case, she overheard the doctors choosing treatment based on what Medicaid would pay for in Arizona. I cannot access drugs my insurance does not approve of, or pay for, unless I pay for them out of pocket. I cannot see doctors without a referral, and my insurance may refuse me a referral. Again, that means no go unless I pay out of pocket.
Welcome to the world! My insurance doesn't pay for anything and everything. Neither does Medicaid, nor Medicare. Life doesn't work like that.
Replacing knees on the very fat is pissing in the ocean. It does the patient no good. It only puts money in the pockets of hospitals and doctors. MASKING an ailment is bad medicine.
Suppose you had 10 patients. Treating them for their symptoms will cost $1000. You have $200 in your budget. How do YOU prioritize? Do you spend all your money on the 5 patients who could solve their problem with a lifestyle change, and then stiff the other 5 who cannot? Or do you, like a liberal, insist on raising taxes by $800 so you can do good things with other people's money?
Why is it people of FreeRepublic, of all places, cannot understand that treatment costs money, and money is not in limitless supply - not even for the government!?
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher
A fool who has compassion for the individual person. I'm not about socialism...but if I'm hired to do a job, I do it to the best of my ability....without judging the individual. Part of my job is to teach that patient to make better choices...not police or condemn them.
With that said, I know your frustration first hand. I've been there....and lived it. It's not fun. Place your anger where it belongs....on the bureaucrats who created that messed up healthcare system...
I’m not disagreeing with you. Just trying
to emphasize that no one has the right
to refuse medical care based on the
lifestyles some choose. If there is
a procedure available, and that person
who suffers the illness is willing to
pay, it should be available to that
person, regardless the outcome. To simply
lump together all smokers, or all obese
persons, and deny them a chance to make
their lives better, is unfair. It was
their choice, therefore, their responsibility. I simply do not want
to pay for their choices, but accept
the responsibility to pay for mine.
“without judging the individual.”
Analyzing the root problem is not “judging” a person. Well...it is, but only in the sense that judgment is a good word.
If my 900 lb horse weighed 1800 lbs...he’d be dead already. But if he had problems moving because he was grossly obese, no vet would recommend surgery. They would tell me to feed the horse less, and the horse would move better once he lost a few hundred pounds. If he still had problems after losing weight, then they would take another look.
That wouldn’t be uncompassionate. It wouldn’t be puritanical, or hateful, or spiteful. It would just be an accurate diagnosis.
A woman who weighs over 300 lbs, but who has a skeleton designed to support 100 lbs, cannot solve her problem with knee surgery. If you weigh 2-3 times more than your body was designed to carry, you WILL have problems. Period. There is nothing compassionate or even competent about saying, “That’s fine dear. We’ll replace your knees, the state will pay for it, and then you’ll be fine!” THAT is malpractice. THAT is lying. It is bad medicine.
If someone has high blood pressure and smokes heavily, what is the best way to attack the problem - stop smoking, or lots of blood pressure medication? And if they refuse to stop smoking, then just how much can you do for their heart and lungs anyways? If a person can solve their problem, or at least greatly reduce it, with a lifestyle change, then why are taxpayers obligated to pay for surgery and medication when the patient refuses?
What is compassionate about ignoring the real problem?
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.