Re: Socialized Medicine: Patients forced to live in agony after Britain refuses to pay for painkilling injections

[Guest guest]

A couple comments: First if you read article and not just scary headline, they

might be doing something very good. There isn't enough information to judge.

You should not treat with painkillers before knowing what is wrong. Doctors do

this too much. Pain is a signal you should not avoid. If pain is knocked out,

you may be bending and twisting an area of body you should not. Numbing pain

allows you to do more injury to an area. Doctors too often take the easy way

out first, clearing the symptom and not going any further. Then they have a

patient for life. Also article states they are suggesting other ways to address

the pain issue, oestopathy and accupuncture, which may solve the problem with

less side affects. Accupunction pin points where the pain is and leaves the

other nerves of body functioning as they should. Oseopaths are MD which have

additional training in spine adjustments, to solve problem that may be caused by

bone structure problems.

Article doesn't always tell the whole story. Perhaps if cause is looked into

and cannot be found, despite best effort, that pain shot will be allowed.

Articles usually only reflects viewpoint of writer or they have only part of the

information, or say something that will make people upset to sell papers.

On either account, I also don't see this as topical here. First of all, we

don't have socialized medicine here in the United States, and it isn't being

proposed or up for vote in Congress, and noone in this group lives in Britain.

If you are posting this here to spread rightwing rumor and fear that current

adminstration is pushing for socialized medicine, this is false information.

The rumor now on right-wing radio about socialized medicine is false. New

administration is proposing **adding** health care choices for all through

program similar to Medicare, while *leaving* private insurance alone and

available to all those who want it, so you will have more choices and aim is for

nobody to be left without insurance because they cannot afford it. This rumor

was started by right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, which is not a news source.

He even describes himself as a radio entertainer. This is most likely being

done to scare people which was done when Clinton administration looked ways to

insure all Americans. Another choice for Americans to get health insurance will

only lower the cost of health care and affect the bottom line of current private

health insurers, so you can bet they are most likely behind this. As it is now,

Medicare program pulls down cost for seniors already. If that is available to

everyone, cost of medical care and insurance will likely come down for everyone.

Remember, the cost of health care and health insurance is higher here than

anywhere in the world, but we rank 30-something in health status of population

so something is wrong with the way it is. Costs alot but all that money isn't

resulting in superior health of Americans.

France provides their citizens with government insurance or private insurance

and right now WHO ranks France with number one spot in quality of health care.

I don't have a link but this is from a number of news sources, not a talk radio

show.

>

>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-\

agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html

>

[Guest guest]

Here in the US I would not be getting any injection or medical help at all with

a pre-existing illness and no medical care so all this talk of socialized

medicine just makes me mad. All this arguing across the country in the town

meetings, etc. and most of the people probably are not very informed.

>

>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-\

agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-

[Guest guest]

I have to correct last sentence I posted earlier: I said French have

government, or private insurance as if I didn't remember which.

More clearly said: French citizens have a choice of government offered

insurance, OR private insurance, and they are ranked number one in health care

right now by the World Health Organization, while the U.S. where health care is

the most expensive is ranked in thirty-something.

Don't beleive this talk that adding a government run health insurance as an

option for uninsured people will lead to socialized medicine for all. This

habit of exaggering a situation in order to creat fear is something done all the

time time to stop good things. It is the same exaggeration that they always use

against legalizing marijuana, that legalizing it will lead use of cocaine and

heroine; exaggerate the situation to create fear. If so, alcohol can do that

even better so we should do away with legalized alcohol first. I'd much rather

deal with someone high on weed, than someone drunk with alcohol but think sober

is best anyway, but this thing of allowing alchol that does so much damage to

people's health and outlawing weed is ridiculous and the main argument is this

exaggeration to creat fear of the unknown. This is propogated by the alcohol

and tobacco industry that fear people may buy a bag of weed instead of a pack of

cigarette or a bottle of booze when they go shopping for something to relax with

or party with. The alcohol and tobacco companies have money to lobby congress

and the weed lobby doesnt' exist and can spend no money on Congress because they

are illegal. They really have them in a head lock with that one. What if a

Congressman accepted money for his campaign from a 'weed producer', being that

it is an illegal substance, Congressman would have to withdraw from race, and

group would be thrown in jail and maybe Congressman also to jail, so how does

weed group compete with alcohol or tobacco if they are illegal and things passed

in Congress basically because money has exchanged hands. So that tactic has

worked there really well and they try it on everything.

Having a government run program as an 'option', does not lead to government take

over of health care. That would have to be voted in. We could get histerical

then, instead of now, when it isn't being proposed.

This is just the insurance industry that doesn't want any competition and wants

to continue to control everything, which hasn't turned out too well for us. I

think we can all atest to fact that insurance companies controlling our choices

hasn't turned out too well. It hasn't for me anyway.

Although I didn't think post about Britain denying injections was topical, I do

think the current bills regarding government optioned health care is topical if

KC allows, since we have all been abused by the current health care options we

have, which are dominated by the private health insurance companies, which are

the only choices we have unless we are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid.

I will add one other thing. When I went to see Dr Rae Environmental Clinic in

Dallas my private health insurance company didn't cover much, but people I met

there who were on Medicare/Medicaid said most things were covered for them. I

also know that no private insurance that I have ever heard of covers any

alternative medical treatments but that Medicare covers some alternative cancer

treatments, even some offered out of this country, so my information has been

very positive regarding Medicare and Medicaid although we know pf abuses of

these systems too. Any big system will be abused, that includes private

insurance comapnies also. They are very big and powerful. Allowing private

insurance companies to compete would prevent anyone from being held captive by

just one option, being only offered government plan, so I see it as a good

option, to be able to pick from a government program or a private program. More

choices are better. Don't let people talk you in to stopping us from getting

more choices. Those are my thoughts anyway!

>

>

> France provides their citizens with government insurance or private insurance