Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE ANT who wrote (95446)	10/12/2012 11:42:49 AM
From: THE ANT	2 Recommendations Respond to of 218617

Health care could consume all spending and still some could live longer if given more care.Already limits are set on transplants by criteria such as age Society not the government must set the limit and set it they will. Machiavelli said "a man will sooner forgive the slaying of his father than the taking of his wealth" (The French use hot summer weather to prove the point)

To: THE ANT who wrote (95446)	10/12/2012 2:24:39 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218617

The way it's done in New Zealand is the government provides free medical treatment, including government-owned hospitals. People who are willing to put up with the delays, inconvenience, pain and suffering and accidental death go to those. People who can afford it get medical treatment privately. So, when I needed hernia surgery, I got my money out, hired the best man for the job, got it done laparoscopically instead of by the hospital method of cut in abdomen, and had the job done quickly. A few months earlier, our grandson aged 3 also needed the same operation [odd coincidence but that's life]. The way it works meant he went to the government-paediatrics hospital where they messed up anaesthesia and pain relief leaving him screaming in pain and fear when he woke up. I was just poisoned with atropine which I doubt that I actually needed as I have low blood pressure and slow heartbeat anyway [due to being healthy, not any medical problem]. The government sector is so big that it's hard to escape it for many things such as cancer treatment where death-dealing treatment is compulsory. It is illegal to save oneself. Medical "ethics" means people are not allowed to escape, as a haematologist [Tim Hawkins] explained to me regarding non-Hodgkins lymphoma treatment that was possible. He said that even if available, it would be unethical to give it to one patient but not another, even if one patient paid. Here are the dead people from the lack of Rituxan: Message 24119968 Luckily, our son escaped, no thanks to the medical guild cartel in that regard and Big Brother. I don't buy medical insurance because I object to paying for people who don't look after their health, the genetically unlucky, administrative costs, padded charges, fake claims, government supervisors, profits, and my own administrative time wasting buying and managing the process. I have saved a fortune on medical insurance over the decades for a family of 6. The medical cartel needs deregulation and competition. Look at Toyota with their recall for switches and the mass hysteria over "unintended acceleration" while swarms of people have died from medical misadventure. A brand like Toyota would ensure that surgery would be done on the correct leg. "Oh sorry, we amputated the wrong one, but the good news is we can do the right one, which is the left one, which is the one left after the wrong one was removed, tomorrow". Medical "ethics" still says people can't sell a kidney or other donor part [the deceased estate could make quite a profit from selling a young road accident victim's body parts at auction]. That means few body parts are available. That means much pain, suffering and early death for people who need replacement body parts. If parts are available, the medical people charge what the market will bear, the hospital charges full freight, the government takes taxes from everyone, the recipient gets a new lease on life, but the donor gets [if they are lucky] a thank you note. If the donor was a widow with 4 little children, whose husband died in an industrial accident, she would no doubt feel much happiness to know that while she and her children go hungry, the doctors can be playing golf on the profits from their latest surgical intervention, the hospital owners can holiday in Bali, the government tax collectors can pay for anti-CO2 jamborees for climate change "scientists" in Cancun and the happy recipient of the organ can swing by and rob the donor's wife [even criminals get body parts if they are next in line for treatment because medical "ethics" ignores such things]. If she does have a part time job to get some money to survive on, the tax she pays will help pay for the education of the lucky student selected to be a member of the medical cartel. Mqurice