The Democrats think they can do National Health Care better than Britain despite the Obamacare Website Rollout Disaster

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2014

Week in Review

Those on the left settled for the Affordable Care Act.  It’s not what they wanted.  But they think it can, in time, give them what they want.  Single-payer health care.  Or a true national health care system.  Like they have in Britain.  Oh how the left would love to have a no nonsense National Health Service (NHS) in the United States.  A system totally funded by general taxation.  Because that would be better than Obamacare.  And far better than what Obamacare replaced.  Now those who think that are either lying to the American people.  Or are completely ignorant to what’s going on in the NHS.  For the highly esteemed NHS is on life support (see £10 each can save the NHS by Norman Warner and Jack O’Sullivan posted 3/30/2014 on the guardian).

A care and cash crisis is sending the NHS bust. In its present form, a shortfall of £30bn a year, or more, is expected by 2020. Paying off the nation’s deficit means five more years of further deep public expenditure cuts, whoever is in government. So, over-protecting an outdated, cosseted and unaffordable healthcare system inevitably means starving other vital public services, unless we choke off economic growth and worsen the cost of living with big tax increases. That might be worth contemplating if the NHS was offering brilliant care. But it isn’t.

Just look at the thousands of frail elderly people who get the care they need only by queuing in A&E and spending weeks in hospital – the most expensive and often the worst way to look after them. And let’s not forget that the NHS is sleepwalking through an obesity epidemic.

These are truths hidden from public view. Many politicians and clinicians are scared to tell people that our much-loved 65-year-old NHS no longer meets the country’s needs. Frankly, it is often poor value for money, and the greatest public spending challenge after the general election…

Our specialist hospital services should be concentrated in fewer, safer, better-equipped and more expert centres with 24/7 consultant cover and improved transport links…

A new integrated “National Health and Care Service” would pioneer a “co-producing” health partnership between state and citizen, with annual personal health MOTs agreeing responsibilities over the year for both services and the individual. At the heart of this relationship would be an NHS membership scheme, charging £10 a month (with some exemptions) collected through council tax for local preventative services to help people stay healthy.

This is one of several new funding streams urgently needed to renew impoverished parts of our care system but preserving a mainly tax-funded NHS that is largely free at the point of use. We have to escape the constraints of general taxation if we want a decent system…

Just 3.5% of the annual 500,000 deaths lead to payment of inheritance tax. We must expect the elderly, after their deaths, to contribute more. NHS free entitlements, such as continuing care, could be reduced or means-tested and hotel costs in hospital charged, as in France and Germany.

Britain has an aging population.  Fewer people are entering the workforce to pay the taxes that fund the NHS.  While more people are leaving the workforce and consuming NHS resources.  So less money is going into the NHS while the NHS is spending more and more money on patients.  Leading to a deficit that they can’t pay for without killing the economy.  Or taking money away from other government services.

If the NHS was providing quality health care they could probably justify taking money away from other areas.  But it’s not.  The one argument for passing Obamacare was that it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms.  But it’s not doing that in Britain.  The wait times are so long to see a doctor or get a procedure that people are going to the emergency room (A/E in Britain) and waiting for hours instead of waiting for months.  Further increasing costs and wait times.  And frustrating patients.

So what is the solution to a failing national health care system?  Close hospitals and make people travel further for treatment.  And charge them £10 ($16.64) monthly in addition to some of the highest tax rates they already pay to fund the NHS.  So, to summarize, to make national health care work in Britain they need to close hospitals, make people travel further for care, charge them more money and make them wait longer for treatment.  Which is basically the argument against the Affordable Care Act.  It would lead to rationing.  And longer wait times.  Worse, the quality of care will decline.  As it has in Britain.  As it will in the United States.  For we also have an aging population.  And we have about five-times the people they have in Britain.  Which will make our problems five-times worse than theirs.

What’s happening in the NHS is no secret.  Any proponent of national health care no doubt looks at Britain and their NHS.  So they must be familiar with how it’s failing.  Yet they press on for a similar system in the United States.  Why?  If it won’t improve our health care system why do they want national health care?  This is the question we should be asking the Democrats.  Why?  Of course they will say Britain just isn’t doing national health care right.  After all, they’ve only been doing it for 66 years.  So what do they know about national health care?  While we, the liberal Democrats will say, will get national health care right from the get-go.  Because we are just so much smarter than everyone else in the world.

Of course the British could, and should, fire back with, “Yeah?  How did that Obamacare website rollout go?  You’d think that someone who is so smart that they could do national health care right from the get-go could actually build a sodding website that works.”

But, of course, they didn’t.  And the website was the easiest part of Obamacare.  A one and done thing.  And if they couldn’t do that right do we really want these people anywhere near our health care?  No.  Especially when the British are struggling with national health care after trying it for 66 years.  For national health care is apparently more difficult to do than building a sodding website that works.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare on the Path to making People wait 4 Hours to see a Doctor like in Canada

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 25th, 2014

Week in Review

Obamacare so far has been a disaster.  The website is a billion dollar embarrassment for the Obama administration.  The lack of enrollees.  Far more old and sick signing up than young and healthy.  Millions of people losing the health insurance they liked and wanted to keep.  People losing their doctors.  People going to doctors thinking they have health insurance only to find out they don’t.  The health insurers are looking at huge losses unless they get a federal bailout.  Even the credit rating agencies have said the entire health insurance industry is in danger of going belly up because of Obamacare.

Still the Obamacare supporters say everything will be fine.  Just give it time.  Sure, there has been a bump or two during the rollout.  But it’s getting better every day.  While there are some who are saying these problems are all due to the insurance companies.  And that we need to cut them out of the loop.  And go with a single-payer system.  Like they have in Canada.  So we can at last have the same high-quality system they have where everyone has everything they need when they need it regardless of cost.  A health care utopia.  Where if you’re sick it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor.  You’ll get to wait the same 4 hours to see a doctor as everyone else in Canada has to wait (see Would you pay to not wait in your doctor’s waiting room? This company is betting on it by Erin Anderssen posted 1/22/2014 on The Globe and Mail).

In your hand, you hold the number 52. The nurse shepherding patients through the walk-in clinic just called 12, which means you can expect to be waiting hours.

What’s your time worth? A Montreal-based company is betting you’d be willing to pay less than the equivalent of a grande latte for your “freedom” from the coughing, sniffling and tedium of a doctor’s waiting room. Chronometriq has created a text service – $3 in Quebec (and the expected cost of $4 in Ontario) – that will buzz you on your phone as your number approaches. The company expects the technology, now in place in 24 clinics in Quebec, to expand to 50 walk-in clinics by spring, including some Ontario locations, pending approval from the provincial health ministry.

Its next stop is hospital emergency rooms, where Canadians endure longer waits than citizens of 11 other OECD countries, according to a study released last year.

But it’s also controversial: After all, the program introduces a questionable user-pay element to Canada’s health care system. (The program is optional – you can still save your pennies and linger in the waiting room.)

As Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition, points out, it won’t do anything to reduce actual wait times in ERs, where according to the international study 31 per cent of Canadian wa[i]ted more than four hours to be seen by a doctor in 2010. (The average among all countries included was 12 per cent.) “It is not improving access to care at all,” Mehra says. “The issue is people waiting too long to get in the door.”

That’s the point, argues Louis Parent, Chronometriq vice-president. “How many years have government said they will tackle wait times. And nothing has changed. We have to face facts.”

Critics of national health care say it will lead to rationing and longer wait times.  As it has in Canada.  Why?  Because government can’t do anything well.  The huge bureaucracy adds costs by adding layers of people between doctors and patients.  To determine what treatment a doctor may provide for his or her patient.  More and more health care dollars pay for the bureaucracy instead of actually treating patients.  While at the same time an aging population is reducing the number of taxpayers while increasing the number of people consuming taxpayer-funded health care services.  Which means health care providers have to do more with less.  They have to carefully ration what they have.  Which leads to longer waiting times as patients wait their turn for those limited health care services.

This is where the left wants to take the American health care system to.  Even as countries around the world are having the same problems Canada has.  Many of which are privatizing parts of their national health care.  Even Canada.  Who is now charging some patients for the privilege of receiving a text to tell them when their 4 hours of waiting are nearly up.  Of course the Canadians are having these problems because they are not as smart as the American left.  Who after never doing it before will know how to do national health care right.  Just look at how well they rolled out Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wait Times in NHS Emergency Rooms reach 9 Year High

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 8th, 2013

Week in Review

National health care results in long wait times and rationing.  Especially when you have an aging population (see A&E waiting times at nine-year high by pa.press.net posted 6/3/2013 on MSN News UK).

Waiting times for accident and emergency patients have reached a nine-year high, according to figures…

John Appleby, chief economist at The King’s Fund, said: “Emergency care acts as a barometer for the NHS. The worryingly high number of patients waiting longer than four hours in the last quarter of 2012/13 is a clear warning sign that the health system is under severe strain…

“We’ve been absolutely clear that the NHS needs to transform the way health services are delivered to meet the needs of an ageing population focusing more on joined up services and prevention.

Under national health care if you go to an accident and emergency (A/E) and see a doctor in 4 hours you’re doing well.  Not all A/Es in Britain, though, can meet that 4 hour target.  Part of the problem is their aging population.  And the other is the long wait times elsewhere in the NHS.  For a 4-hour wait is like a walk in a park compared to the 18 weeks they have to treat you outside the A/E.  Where a general practitioner (GP) refers you to a specialist who refers you somewhere for treatment.  At which time the 18-week clock starts running.  So is it any wonder that people are flooding these A/Es?

Obamacare will greatly bureaucratize our health care.  Increasing our wait times, too.  Just like in the NHS.  Where they’ve been doing health care since 1948.  And they still don’t have it right.  Unless an 18-week wait time for treatment is your idea of right.  It isn’t their idea of right, though.  If it were people wouldn’t be overflowing their A/Es.  And causing the longest wait times in 9 years.  Just something to look forward too under Obamacare.  The new kid on the block when it comes to national health care.  Who won’t do it anywhere near as good as Britain.  Who has been trying to do it right since 1948.  And struggles to see people in the emergency room in under 4 hours.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Long Wait Times for Doctor Appointments in UK sends People to the Emergency Rooms Instead

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 25th, 2013

Week in Review

If you go to some American emergency rooms you could wait to see a doctor for hours.  Unless you’re close to death.  If so then you get to go to the front of the line.  While the less lucky who aren’t as close to death have to wait.  Two, three sometimes even four hours in some cases.  Because that’s how backed up an American emergency room can be.  Why?  Because we don’t have national health care.  And not everyone can afford health insurance.  Something Obamacare was going to fix.  By providing health care to everyone.  So the uninsured no longer back up our emergency rooms.  Just like in other countries with national health care.  Such as Britain (see Can no one force GPs to do their job properly? by Sandra Parsons posted 5/22/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Last week, a friend, a senior doctor in a busy A&E, found herself dealing with a young woman suffering from a urinary tract infection.

While this was undoubtedly painful and potentially dangerous, it was neither an accident nor an emergency.

So why, my harassed doctor friend asked her, hadn’t she gone to see her GP instead?

The patient replied she’d dialled the number over and over again without getting through and, in the end, she went to the surgery to ask for an appointment. The earliest slot, she was told, was ten days’ time. It was at that point she’d gone to A&E instead.

She tried to make an appointment with her doctor but she couldn’t get someone to answer the phone to make an appointment for her.  So she went there in person.  And they basically said, “Okay, I see you’re in terrible pain.  We should take a look at you as soon as possible.  I’ll pencil you in for a rush appointment.  So go home, get some rest and we’ll see you sometime after two weeks to take care of your unbearable pain.  Just hope it doesn’t go septic before then.  NEXT!”

This is national health care.  As done by Britain’s esteemed National Health Service (NHS).  The same NHS they poured accolades all over in the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympic Games.  That one.  The treasure of the United Kingdom.  What the left says we should have here.  And it is their fervent hope that Obamacare will evolve into something very much like the NHS.  Because they say that will make health care better.  And keep people from using the emergency rooms for routine medical care because they don’t have health insurance.  Only it’s not working in Britain.  Where people are still going to the emergency room (A/E in Britain) for routine medical care.

An aberration? Far from it: this woman is one of tens of thousands who are turning up at the doors of A&E because they can’t get an appointment with their doctors. The costs involved are huge…

So emergency doctors — highly trained professionals who know how to save your life when you’re having a heart attack or have been in a horrific road accident — find themselves treating minor cuts and chest infections…

Tomorrow, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is due to make a speech criticising GPs for failures that include not knowing their patients’ names and hiving off out-of-hours care to outside agencies. He will also highlight the fact that admissions at A&E departments have soared as a result.

Quite rightly, he lays the blame for this on the changes Labour made to GP contracts nine years ago, which allowed GPs to opt out of night calls and rewarded them for complying with targets rather than for treating patients as individuals…

So it’s hardly surprising patients all over the country have decided they’ve had enough and are bypassing their GPs in favour of their local A&E

What he should be telling us is what action he is taking to ensure that all GPs start doing their jobs properly.

That means making night and weekend calls, the way they used to. It means ensuring that we can all make an appointment for tomorrow or the next day — not next week — or turn up and wait if we’re seriously worried. (Yes, I know a few sterling surgeries do operate like this — but too many don’t.)

It also means that when we walk through the surgery door we should not feel we’re an unwelcome interruption in the surgery’s busy day, but that we’ll be listened to and taken seriously.

The most junior A&E doctor seems to be able to achieve this on a fraction of GPs’ generous pay and with far less sleep. Why can’t GPs?

Not knowing their patients’ names?  Working banking hours?  Say what you want about the American health care system before Obamacare at least our doctors knew our names.  And worked in walk-in emergency clinics after hours.  They weren’t quite an emergency room.  But if you had the flu they could do everything for you short of hospitalization.  Including writing a prescription for you that you could pick up at any number of 24-hour pharmacies.  This was the ‘broken system’ that was in crisis that the left said we had to fix with Obamacare.  So we can have something more like the NHS.  Which sounds worse than the broken system we supposedly had.

Note the comment about their generous pay.  This kind of talk must send shivers down the spines of American doctors.  For as the government takes more control of health care and begins to rein in those high health care costs guess how they’re going to do that?  Cutting that generous pay of doctors.  Because no one should be profiting on the sickness of others.  No.  Under Obamacare doctors should answer to a higher calling.  To serve his fellow man.  Not for the money but for the satisfaction of a job well done.  Yeah, that’ll encourage high school graduates everywhere to go into great debt and work a 90 hour week so they, too, can serve their fellow man.

Americans can’t even graduate enough people with math and science degrees.  So American corporation have to rely on foreigners to fill some high-paying high-tech positions.  Are they going to do the same with our medical care because fewer American students will want to go through that Hell just to earn the wages of a UAW assembly line worker?  When it’s a lot easier and less costly to be a UAW assembly line worker?

Could this be the problem they’re having in the NHS?  That they’re not paying their doctors enough to encourage others to enter the profession leading to a shortage of doctors?  Forcing people to the emergency room because they just don’t have enough doctors to see patients in the doctor’s office?  You hear all the time about how we have to pay our federal employees fat salaries and give them generous benefit packages to compete with jobs in the private sector (though few jobs in the private sector enjoy the pay and benefit packages a federal job offers).  But if a doctor makes that kind of money something is wrong with that.  Because no one should profit on the sickness of others.  But a federal worker with a far easier job paid with tax dollars?  They have no problem with these people earning what a doctor earns.  Or at least what a doctor once earned.  Before Obamacare.

Once the government starts paying doctors there will be a push to unionize them.  And then everything will change.  Then the government will want to pay them more.  Cut their working hours.  Hire more doctors.  All of which will require massive new taxes.  While giving an expanding government a powerful new ally.  And a huge source of new political donations.  As they’ll collect a piece of the union dues the newly unionized doctors will pay.  And America will never be the same again.  If you worried about the IRS targeting conservatives just imagine the special treatment conservatives will get in a health care system controlled by liberal Democrats.  Of course, a non-partisan health care system would never base a treatment decision on one’s politics.  Just because the government used the IRS to target conservatives doesn’t mean they will use a national health care system to do the same.

When President Reagan was shot he joked while being wheeled into the operating room, “I hope you guys are Republicans.”  The joke broke the tension and the doctors laughed.  Then one said, “Mr. President, today we are all Republicans.”  They then went about saving the president’s life.  In the future it might be wise to ask instead, “Gee, I sure hope you guys are all Democrats.”  Just to be safe.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS is having People talk to an Adviser on the Telephone instead of Seeing a Doctor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 4th, 2013

Week in Review

Britain’s aging population is taxing the National Health Service (NHS).  To relieve this pressure they began a non-emergency telephone service to keep people from filling their emergency rooms.  A cost savings measure to help stretch their limited resources to cover more patients.  Which they can’t do if people are needlessly filling their emergency rooms for non-emergency conditions.

People with urgent but not life threatening symptoms dial ‘111’ instead of the emergency ‘999’ number.  And when they do they will talk to a trained adviser.  Who will listen to the caller.  Make a triage assessment.  Sending the serious cases to the nearest emergency room.  While sending the less serious cases to an after-hours urgent care clinic.  And telling those they assess to have no need for urgent or emergency medical care that they should take two aspirins and go to bed, that they should feel right as rain come morning.  Or something like this.  And how has the new telephone service been working?  Not good (see NHS 111 advice line ‘still fragile’ by Nick Triggle posted 5/1/2013 on BBC News Health).

The new NHS non-emergency 111 telephone service in England is in a fragile state in a number of areas ahead of bank holiday weekend, NHS bosses admit.

Reports have been emerging for weeks of calls going unanswered and poor advice being given, leading to hospitals being inundated with patients…

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, said: “We are still receiving reports that patients are facing unacceptably long waits to get through to an NHS 111 operator and suffering from further delays when waiting for calls back with medical advice should they manage to have their call answered.

“The quality of some of the information being given out appears, from anecdotal sources, to be questionable in some instances.”

People without health insurance in America go to the emergency room when they have the sniffles.  Because they can’t afford to see a doctor.  Which leaves the emergency room.  As they cannot turn people away.  This was something Obamacare was going to fix.  By giving everyone affordable health insurance they won’t be filling the nation’s emergency rooms anymore.  Or so they thought.  But it’s not working in Britain.  And they have national health care.

So national health care won’t provide what the proponents of Obamacare say it will provide.  Instead as they roll out Obamacare further we’ll end up with a telephone service to relieve the 911 system.  Where some adviser will assess your condition over the telephone.  And direct you to the nearest emergency room, walk-in urgent care clinic or your medicine cabinet.  Thus cutting the high cost of health care.  By having people talk to an advisor over the telephone instead of seeing an expensive doctor.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Health Sciences North decreases Hospital ER Wait Times in Sudbury that were as High as 19 Hours

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 12th, 2013

Week in Review

The American Left loves the Canadian health care system.  That’s what they wanted when they settled for Obamacare.  They wanted a single-payer system.  Like in Canada.  So they could enjoy real health care nirvana (see ‘Kick in the ass’ helps ER wait times, administrator says posted 1/9/2013 on CBC News).

The hospital in Sudbury says emergency room waits are down thanks to a recent review of its services.

For the past two months, Health Sciences North hasn’t seen the bed shortages that have clogged up the hospital in recent years.

Chief Operating Officer Joe Pilon credited a recent peer review ordered last year by the province, which he said finally prompted hospital staff to put into practice its strategies for dealing with elderly patients.

Sudbury is in northern Ontario, just north of Georgian Bay/Lake Huron on the Trans Canada Highway and the Canadian Pacific Railroad.  An old mining boom town that turned into the largest city in northern Ontario with a population of about 160,000.

Clogged up hospital emergency rooms in recent years?  Years?  And the solution to speeding things up in the ER was dealing with elderly patients?  One wonders how they sped things up by dealing with those elderly patients.  We know how the UK is dealing with their elderly.  With the Liverpool Care Pathway.  Or what some are calling a death panel.  A dignified war for the elderly to die.  Quickly.  And efficiently.  While freeing up some hospital beds in the process.

The article doesn’t elaborate on what steps they took to address the elderly problem.  But a comment left by a reader gives you an idea about how bad those wait times were.

Just last summer, my wife and I left Sudbury ER to go to Espanola ER after waiting in pain for 8 or more hours. We watched as patients with apparently less serious issues go through triage and then trreatment [sic]while more apparently serious cases waited. Was this tactic a clever move just to empty some seats?

I love Sudbury. But it can be a nightmare if you need medical attention at this hospital.

Still, 8 hours isn’t that bad.  A previous CBC news article in May of 2012 noted the average wait time exceeded 19 hours.  The reason behind those long wait times?  Too many people using the emergency room who shouldn’t be using the emergency room.  Like a lot of sick elderly people who have no place else to go.

Interestingly, the U.S. moved Obamacare forward based on the assumption that universal care will somehow prevent our emergency rooms from overflowing with people who have no health insurance.  Something not apparently working in Sudbury, Ontario.

In the U.S. I gave up on a crowded ER waiting room after waiting for close to 3 hours and drove to another emergency room.  Or, rather, had someone drive me to another emergency room.  For I was in too much pain to drive myself.  But it wasn’t as much pain as those heart attack patients jumping to the front of the line ahead of me apparently.  That’s the thing about triage.  Unless you’re dying or bleeding profusely from some open wound you will sit and wait.  And wait.  And wait.

My experience was long before Obamacare.  Now the American health care system will approach to what they have in Canada.  So what will be the difference once Obamacare becomes similar to the Canadian system?  About 5-16 hours of ER waiting time.  Unless they speed things up by not treating the elderly.  Instead just enrolling them directly into the Liverpool Care Pathway equivalent.  To free up hospital beds.  And emergency room resources.  For a death panel will be the only way to reduce costs and treat more people at the same time.  By not treating those who consume the lion’s share of our health care resources.  The elderly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

People going to the Accident and Emergency Departments for Routine Health Care in the NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 20th, 2012

Week in Review

One of the arguments for passing Obamacare in the US was that we were already paying for the uninsured via costly emergency room visits.  Overburdening our emergency departments.  And denying valuable resources to those who truly needed them.  For looking at a child with a sore throat diverts valuable health care resources from accident victims and people suffering medical emergencies like heart attacks.  Obamacare was going to fix that.  And make our health care system as perfect as it is in the NHS.

But it is not the utopia Americans think it is in the NHS.  As an aging population is causing enormous cost pressures on their limited resources leading to budget cuts, increasing wait times, rationing of services and doctor & nurse shortages that are making it difficult to staff both emergency and non-emergency health care facilities.  Causing people to still turn to the emergency department (A&E in the UK) for routine care (see Rise in child throat infections treated in hospital, study finds posted 10/19/2012 on BBC News Health).

Children admitted to hospital with throat infections have increased by 76% over the past 10 years, according to a study from Imperial College London…

Pressures on doctors and a maximum waiting time in A&E could be the reason behind the increase in admissions…

The researchers found no evidence of a link between tonsillectomy trends and admission rates for acute throat infections.

Instead, they suggest that the sharp rise in hospital cases of children with throat infections is probably explained by the large number of children being taken to A&E instead of to see their GP, especially if the infection flares up outside surgery hours.

Dr Elizabeth Koshy, lead study author from the school of public health at Imperial College London, said the rise in hospital admissions for this type of infection was concerning.

“Our findings relating to short hospital stays suggest that many of the children admitted with acute throat infections could have been effectively managed in the community.

“Our study highlights the need to urgently address the issue of healthcare access, with improved models of integrated care within primary and secondary care, to avoid potentially unnecessary hospital admissions for relatively minor infections in the future.”

The introduction of a four-hour maximum waiting time in A&E, in 2002, could have led under-pressure doctors to admit children with less serious throat infections, she said.

Even a national health care service doesn’t eliminate people using emergency departments for routine care.  Because with cuts in the NHS budget closing local facilities or reducing their hours of operation where else are the people to go?  To the only place that is open.  The emergency department.

So national health care has come full circle.  At least in the Obamacare argument.  We need national health care to get people to stop using emergency departments for their routine health care needs.  Trying to offer everything to everyone and an aging population has forced budget cuts and the closing of facilities that provide for routine health care needs.  Forcing these people right back to where the national health care service was trying to get them away from.  Thus they have the same problem as they did before.  And as they do in America.  Only with a massive national health care system on top of all their other problems.  Guaranteeing further cost pressures, closures and more crowded emergency departments.

Proponents of Obamacare should heed this lesson well.  For Obamacare will not be the utopia they think it will be.  In fact, it will be worse than the NHS.  Because America has about five times the population of the UK.  And will have about five times the cost pressures the UK has.  Calling for even more budget cuts, increasing wait times, rationing of services and doctor & nurse shortages that will make it more difficult to staff both emergency and non-emergency health care facilities.  Leading to even more overcrowded emergency departments.  Which will make health care more costly and less loved than it ever was before Obamacare.  Making the case for repealing Obamacare ever more appealing the more we learn about the reality of national health care from the NHS.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT107: “Birth control pills prevent a natural biological function while ED pills restore one.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Women take Birth Control Pills to have Sex without it resulting in the Miracle of Life or a Real Inconvenience

The human body is a complex machine with one biological purpose.  To propagate the species.  That is, to make babies.  Humans may have other purposes.  Depending on your religion.  Or lack thereof.  But biologically speaking everything we do as humans is to sustain our lives so we can make babies.  Just like other animals on this planet.  And all organisms that lay eggs or give live birth.  At the most basic level we are just baby-making machines.  It’s the natural order of things.  Our biological purpose.  Which explains why we have a sex drive.  And why we spade and neuter stray cats.

The great George Michael explained this sex drive well in song (excerpted here):

It’s natural
It’s chemical
It’s logical
Habitual
It’s sensual
But most of all
Sex is something we should do
Sex is something for me and you
Sex is natural
Sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should
Sex is natural
sex is fun
Sex is best when it’s one on one

(From George Michael’s I Want Your Sex.)

Not familiar with George Michael?  Am I dating myself?  Just ask your parents who George Michael is.  Chances are your mom will make a face or a sound you don’t want to see or hear as she recalls a primeval lust from yesteryear.  But this is sex.  And it’s all these things for one reason.  Biologically speaking, that is.  To start up that biological machine.  And to make it do what it was meant to do.  Make babies.

Now there are those who want to alter the natural order of things.  Who enjoy having sex.  Lots and lots of sex.  In fact, they can’t get enough of that sex.  But they don’t want the natural output of that biological machine.  So they practice birth control.  Men wear condoms.  Women take birth control pills.  Among other things.  To prevent all of that fun from resulting in the miracle of life.  Or a real inconvenience.  Depending on your religious views.  Or lack thereof.

Women who have Abortions have Higher Incidences of Breast Cancer than Women who take Birth Control Pills or who have Babies 

Cigarettes introduce unnatural chemicals into the human body.  Harming the human body.  So the government places great sin taxes on them to dissuade us from smoking.  They warn us of the dangers to scare us into not smoking.  And they sue the tobacco companies because they have lots of money.  And blame them for kids smoking.  Not their music, movie and television heroes.  (What guitar hero doesn’t have a cigarette dangling from their lips as they play?)  Eating poorly can harm the human body, too.  And government is now taking steps to protect people from bad food.  Not quite like they do with cigarettes.  Yet.  But they are working in that direction.

Obamacare is forcing people to buy health insurance.  Because, they say, many of us are harming ourselves through poor lifestyle choices.  Such as smoking.  Or eating poorly.  And it’s not fair that we go to the emergency room for free health care.  Because it just makes health insurance more expensive for those who do buy it.  To cover the costs for all of those uninsured emergency room visits.  So Obamacare wants to use the heavy hand of government to make people either make better lifestyle choices.  Or pay for the consequences of their poor lifestyle choices.

A recent study has shown links between rising incidences of breast cancer and the lack of using breasts for their biological purpose.  Feeding babies.  Women who bottle feed have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who breast feed.  Women who take birth control pills have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who have babies.  And women who have abortions have higher incidences of breast cancer than women who take birth control pills.  The study indicates that it’s the interruption of the natural biological process of converting the breast tissue to produce milk causing the increase in the incidences of breast cancer.  And stopping the conversion of tissue after the process starts (i.e., having an abortion) has the most harmful affect on the breast tissue.  Leaving mutated cells that become cancerous.

Any Political Candidate that Helps Young People have Sex is Sure to get their Vote

Obamacare includes provisions that require insurance providers to provide birth control and abortion.  They call these women’s health issues.  Because the ‘miracle of life’ or that ‘great inconvenience’ (depending on your religious views or lack thereof) can be very harmful if carried to term.  Thus fulfilling the natural order of things.  The biological purpose of our human machines.  So Obamacare discourages us from smoking and eating poorly because of the costly and harmful consequences of these lifestyle choices.  But they encourage another potentially harmful lifestyle choice.  Having sex without making babies.  Which may increase the incidences of breast cancer.  The very program that is supposed to make us choose healthier lifestyles and accept the consequences of poor lifestyle choices encourages women to choose an unhealthy lifestyle that may give them breast cancer.  Or a venereal disease.  Which may happen with all that sex with multiple partners.  Unless they’re following the advice of George Michael.  And keeping it one on one.

Of course, these are primeval views.  Much like that primeval sex drive.  Only we’re supposed to get over our primeval views on making babies.  So women are free to enjoy careers.  And have as much consequence-free sex as they desire.  Something that pleases a lot of men.  Probably more men than women.  Especially young men.  Who have one thing on their mind.  And couldn’t ask for anything more than free-spirited and empowered women with access to all the women’s health products and services she so desires.  And any political candidate that helps these young people to have as much sex as they want is sure to get their vote.  So it’s no surprise that the Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats are so unlike these kids’ parents.

So women demand their birth control.  For their health.  And demand that their health insurance plans pay for it.  Or the taxpayers.  Because it’s an issue of women’s health.  That we can address in no other way.  (Excluding abstinence, marriage, paying for your own birth control, etc.)  In fact they say it’s no different than men’s erectile dysfunction (ED) pills.  But there is a slight difference.  The ED pills try to restore a biological function.  Whereas birth control tries to prevent one.  ED pills tries to restore the human baby-making machine.  While birth control pills tries to shut that machine down.  Contrary to the natural order.  And our biological purpose. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,