First time visitor? Learn more.

What to expect from Obama and the libtards frenzy to pass national healthcare for us serfs

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 39 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Healthcare, Socialism at July 16th, 2009 - 1:40 am

If it’s so damn good for all of us, how about mandating (Insert your Barney Fwank joke here) that all congresspeople, senators, and federal employees must participate in it if it passes?

From yesterday’s London Daily Mail newspaper-

A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims

By Daniel Martin

A GP (General practitioner- A doctor who is not a specialist, similar to a family doctor in the USA- B in B) examines a patient’s hand for signs of arthritis, but a report says many are not trained to know what help to offer.

Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.

Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.

But the average wait is nine months – and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.

There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.

The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP.

Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more.

GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds.

Its author, Chris Groom, said: ‘This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength.

‘It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.’

The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people’s needs, including helping them remain in work.

Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year – about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability.

‘Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in’, Mr Groom said.

The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought.

Mr Groom added: ‘We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.’

Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: ‘The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years.

‘Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks.

‘We applaud the audit’s recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.’

Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis.

Health minister Ann Keen said: ‘We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.’


Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

39 Responses to “What to expect from Obama and the libtards frenzy to pass national healthcare for us serfs”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | July 16, 2009 3:01 am

    [...] that the underbelly of any society rooted in corruption and fear will do its best to silence. What to expect from Obama and the libtards frenzy to pass national healthcare for us serfs -- 07/16/2009 If it’s so damn good for all of us, how about mandating [...]

  2. vagabond trader
    2 | July 16, 2009 3:03 am

    Wondering what the “cut off” age will be for receiving “extraordinary” care. Another teensy factor the bean counting fools never thought of is that medicine is often more art than science. First thing we were taught in nursing school is that every patient should be viewed as an individual, not a disease or complaint of.

    Oh yeah, FIRST, because I’m probably the only fool who is awake.

  3. justin case
    3 | July 16, 2009 4:51 am

    thats a pretty bad example bob.
    fact of the matter is you americans are slaves to keep paying those health insurence premiums,
    and what happens when you cant pay them.
    you are goosed, see how much sympathy you get from the insurence firms when you cant work because of arthritis, and you are no longer covered.
    i cant get my head around why there is such hostility to a system that would make your lives better, the stress of keeping those payments going, by its self is enough to lower your quality of life.

  4. 4 | July 16, 2009 5:08 am

    re: #2 by justin case

    There is such hostility because such a plan removes the freedom to have healthcare.

    The idea is that the government takes money from me to provide for healthcare for others. So, if I use healthcare, it is paid for, but if I DON’T use it, I still have to pay for it.

    It removes responsibility for managing my finances to provide healthcare for myself and my loved ones.

    What we end up with is the ‘common folk’ go to doctors and wait in lines like we see in Canada or, more aptly, Cuba. The ‘rich’ (and the Senators) will be able to go to the private doctors that we won’t be able to afford (after all, he current plan ALLOWS you to continue to have private insurance, but you not only have to pay for it, you also pay a penalty for not having the public insurance plan).

    Why do you find Americans resisting mandated health insurance provided by the government? We prefer freedom. We’ve fought a few wars over it, you might remember one.

  5. 5 | July 16, 2009 5:15 am

    Fox News interviewing Newt.

    They had to stop having Town Hall Meetings over the healthcare plan because the people were getting upset over them. So they just stopped having them. Congress knows we don’t want this. We didn’t want this crap when Hillary tried to pass it in the 90′s, we don’t want it now.

    Of course, we’re just the proles. Our cares don’t matter, we’re just the base labor pool and income source for the government.

  6. justin case
    6 | July 16, 2009 5:30 am

    re: #3 by LanceKates

    i suppose as the only person posting here thats in favor of public heathcare, i am on a hiding to nothing so to speak.
    but i dont see your point, everybody working will pay a small contribution taken at source and then you will have health cover, if you want to take out a private one as well, then you can, lots of the more well to do persons in europe do just that.
    anyway i wont comment about this issue any more.
    i will just say that i think its the fear of the unknown to some that are opposed to it.
    once you have it you will ask how you ever managed to live without it.
    i am being a coward, as i am not very good defending my self as the lone voice.

  7. 7 | July 16, 2009 5:30 am

    If the Government wants healthcare to be inexpensive and available, Congress would deregulate alot of the healthcare field.

    Here’s a great example: I’m diabetic. I take metformin. If I’m regularly checking my blood sugar levels (don’t ask), I should not need to go to the doctor every few months to ‘re-up’ my prescription. Metformin isn’t an addicting drug, there is no reason for it to be available only by prescription.

    If I’m taking a med and suddenly I’m not in control of my blood sugar, I’d go to the doctor. I shouldn’t have to spend the extra money for a visit for him to write he same prescription.

    Imagine how much time we’d wait in line and how much less money we’d spend.

    Instead, the government wants to INCREASE wait times and government regulation of healthcare.

  8. 8 | July 16, 2009 5:34 am

    re: #5 by justin case

    The point is, I don’t have the choice anymore. Whether I want healthcare insurance or not, I pay for it under a government plan. Whether I USE it or not, I pay for it under a government plan.

    The Government does not have the Constitutional right to take over and run the healthcare system, nor does it have the Constitutional right to provide a healthcare plan.

  9. Bumr50
    9 | July 16, 2009 6:11 am

    Just as I want motivated individuals to succeed, I want lazy ones to fail.
    I want there to be the threat of dying on the street for the able-bodied who refuse to work or do anything to sustain themselves.
    I don’t belong to any particular church but do frequent several and my fiancee is employed by the Salvation Army.
    If anyone is so distraught and derelict that they cannot go forward, any one of the churches I attend or the organization that my fiance works for can help them.
    I’m not saying no safety net -- I’m saying no catch-all.
    Get it?

  10. My5princesses
    10 | July 16, 2009 6:16 am

    re: #8 by Bumr50

    Wow, you have a wife and a fiance. I have enough trouble keeping a wife happy.

  11. Speranza
    11 | July 16, 2009 6:20 am

    My advice to all -- “Don’t get sick!”

  12. 12 | July 16, 2009 6:24 am

    re: #10 by Speranza

    Don’t get sick and make gobs of money so you can break even.

    Not only will we pay for our healthcare, and our family’s healthcare, but also the healthcare of (at least) the unemployed.

    Any word on the illegal immigrants?

    We don’t really talk about them much anymore, anyone notice that?

  13. 13 | July 16, 2009 6:29 am

    ot: New WEEKLY jobless claims, 522,000.

    Meanwhile, the Federal Government is taking actions that will crush small businesses (the ones who make jobs)

    Ahhhhhh…… the good life of Socialism.

    Where do YOU draw the line?

  14. 14 | July 16, 2009 6:31 am

    re: #8 by Bumr50

    I agree. If those who succeed are forced to pay extra taxes to keep those who fail content and comfortable….. what incentive is there to succeed?

    In fact, what incentive is there to do anything EXCEPT fail?

    That’s why these plans fail…. they assume that the populace will willingly work to support those who don’t…. instead of joining those who don’t.

    Next comes federal mandates to work. Study the history of Communist Russia to see what we’ll have in store…

  15. Intravenousdemilo
    15 | July 16, 2009 6:51 am

    re: #2 by justin case

    I don’t agree it will “make (y)our lives better”. It will, in fact, make our lives worse. Other countries have gone before us, and the healthcare suffered as a result.

  16. Intravenousdemilo
    16 | July 16, 2009 7:01 am

    I’m not a big proponent of EVERYONE (millions and millions) being on pharmaceuticals, either. (restless leg syndrome, ADD, ADHD, Depression, etc.) If people want to do that, fine, it’s their choice. But what happens under Socialist Healthcare — do we pay for everyone being on several medications a day for the rest of their lives (improving the bottom line of the pharmaceuticals)?

    And what about the salespeople of all those fancy new diagnostic machines — those things are expensive — are hospitals going to quit buying them? Are all those tests that everyone is supposed to get still going to be recommended? (Mammograms, PSA tests, cholesterol, etc.)

    If big Pharma can convince us all that we all need several pills a day, I guess they can just collect their payment from the government now.

    Big Pharma knows their bottom line improves when they convince millions upon millions that they need this or that pill every day for the rest of their lives. It’s not profitable to just target the smaller group that might actually need it. That limits their market.

    I can’t figure out if Big Pharma is for Socialized Medicine or not.

  17. 17 | July 16, 2009 7:16 am

    re: #15 by Intravenousdemilo

    They get money on both sides. We subsidize the research, then pay more than any other country for the medication that was developed with our money.

    I still say that the solution is to deregulate alot of the healthcare field. I shouldn’t have to go to the doctor, pay the copay (and have insurance pay the other couple hundred dollars for the 10 minute visit) and have the doctor write me a prescription for something that I’ve been on for a couple years now. I should be able to just go to wallmart and buy it.

  18. Heavensgate
    18 | July 16, 2009 7:17 am

    re: #2 by justin case

    You’ve got to be kidding me? Have you EVER had to deal with Medicare or Medicaid when there is a claim problem? It is a friggin nightmare. Have you EVER had to deal with an insurance carrier when there is a claim problem with no help from and insurance agent or broker?

    It is difficult enough for those of us in this field. Just wait for this government mess, there will be no one to help you with any claim problem or health insurance issue. You will be on your own. I have spent over 25 years helping people obtain affordable health insurance and helping with their claims. Is is a very stressful job and I have HBP to prove it. But it’s still better than no choice, no freedom, long lines, rationed care and no one to help you with problems. Good luck to you if this crap passes.

  19. Speranza
    19 | July 16, 2009 7:32 am

    OT – Defenseman (actually Hoosier Hoops) and Irish Rose are at it again acting as if they are two shrinks in Vienna circa 1910.

  20. Intravenousdemilo
    20 | July 16, 2009 7:44 am

    re: #18 by Speranza

    I love how Defenseman posits a thread, then Hoosier Hoops is the first one to post. Cracks me up.

  21. 21 | July 16, 2009 7:45 am

    re: #19 by Intravenousdemilo

    Then calls Rodan the king of sock puppets…. heh.

  22. Speranza
    22 | July 16, 2009 7:51 am

    re: #19 by Intravenousdemilo

    and Irish Rose writes “Another great post Defenseman”.

  23. Speranza
    23 | July 16, 2009 7:54 am

    They are obsessed by this blog that’s for sure. Has Irish Rose and Sharm had their duel to see who is the Queen of LGF yet?

  24. Bumr50
    24 | July 16, 2009 8:01 am

    re: #9 by My5princesses

    HAHA! Don’t knock it til you try it!


  25. 25 | July 16, 2009 8:03 am

    re: #22 by Speranza

    Too funny, those little whores. Oops, Irish Rose is a HUGE thang, I’d say 250 lbs of shit.

  26. Speranza
    26 | July 16, 2009 8:07 am

    re: #24 by savage

    Irish Rose thinks she and Hoosier are so brilliant.

    20 Irish Rose 7/15/09 11:35:24 pm reply quote

    * 0
    * down
    * up
    * report

    I’m off to bed, goodnight lizards!

    Don’t forget to check out the new post over at Defenseman.
    It’s a keeper.

  27. 27 | July 16, 2009 8:31 am

    re: #25 by Speranza

    Yeah, and Rose thinks that I am going to travel to Michigan to harass her.

    Well, I have better things to do with my time. Like fight the good fight.

  28. Speranza
    28 | July 16, 2009 8:42 am

    re: #26 by savage

    She really thinks highly of herself.

  29. Speranza
    29 | July 16, 2009 8:46 am

    re: #26 by savage

    Why would anyone set foot in Michigan?

  30. Intravenousdemilo
    30 | July 16, 2009 9:07 am

    re: #26 by savage

    I understand there’s a stampede leaving Michigan.

  31. 31 | July 16, 2009 9:11 am

    re: #28 by Speranza

    After watching this video of Detroit, I think of all the people that think like Irish Rose, Sharmuta, Charles and the rest of that insane ilk and wonder why leftists aren’t in fucking prison for their crimes against America.

    Look at this video carefully. Utter desolation. A total abomination. All due to policies of the Left.

  32. 32 | July 16, 2009 9:23 am

    re: #30 by savage

    Soon we won’t have to watch the show. We’ll all suffer equally.

  33. Speranza
    33 | July 16, 2009 9:26 am

    re: #29 by Intravenousdemilo

    Yes, long distance moving companies are doing very well in Michigan

  34. Speranza
    34 | July 16, 2009 9:28 am

    re: #30 by savage

    Up to 1962 Detroit was not a bad town, until the white flight due to the horrible crime rates made Detroit the symbol (along with Newark, NJ) of urban decay. Recall the riots of 1967 -- most of those businesses burned down were never replaced. Rioters are morons.

  35. 35 | July 16, 2009 9:32 am

    re: #33 by Speranza

    Yup, butsiness may be bad, but you’ll stick it out.

    Until your place burns and you get the insurance check, then it’s easy to cut and run and start up something somewhere else.

    I know I would.

  36. Speranza
    36 | July 16, 2009 9:39 am

    re: #34 by LanceKates

    I cannot blame any business that were burned out, not reopening in Detroit. Go get your fruits and vegetables (or cigarettes and alcohol) elsewhere. Would Sal’s Famous Pizzeria (burned out in the 1989 Spike Lee film “Do The Right Thing”) reopen in Bed Stuy Brooklyn after over 30 years of serving the community there?

  37. 37 | July 16, 2009 9:45 am

    re: #35 by Speranza

    That’s my point. I’d stay in business as long as my business was there…. but if some rioters burn it? Pfft, I may reopen, but not there.

  38. vagabond trader
    38 | July 16, 2009 1:20 pm

    re: #30 by savage

    My G-d, how blacks have been conned by leftist condescension and paternalism. Telling them that they weren’t good enough to achieve or improve their lives. Patting all the fatherless children with drug addicted mothers on the head, reminding them that its all the fault of the white man.Doling out meager subsistence allowances, enough to keep them serfs voting for Demonrats. Appalling.

  39. Buckeye Abroad
    39 | July 16, 2009 3:33 pm


    i cant get my head around why there is such hostility to a system that would make your lives better, the stress of keeping those payments going, by its self is enough to lower your quality of life.

    Maybe the system doesn’t work and we know better. Hey, I have been living in the EU for over 12 years and relinquish a big portion of my check each month, unwillingly, for (inadequate) universal health coverage. I friend of mine died waiting for a lung transplant-- after telling him in take a year.. he lasted 2 and opted out (literally). The fucked up thing is that his condition was worsened in the beginning by a doctor proscribing the wrong medication for years, but it would take 2 doctors to substantiate that and in a socialist medical coverage system that was not going to happen. Oh, by the way, when medicine is socilized and the doctor really fucks up-- its and act of G-d to seek compensation for medical malpractice. I wonder if the biggest contributor to the Dem. Party knows that bit when their boy is pushing for it. Who in the hell wants to be a doctor when you are personally exposed finacially for malpractice, but cannot charge fees above the state guidelines?

    Want to know the future of US health care? Look at the UK.

Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David