Those are my thoughts. I welcome yours.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Do you think that Ted Kennedy's rapid surgery has hurt or helped the cause of National Health Care?
In England there is a 3-6 month wait for non-emergency MRI, CAT scans & surgery and...you don't get to pick & choose your surgeon.
All of that happened here within a 10 day span. That could not happen under National Health Care.
I am not sure that it has had an affect on National Health Care at all. Has it? Are you asking if people will react to the special treatment that he received?
The search for people who can answer your question continues for as long as needed - until you find the answer you were looking for.
When an answer is posted by someone who was invited (byYedda or by yourself) to answer your question, their answer is marked with a yellow "invited by Yedda".
To be invited to answer other people's questions in your areas of knowledge and interest, be sure to list your favorite topics:
» My Settings › My Topics.
Of course, the more helpful your answers are, the more likely you are to be invited to future questions...
Fred,
You point out that "non-emergency" care takes months, then go on to compare that to the treatment received by Senator Kennedy. Since he a) fell down, b) was hospitalized for immediate treatment, and c) diagnosed as having a BRAIN TUMOUR, this is not some silly elective surgery to remove a mole from his ankle.
If YOU, health insurance or not, had been taken to, just say, for example to Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, you would likely have receive roughly the same treatment.
For all the vaunted reputation of the surgical team and hospital where Senator Kennedy's tumour was 'removed', their doctors are not significantly better than those of most major hospitals, though they were specialists, neurosurgeons, which requires a higher level of skills than for a common hernia. Would you have received the same treatment? Probably not exactly, but it would not have been delayed for months when it was a potentially life threatening brain tumour, either.
Love and warm wishes,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://winfotech.com/energy/
Charter member of S.N.O.T.S.
Smokey Snotsbear
Ted Kennedy has special priviledges. That family got rich off the prohibiton period when alcohol was illegal and they sold it illegally and were a very political family for ages. Who ever said politics in America were on the up and up? That would be a joke. I met someone from Canada. They said National Health Care wasn't good either because they had to wait so long and even that the standards of care were not good either. I thought it was so great there. Wrong again. Also Massachusetts has made it mandatory to have health insurance and it is hurting many people that cannot afford it as there are financial penalties if they don't. Nice...Signing out.
Under the health care plans endorsed by both democratic candidates we would NOT have had ANY choice in surgeon; whoever was up & free would be the cutter.
The original intent of the question was: I was musing at what effect his treatment & ability to choose hospital & surgeon would have on BOTH proponents and adversaries of the Nation Health Care Plan proposed by the democratic candidates. Here we have someone (does not matter who) that got to CHOOSE both his hospital and surgeon. Those choices are not allowed in the Plan.
My intent was not to go into the Plan but to see if Kennedy's treatment would be fodder for the 'talking heads' on both sides of the issue.
Got an answer for fredst? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them
