Check ups are more important thank you're implying. Cancer could be developing at any time between those visits to the doctor and the sooner something like that is found out the better chance you have at living.FEOS wrote:
Why? Where is it written that in order to be healthy, you must visit the doctor annually, every six months, or any other given interval? Visit a doctor when you need to.Roc18 wrote:
This is why this crap needs reform.Shocking wrote:
I haven't seen a doctor in the last 7 years
If it's every 7 years, that's fine...so long as that's when you need to see them.
I don't see the problem. I visit the dentist regularly cause its necessary but if I feel fine physically and mentally I see no reason to get all sorts of check ups with a doctor.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-12-17 15:36:23)
inane little opines
i visit a doctor when i feel healthy because common sense tells me i wouldn't know if i was getting diabetes, or high blood pressure, or any other creeping problem. common symptoms for a lot of things that you dismiss could actually be symptoms of something much worse. feeling lazy, demotivated or depressed for a while could actually be you in danger of developing diabetes. how would you know that if you didn't go to the doctor? i guess in america google becomes your personal physician to save on medical costs.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
He's Dutch. He lives in a Universal Health Care country. He has chosen to visit the doctor once in seven years. No reform necessary.Roc18 wrote:
Check ups are more important thank you're implying. Cancer could be developing at any time between those visits to the doctor and the sooner something like that is found out the better chance you have at living.FEOS wrote:
Why? Where is it written that in order to be healthy, you must visit the doctor annually, every six months, or any other given interval? Visit a doctor when you need to.Roc18 wrote:
This is why this crap needs reform.
If it's every 7 years, that's fine...so long as that's when you need to see them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Getting a screening when you don't have symptoms of anything whatsoever does nearly nothing tbh. If you feel fine, are not in a risky age group, have no medical condition, live healthily and have a perfectly healthy family as well you have very little to worry about.
Not that I'm trying to cut costs though, shit's free here (it's not free rah rah yes I know, it feels like it's free ). I just can't be bothered most of the time.
Not that I'm trying to cut costs though, shit's free here (it's not free rah rah yes I know, it feels like it's free ). I just can't be bothered most of the time.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-12-17 15:53:49)
inane little opines
If he doesn't want to go to a doctor that is his prerogative. Ever done a first aid course? First thing they explain is if you see a situation in which you may need to apply first aid you must get consent first (if they are unconscious then consent is automatically assumed, in a legal sense). What you're insinuating is nanny statism at its worst. You think people get a fine for not getting an annual checkup?Roc18 wrote:
Check ups are more important thank you're implying. Cancer could be developing at any time between those visits to the doctor and the sooner something like that is found out the better chance you have at living.FEOS wrote:
Why? Where is it written that in order to be healthy, you must visit the doctor annually, every six months, or any other given interval? Visit a doctor when you need to.Roc18 wrote:
This is why this crap needs reform.
If it's every 7 years, that's fine...so long as that's when you need to see them.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-12-17 18:46:27)
the fuck are you talking about? we're just saying it's good habit to see a doctor for a regular check-up... every half a year or so. it's just common sense. especially when it's free. we're hardly encouraging fucking doctor visit quotas, are we? i don't think you could misread the point much worse if you tried (although i'm sure you are trying).
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
This.Roc18 wrote:
Check ups are more important thank you're implying. Cancer could be developing at any time between those visits to the doctor and the sooner something like that is found out the better chance you have at living.FEOS wrote:
Why? Where is it written that in order to be healthy, you must visit the doctor annually, every six months, or any other given interval? Visit a doctor when you need to.Roc18 wrote:
This is why this crap needs reform.
If it's every 7 years, that's fine...so long as that's when you need to see them.
If it isn't a financial burden you have no reason to not get a check up at least once year. People that go long periods of time without one because they feel fine are the same people that are going to end up in prostate cancer commercials talking about about how if they only found it sooner they wouldn't be dying.
I was talking to Roc.Uzique wrote:
the fuck are you talking about? we're just saying it's good habit to see a doctor for a regular check-up... every half a year or so. it's just common sense. especially when it's free. we're hardly encouraging fucking doctor visit quotas, are we? i don't think you could misread the point much worse if you tried (although i'm sure you are trying).
damn, some bad continuity there. use the quote feature!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Sorry, I had just woken up, read a bit and was typing on my phone
Added the quote. We can delete these posts if you prefer.
Added the quote. We can delete these posts if you prefer.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-12-17 17:35:31)
So you don't have any kind of intelligent argument, and can't refute the figures as they're so clear.Jay wrote:
Everyone should work for the government. Profits are evil.Dilbert_X wrote:
Averaging the costs, NHS costs half as much as the US system, same for most countries where the govt runs healthcare, see the chart I posted earlier.Jay wrote:
So I don't understand uzique, how can you say it's cheaper to have your NHS system if you never see the fees attached to the services?
Well played.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Do you get an annual prostate exam? Or even get your prostate levels checked in your blood work?Macbeth wrote:
This.Roc18 wrote:
Check ups are more important thank you're implying. Cancer could be developing at any time between those visits to the doctor and the sooner something like that is found out the better chance you have at living.FEOS wrote:
Why? Where is it written that in order to be healthy, you must visit the doctor annually, every six months, or any other given interval? Visit a doctor when you need to.
If it's every 7 years, that's fine...so long as that's when you need to see them.
If it isn't a financial burden you have no reason to not get a check up at least once year. People that go long periods of time without one because they feel fine are the same people that are going to end up in prostate cancer commercials talking about about how if they only found it sooner they wouldn't be dying.
I'm guessing not. Because it's not a risk factor for your demographic...yet. So there's no need for those exams...yet. So there's no need to burden the system with that expense...yet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
why is restricted to a doc sticking his finger up mcbeth's bum and making him cum?
I am a high risk diabetic, i get that shit checked annually, the doc even expects me too. I'm sure there is many many more that it would be wise to get a annual MOT over.
I am a high risk diabetic, i get that shit checked annually, the doc even expects me too. I'm sure there is many many more that it would be wise to get a annual MOT over.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
The US healthcare system is great until you actually need to use it.
And as someone in that demographic, you should. That's exactly the point, m3th.m3thod wrote:
why is restricted to a doc sticking his finger up mcbeth's bum and making him cum?
I am a high risk diabetic, i get that shit checked annually, the doc even expects me too. I'm sure there is many many more that it would be wise to get a annual MOT over.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I did refute the numbers. They're based on government nationalization and wage suppression.Dilbert_X wrote:
So you don't have any kind of intelligent argument, and can't refute the figures as they're so clear.Jay wrote:
Everyone should work for the government. Profits are evil.Dilbert_X wrote:
Averaging the costs, NHS costs half as much as the US system, same for most countries where the govt runs healthcare, see the chart I posted earlier.
Well played.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You didn't refute anything.Jay wrote:
I did refute the numbers. They're based on government nationalization and wage suppression.Dilbert_X wrote:
So you don't have any kind of intelligent argument, and can't refute the figures as they're so clear.Jay wrote:
Everyone should work for the government. Profits are evil.
Well played.
Your arguments don't stack up, on the numbers or the logic. All you're doing is parroting the 'socialism is bad' mantra.
In most 'socialist' countries doctors are free to work for the state or the private sector, there's no 'wage suppression'
'Socialism' works just fine for many public services, even in America, to say socialised medicine is unpossible is patently false.
Maybe the fire dept should be a profit making activity, and firemen should be making $500k a year, I mean, you want them to be well motivated when they're putting your house out don't you?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
lol wage suppression. my aunt is a senior-manager in the NHS and my most of my mum's friends are GP's and local doctors. trust me, they don't suffer "wage suppression". the state pay from the NHS makes about half of their annual income-- the rest of the time they're free to do private consulting, private care, lectures, books, whatever they see fit. wage suppression? how is the NHS suppressing wages when a doctor can do work for the private sector? what a terrible life!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
You didn't refute anything.Jay wrote:
I did refute the numbers. They're based on government nationalization and wage suppression.Dilbert_X wrote:
So you don't have any kind of intelligent argument, and can't refute the figures as they're so clear.
Well played.
Your arguments don't stack up, on the numbers or the logic. All you're doing is parroting the 'socialism is bad' mantra.
In most 'socialist' countries doctors are free to work for the state or the private sector, there's no 'wage suppression'
'Socialism' works just fine for many public services, even in America, to say socialised medicine is unpossible is patently false.
Maybe the fire dept should be a profit making activity, and firemen should be making $500k a year, I mean, you want them to be well motivated when they're putting your house out don't you?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The fact that they have to perform a side job instead of focusing all of their energy on their primary job is where I started laughing. I don't begrudge doctors their Beamers. They've earned em.FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
You didn't refute anything.Jay wrote:
I did refute the numbers. They're based on government nationalization and wage suppression.
Your arguments don't stack up, on the numbers or the logic. All you're doing is parroting the 'socialism is bad' mantra.
In most 'socialist' countries doctors are free to work for the state or the private sector, there's no 'wage suppression'
'Socialism' works just fine for many public services, even in America, to say socialised medicine is unpossible is patently false.
Maybe the fire dept should be a profit making activity, and firemen should be making $500k a year, I mean, you want them to be well motivated when they're putting your house out don't you?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
they don't "have" to do anything. there is no "wage suppression". doctors on the state service make a very handsome pay. but nobody is stopping anybody from taking on more work as they please.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Can they set their own wages Uzique?Uzique wrote:
they don't "have" to do anything. there is no "wage suppression". doctors on the state service make a very handsome pay. but nobody is stopping anybody from taking on more work as they please.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
what sort of question is that? 99% of workers can't set their own wages. you work for a company/institution and the wage-rate is the wage rate. is that "socialist wage suppression" in your view? if you worked for an engineer's firm and they offered you a salary would you turn down the job because they're socialistically specifying your wage? doctors aren't freelance. it's not the victorian era. a doctor doesn't wander around the countryside with a little suitcase full of medicine and a stethoscope, administering aid to village peasants and charging a shilling for his toils. 90% of doctor's and GP's that work for the NHS do it as their full-time job and are perfectly happy with their (very reasonable) salary. there are financial incentives for the GP individually and for the local practice for performance and general community involvement, too. a small minority of doctors that - for whatever reason - need to boost their annual income, are free to do extra work as they see fit: private health, consultancy, lectures, book publishing, whatever. all that means is that working for the state is not some 'contract' where you are trapped. being a doctor under a state health system is no different from any other job, tbh, except the funding behind everything comes from the state coffers. as an employment-experience, it's barely any different (as i've said, my aunt is senior management in the NHS, having crossed-over from the medical profession herself into management).
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-18 09:43:39)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
99% of workers do set their own wages. They negotiate. Unless they are part of a union, or work for the government, their pay is not dictated by concrete pay scales. The freedom to set your own wages is the freedom to define your own value.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat