Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
If it gets other women to look into it as well, then I can't see any harm in it tbh.

No one is going to listen on mass to Mrs Jones at no. 63 who goes through the same thing. Jolie has a worldwide audience because of the pedestal being a movie star puts her on, regardless of if we like that or not.
So if her comments save even a handful of lives because they looked into it after she raised this, I'd say she did the right thing.

Hell, Jade Goody was a joke in my mind, still is to a degree, famous in the UK for being a bit daft/dim on a reality TV program. However when she was diagnosed with Cervical cancer and then a very public viewing of her fast deterioration and death, there was a 12% rise in the number of women, especially younger women who might of thought themselves immune at that age to go and be tested that year.

Once again, women die of that horrible disease every day, but because a minor celebrity had it, people took notice. So regardless of any motives, or anything else, the fact Jolie raised it will be potentially positive for many people who take notice and go and get checked and then find something before it is way too late.

Meh, I guess I just don't see anything heroic here. She used her massive personal wealth to do something most people won't be able to afford to do. I suppose the only good thing I see in this is her convincing chicks not to feel less feminine because they have their boobs messed with in order to save their lives. But they shouldn't need some stranger to tell them that, either. Stupid celebrity culture.

And I have a bit of an issue with breast cancer awareness in that I feel like they are spending time and money raising awareness for one specific type of cancer when really, that effort should be going towards curing it. Or raising awareness on less known types of cancer. Then maybe we wouldn't need celebrities to die of them to get people to go out and be tested for them.

She had to pay to have the operation?
That seems like something which should be covered...

 purplefood wrote:
She had to pay to have the operation?
That seems like something which should be covered...

Don't start...

From the article in the OP

"Just as important is the issue of cost. Many insurance companies do not cover the cost of genetic testing for cancer and other conditions. The cost of the breast cancer test that Jolie had is prohibitive for many women. Some insurance companies won't pay for elective preventive mastectomy. And still others balk at the cost of reconstruction -- denying payment on the grounds that it is merely cosmetic or aesthetic."

...and let's not forget that those breast implants aren't covered by your insurance either, so a "normal" woman would have to both pay for the test and the new implants + operation.

Yes, that's the "reconstruction" bit. It's really honestly silly to write that portion off as cosmetic. It's a pretty big deal psychologically for a lot of women.

I do find it interesting that the insurance companies would skip genetic testing and preventive surgeries. Surely both of those are FAR cheaper then cancer care. Which is pretty famous for being stupidly expensive.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes, that's the "reconstruction" bit. It's really honestly silly to write that portion off as cosmetic. It's a pretty big deal psychologically for a lot of women.

I do find it interesting that the insurance companies would skip genetic testing and preventive surgeries. Surely both of those are FAR cheaper then cancer care. Which is pretty famous for being stupidly expensive.

Ah, but cancer only has to be provided for people who get cancer. Preventative screening needs to be provided for everyone. And if it is caught, then the insurance company would need to pay for preventative surgeries.

In the cold calculus of the insurance agencies, a costly test and more costly surgery that could save lives is less expensive than the the extremely expensive life-prolonging treatments given to those relative few that fall to cancer.

It is one of those awful situations where profit has eclipsed concern for human life. Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Gitzbitah wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes, that's the "reconstruction" bit. It's really honestly silly to write that portion off as cosmetic. It's a pretty big deal psychologically for a lot of women.

I do find it interesting that the insurance companies would skip genetic testing and preventive surgeries. Surely both of those are FAR cheaper then cancer care. Which is pretty famous for being stupidly expensive.

Ah, but cancer care only has to be provided for people who get cancer.

Cancer care only has to provided if you can't find a way to remove the person from the payable status long enough for them to die.
My wifes fight for treatment with MS drugs has left me very bitter about how insurance works.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And some people might just go "If Jolie can get her tits chopped off and be okay, then I will be okay too" instead of hanging on to a diseased body part for too long because of body image.

Exactly!

I actually do think it's a brave decision... I don't care how famous you are... or how right, but chopping off a body part to mitigate a chance that you'd get cancer is brave. Remember, she lost her mum to that cancer.

Completely agree.. I think there is a net-positive outcome of her coming out and saying about this, regardless of which way you look at it, what her motivations were or whatever.

efarrer wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes, that's the "reconstruction" bit. It's really honestly silly to write that portion off as cosmetic. It's a pretty big deal psychologically for a lot of women.

I do find it interesting that the insurance companies would skip genetic testing and preventive surgeries. Surely both of those are FAR cheaper then cancer care. Which is pretty famous for being stupidly expensive.

Ah, but cancer care only has to be provided for people who get cancer.

Cancer care only has to provided if you can't find a way to remove the person from the payable status long enough for them to die.
My wifes fight for treatment with MS drugs has left me very bitter about how insurance works.

That is even more cynical and horrible than the picture I painted- and I have no doubt that it is true. You have my deepest sympathies for that fight.

Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Assuming your not left to die in your bed like what happens not uncommonly in the NHS.

Gitzbitah wrote:
Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Healthcare isn't free, far from it. It's one of the most expensive things in a modern society.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Assuming your not left to die in your bed like what happens not uncommonly in the NHS.

Which of course is something which happens in private health care as well. Noone is going to argue that the NHS is perfect, but it does very good work, even when hamstrung by successive bad decisions by governments.

Also, define "not uncommonly" as an actual proportion of patients.

I suppose I should clarify- any state that can provide quality health care to all of its citizens (probably funding it through increased taxation) without charging them on a per procedure basis (what I meant by free) would be the most civilized to me.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Assuming your not left to die in your bed like what happens not uncommonly in the NHS.

Which of course is something which happens in private health care as well. Noone is going to argue that the NHS is perfect, but it does very good work, even when hamstrung by successive bad decisions by governments.

Also, define "not uncommonly" as an actual proportion of patients.

Old people have been well documented in news as being left in their bed, often out in corridors, when they should be given care. The NHS will never ever be anywhere near decent. Private is always the place to go unless you can't afford it.

The part that bothers me most is Zoraida Sambolin. Since this story broke my news feed has been spammed with her "me too!" story. That's pretty tacky. Check pic number 5 in the OP's article.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Assuming your not left to die in your bed like what happens not uncommonly in the NHS.

Which of course is something which happens in private health care as well. Noone is going to argue that the NHS is perfect, but it does very good work, even when hamstrung by successive bad decisions by governments.

Also, define "not uncommonly" as an actual proportion of patients.

Old people have been well documented in news as being left in their bed, often out in corridors, when they should be given care. The NHS will never ever be anywhere near decent. Private is always the place to go unless you can't afford it.

Are you talking about the Liverpool pathway? Or just people not being treated? If it's people not being treated then it's a minuscule number of cases out of millions. The NHS is more than decent and has been since it's foundation. We are too young to remember what thing were like before the second world war, but it certainly was worse than the NHS. So it needs to be looked after. The US can keep it's climate of fear, and vastly higher spending, and bankruptcies. Private healthcare should be abolished in Britain, just like private schooling.

In on topic news, it seems she is having her ovaries removed as well.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Free, universal health care is the height of civilization at this moment.

Assuming your not left to die in your bed like what happens not uncommonly in the NHS.

Which of course is something which happens in private health care as well. Noone is going to argue that the NHS is perfect, but it does very good work, even when hamstrung by successive bad decisions by governments.

Also, define "not uncommonly" as an actual proportion of patients.

Old people have been well documented in news as being left in their bed, often out in corridors, when they should be given care. The NHS will never ever be anywhere near decent. Private is always the place to go unless you can't afford it.

Are you talking about the Liverpool pathway? Or just people not being treated? If it's people not being treated then it's a minuscule number of cases out of millions. The NHS is more than decent and has been since it's foundation. We are too young to remember what thing were like before the second world war, but it certainly was worse than the NHS. So it needs to be looked after. The US can keep it's climate of fear, and vastly higher spending, and bankruptcies. Private healthcare should be abolished in Britain, just like private schooling.

In on topic news, it seems she is having her ovaries removed as well.

Im not saying get rid of the NHS, just be aware that they commit murder in a significant scale.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2000824/NHS-indignity-Peter-Thompsons-body-ignored-hours-corridor-Edale-House-unit.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kane-gorny-inquest-nhs-patient-1125329

There needs to be some oversight if Free Healthcare should be the only solution. I don't think for a second that this phenomenon is as common in the US, namely as they have to work for their money.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Im not saying get rid of the NHS, just be aware that they commit murder in a significant scale.

Well you obviously have evidence of this murder on a significant scale, otherwise you wouldn't have said such nonsense. So please share your evidence of "murder" (not negligence, or malpractice but murder), and i'll ask again, what you consider significant as a proportion of cases.

There needs to be some oversight if Free Healthcare should be the only solution. I don't think for a second that this phenomenon is as common in the US, namely as they have to work for their money.

So you use two cases of negligence to show that a system which deals with hundreds of thousands a week is unfit for purpose? And those cases have gone to hearings and disciplinary action will be taken if negligence is shown. Besides both cases were of the patient becoming aggressive toward staff, now i'm sorry but the things some staff have to put up with are unacceptable so quite rightly if you cause trouble you get put to the back of the queue. It may not be right, but that is what happens. It's not murder, it's bad practice.

Do you think that negligence and malpractice suddenly doesn't happen in private hospitals?

You never get refused treatment here. And one of three things happens.

1) Your insurance covers it.

2) You pay for it out of pocket.

3) You go into debt.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Im not saying get rid of the NHS, just be aware that they commit murder in a significant scale.

Well you obviously have evidence of this murder on a significant scale, otherwise you wouldn't have said such nonsense. So please share your evidence of "murder" (not negligence, or malpractice but murder), and i'll ask again, what you consider significant as a proportion of cases.

Negligence is murder in the same way drink driving is. You've killed someone.

For evidence? look at that article on the man who was denied water.

You never get refused treatment here. And one of three things happens.

1) Your insurance covers it.

2) You pay for it out of pocket.

3) You go into debt.

Probably needs some tweeking, but this is the right way forward. Its more costly for the individual true, but it forces a higher quality of care on doctors and especially nurses.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Im not saying get rid of the NHS, just be aware that they commit murder in a significant scale.

Well you obviously have evidence of this murder on a significant scale, otherwise you wouldn't have said such nonsense. So please share your evidence of "murder" (not negligence, or malpractice but murder), and i'll ask again, what you consider significant as a proportion of cases.

Negligence is murder in the same way drink driving is. You've killed someone.

For evidence? look at that article on the man who was denied water.

You never get refused treatment here. And one of three things happens.

1) Your insurance covers it.

2) You pay for it out of pocket.

3) You go into debt.

Probably needs some tweeking, but this is the right way forward. Its more costly for the individual true, but it forces a higher quality of care on doctors and especially nurses.

I've edited my earlier response to cover those two cases. Negligence is not murder, negligence is acting in such a way that death results from your actions or inactions. Murder is to commit homicide with the intention of taking life. The mens rea is very different in each case and considering that's how our law was built, that's how it is. Hence why death by dangerous driving does not carry a life sentence while murder does.

The US system is definitely not what we want. We have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality while spending far less on the service. They also have almost 50million people without healthcare, it's far from what we want in this country. The problems the NHS has stem from the steps taken to privatise parts of it, something our politicians do very well out of financially.

 dæl wrote:

I've edited my earlier response to cover those two cases. Negligence is not murder, negligence is acting in such a way that death results from your actions or inactions. Murder is to commit homicide with the intention of taking life. The mens rea is very different in each case and considering that's how our law was built, that's how it is. Hence why death by dangerous driving does not carry a life sentence while murder does.

I don't understand this... is it that the NHS don't want to pay for expensive treatment on elderly and would rather give them pain meds for "end-of-life" stages?

The US system is definitely not what we want.

How do you know? Have you been here?

We have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality while spending far less on the service.

wait...wut? First of all, don't be comparing how two countries collect their data... and I'd suspect that our level of care is comprable if not better than anywhere else.

They also have almost 50million people without healthcare, it's far from what we want in this country.

Not anymore in November...

The problems the NHS has stem from the steps taken to privatise parts of it, something our politicians do very well out of financially.

Really?

Why don't ya'll go full bore they way Canada operates their Medicare? But, careful, they ration their care...

 whembly wrote:

I don't understand this... is it that the NHS don't want to pay for expensive treatment on elderly and would rather give them pain meds for "end-of-life" stages?

The two cases that were raised are cases of negligence. In broader terms the NHS, when someone is very likely to die soon, put the patient onto something called the Liverpool pathway, where they are given treatment only for symptoms and are made as comfortable a possible.

The US system is definitely not what we want.

How do you know? Have you been here?

No, but I can read.

We have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality while spending far less on the service.

wait...wut? First of all, don't be comparing how two countries collect their data... and I'd suspect that our level of care is comprable if not better than anywhere else.

Well considering those figures are from the WHO, I'd imagine they are pretty accurate. How is your level of care comparable when you exclude so many from the system? For those who can afford it I am sure you have a high level of care, for others, not so much.

The problems the NHS has stem from the steps taken to privatise parts of it, something our politicians do very well out of financially.

Really?

Yes really, which bit do you not believe that our problems stem from privatisation, or that MPs have a conflict of interest?

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't understand this... is it that the NHS don't want to pay for expensive treatment on elderly and would rather give them pain meds for "end-of-life" stages?

The two cases that were raised are cases of negligence. In broader terms the NHS, when someone is very likely to die soon, put the patient onto something called the Liverpool pathway, where they are given treatment only for symptoms and are made as comfortable a possible.

Aha...gotcha.

The US system is definitely not what we want.

How do you know? Have you been here?

No, but I can read.

That's bs. I work in the healthcare industion and many in my profession (including MD, nursing, Hospital Executives, ...) really have major problems how the WHO/OECD acquires their data and push their "observations" based on those results.

We have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality while spending far less on the service.

wait...wut? First of all, don't be comparing how two countries collect their data... and I'd suspect that our level of care is comprable if not better than anywhere else.

Well considering those figures are from the WHO, I'd imagine they are pretty accurate. How is your level of care comparable when you exclude so many from the system? For those who can afford it I am sure you have a high level of care, for others, not so much.

We DO NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE! Get this into your brain.

We have a federally mandated LAW that if you require immediate help, the Emergency Room CANNOT refuse. You're implying that we're leaving people on the streets to die if they can't afford health insurance.

Again... this is all moot in November.

The problems the NHS has stem from the steps taken to privatise parts of it, something our politicians do very well out of financially.

Really?

Yes really, which bit do you not believe that our problems stem from privatisation, or that MPs have a conflict of interest?

Interesting read... thanks!

 whembly wrote:

That's bs. I work in the healthcare industion and many in my profession (including MD, nursing, Hospital Executives, ...) really have major problems how the WHO/OECD acquires their data and push their "observations" based on those results.

What sort of problems? I'm genuinely interested as to why they are untrusted.

We DO NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE! Get this into your brain.

We have a federally mandated LAW that if you require immediate help, the Emergency Room CANNOT refuse. You're implying that we're leaving people on the streets to die if they can't afford health insurance.

Immediate help aside, are all covered for minor complaints? or preventative surgery? or psychological care? or lifelong illnesses? Do those people get treated or are they excluded? Also, so I am told, one of the primary reasons you guys have such a high cost is that people leave minor issues until they become much more difficult and expensive to treat.

The issue of your healthcare being the cause of so many bankruptcies is pretty bad as well, I certainly wouldn't want that for Britain.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's bs. I work in the healthcare industion and many in my profession (including MD, nursing, Hospital Executives, ...) really have major problems how the WHO/OECD acquires their data and push their "observations" based on those results.

What sort of problems? I'm genuinely interested as to why they are untrusted.

Have you taken any statistic class? It's a common subject regarding the veracity of the source data...

Anyhoo... I'll provide an easy example. The WHO ranked Cuba's infant mortality rate much lower than USA.

Why? Because of when/how the data is recorded.

1) SIDS aren't included in Cuba's data... whereas, the US does.
2) Premature baby deaths aren't included in Cuba... where in US does.
3) Cuba has a policy to abort babies if there's a high risk that the baby won't survive after birth... whereas in US, we don't
4) I can go, on & on.

Getting the picture?

In First World Healthcare, I'd argue the level of care are about the same. There's an article on this from the Washington School of Medicine here in St. Louis on this very subject. I'll have to hunt it down, if I do find it... I'll post it here.

We DO NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE! Get this into your brain.

We have a federally mandated LAW that if you require immediate help, the Emergency Room CANNOT refuse. You're implying that we're leaving people on the streets to die if they can't afford health insurance.

Immediate help aside,

are all covered for minor complaints?

Depends... you do know we have Medicare I65 yrs or oder) or Medicare (state ran programs for childrens/disabled)

or preventative surgery? or psychological care? or lifelong illnesses?

Depends on insurance plans

Do those people get treated or are they excluded?

Again, depends on the plan. There's also charities, discount programs from pharmaceutical, subsidies form state, etc... part of the problem here is that you have to *hunt* for that, and for some people it's not easy to do.

so I am told, one of the primary reasons you guys have such a high cost is that people leave minor issues until they become much more difficult and expensive to treat.

You are VERY right about that. But, that's even true for those who has insurance... you still need to get those peoples into the doctor's office.

The issue of your healthcare being the cause of so many bankruptcies is pretty bad as well, I certainly wouldn't want that for Britain.

Yup, medical expenses is #1 reason for Bankruptcies... but Divorce cost is #2. (some may argue, Divorce is #1 because many file for BR after their divorce while having medical expenses during their marriage).

Here's a fun fact.
In all of last year 1.2 million filed for bankruptcy...
We have 315 million people in the US...

So... out of EVERYONE in the United States, only 0.003% of the population had to file for bankruptcy in one form or another. Roughly 60% were due to Medical Expenses... so, that's truly %0.002 of the population had to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses.

While that sucks for those folks... (I had to file bankruptcy... but, for divorce and me/ex-wife were dumbasses with our money) do we really need to TRASH the whole system, because 0.002 percent of the population had to file for bankruptcy?

And realize, that the percentage is higher during a depressed working market...

And unless you have no credit you can always sell your soul to a lender to get money for medical bills.

Nobody gets refused treatment, its just how we pay for it that's different. And there are plenty of things that don't need medical attention that probably would get looked at if Healthcare was "free", thus putting more pressure on the system and reducing the space for people that need help.


I smash my toe into the wall and I think I may have broken it.

1) Current System: "I'll just wrap it up and take an Advil, thats what the Doctor is going to tell me if I go in"

2) Free healthcare system: I might as well take advantage of the free healthcare since I have nothing better to do. I go in and wait an hour for the doctor to wrap it up and tell me to take an Advil. I just wasted an hour of my time and 10 minutes of the doctor's time.

A little exaggerated but I think having free universal healthcare would just increase the amount of trivial cases going to see the doctor(just because they can) and would take time away from anything that's serious.

I rarely visit a doctor because I think it i wll be wasting his/her time. I might be free but they are still busy and it's still a hassle for both of us.

And there's always sensible people like that, but then there are the people that will do it just because they can.