Still want socialized medicine after reading this?

Question

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292473,00.html

And don't dismiss this as anecdotal unless you are willing to be the next such anecdote.

Answer 1

This is for all you yahoos who think FOX is the source of the story. It is the Daily Mail in England. Just so they can't dismiss it out of hand like they always do.

That is pretty bad. I would not prefer socialized medicine but would like our system not to be third-party payer and attached to a job. If people started paying for their health care they would know what it actually costs and quit running to the doctor all the time.

Answer 2

Several points:
1) With Fox Noise being the source it tends to put a damper on the credibility of the story.
2) He was treated and released. The story does not say whether he was give antibiotics and/or told how he needed to clean and dress the wound afterwards.
3) The fact that he got a infection tells me he received no antibiotics and he did not clean and dress the wound correctly so is that all the clinics fault? Maybe he was instructed and didn't follow their advice.
4) An infection like the one described would be extremely sore and be oozing puss. Why did he not go back in or tell a family member? If he had it could have been treated.
So in summary, the story does not in and of itself note any problems with a universal health care system.

Answer 3

I think that they should sue the clinic that treated him. They should have know not to release him when they know he had a heart problem. He should have went to a real doctor that he could trust. It is sooo sad i feel for he family.

Answer 4

That's so lame. That happens here because your plan won't cover it or guess what NO PLAN AT ALL.

You find a way to cover everybody or you can only talk to the rich because the poor want health care.

Answer 5

I have never wanted socialized medicine. However I would like AFFORDABLE health care.

Answer 6

Down with socialism.

Capitalism 4 EVER!!!!!!