You don’t say... (And if you tell me this could happen only in Russia and never in UK, Canada or US, I will answer that I saw similar things in public hospitals in Brooklyn, in Coney Island.)
I recall the case of a fourteen-year-old girl from my district who died of acute nephritis in a Moscow hospital. She died because a doctor decided that it was better to save "precious" X-ray film (imported by the Soviets for hard currency) instead of double-checking his diagnosis. These X-rays would have disproven his diagnosis of neuropathic pain.
Instead, the doctor treated the teenager with a heat compress, which killed her almost instantly. There was no legal remedy for the girl's parents and grandparents. By definition, a single-payer system cannot allow any such remedy. The girl's grandparents could not cope with this loss and they both died within six months. The doctor received no official reprimand.
[...]
The appalling quality of service is not simply characteristic of "barbarous" Russia and other Eastern European nations: it is a direct result of the government monopoly on healthcare and it can happen in any country. In "civilized" England, for example, the waiting list for surgeries is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State-of-the-art equipment is nonexistent in most British hospitals. In England, only 10 percent of the healthcare spending is derived from private sources.
Britain pioneered in developing kidney-dialysis technology, and yet the country has one of the lowest dialysis rates in the world. The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found that every year 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacements, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain.
Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of healthcare. In Russia, patients over 60 are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 are often denied even elementary forms of healthcare.
In the United Kingdom, in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who are 55 years old are refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. Forty-five percent of 65-year-old patients at the centers are denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely receive any medical attention at these centers.
In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the "active taxpayers," enjoys priority treatment.
A bit of a rough draft (I am not on my computer, so forgive errors etc.) of my answer to Hesh's post about his friend's coming out of closet (which, apparently, may not be a PC term).
A few points from me, to begin with:
1. Obviously, one cannot and should not judge someone before being in his shoes. This is a general address of the issue.
1.5 I am not subscribing to the general conservative (right-wing) homophobia. It's wrong and bad because Torah forbids it. Just like breaking Shabbos. If it wasn't for Torah, I'd have no problem with it (of course, there is a question of what's wrong with anything if it's not for Torah -- I am not getting into that, though).
2. Judaism does not prohibit having forbidden desires. Judaism forbids continuing to fantasize and, especially, G-d forbid, act on these desires -- whatever they are, from homosexuality, to adultery, to eating cholov stam. But obviously, Judaism recognizes that we have tendencies and forbidden desires, while we are reshoim and beinoinim. Judaism does not forbid poking one's eye out with a pencil (specifically), because for the most part there is no such tendency.
3. I don't understand the reason behind coming out. He felt like he was lying when his buddies were making comments about passing girls and he had to make those comments too? This is a frum Jew?.. Maybe this is Hashem telling him to stop hanging out with this crowd.
(Also, what frum Jew wears a wife-beater in a way that others see it? OK, as I said, non-judgmental. :)
4. I don't understand the general idea of coming out (unless it's necessary for therapeutic purposes). Imagine yourself coming to shull and saying: "Hey, I am a pedophile!" Or: "Hey, I break Shabbos secretly." Or: "Hey, I cannot control myself and have desires about eating pork -- and from time to time, I eat it."
If you have them, you have them. You deal with them, you struggle with them -- whatever. You talk about them to your mashpia, your friends or relatives, or your rabbi or shrink. But the idea of coming out -- does this mean this person doesn't consider his desires or (G-d forbid) actions (which, I know, have not happened yet) no longer wrong? I will certainly never come out about my sins, such as my secret infatuation with Andrszei Sapkowski's books. (Oops...)
5. Finally, Chabad Chassidus offers the general approach of how to deal with sadness and depression from what one knows to be wrong desires. Obviously, just learning this bit of Chassidus (Ch. 27 of Tanya) isn't going to help and solve all the problems -- one needs general immersion into the ideology and "air" of Chassidus. But the following may help.
Some clips may be not in order and need to be reposted or not accessible now (the first three clips are addressing the actual issue — although you may want to skip ahead a bit in the first one; the rest you can watch for the your general benefit).
Anyway, I am from Russia and not used to technology, so don't judge me.
Seriously speaking, if this helps somebody, at least to some degree, I think it will be a good thing. I am not posting this, because I think it's a cool video, or because I want to have an additional chance to spread Chabad Chassidus propaganda (well, not only because of that), but because I genuinely think this may help somewhat.
From Tanya class on Ch. 27 with Rabbi Shmuel Posner (Chabad of Boston):
It is often believed by those that feel bad for poor people with no means for paying for their medical bills and insurance that universal government-funded healthcare is the answer. The article by Joe Peacott dispels this myth — as well as the one stating that in the world of privately-payed healthcare, the poor would be left sick and dead “on the roadside”.
Turning healthcare into a free-market, unregulated business would create normal competition, which would drive prices down, thus making healthcare more affordable. Lack of government regulation would further cut majority of expenses and reduce many problems in the system. Forcing people to take responsibility for their health — as they are forced to take responsibility for caring for their cars — would improve the general health of people in the country by changing their attitudes and behavior (both short- and long-term) regarding their own health. Obviously, this would reduce people’s dependency of the healthcare system and necessity to seek help if they still couldn’t afford it.
I don’t know if all this would completely eliminate dependency of very poor people on financial assistance — but that would be provided by private funds, much better controlled and directed (thus, less likely to be abused). I know someone who got cancer and could not afford visits to doctors — much less the surgery and post-surgical care, check-ups, medications, etc. (This was not cancer from smoking, lack of exercise, bad diet, or anything else in person’s control.) Even considering that many of the expenses were reduced in a healthy market situation, the person would still be unable to afford much of this. Well, she received “free care” coverage from one of the local private hospitals — which paid for all expenses. She did not get government-funded MassHealth; she already received private assistance.
If taxes were lower and hospitals’ and other organizations’ profits higher (and health expenses reduced due to eliminating most of government and in-hospital bureaucracy), they would be more likely to donate money for the needy — the really needy — patients.