'Put down' lmfao.

Lol. I know. Honestly, sometimes I can't believe how easily people are influenced by the melodramatic media. And did the person stupid enough to make such a comment not even realise that he's British?!? For the sake of those who missed this though, here is an article from The Australian, explaining it properly.

Hawking cited in healthcare August 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian

PHYSICIST Stephen Hawking has been dragged into the debate over US President Barack Obama's plans to overhaul healthcare with the claim he would have no chance of survival under a public health system.

As Mr Obama presented the US's highest civilian award, the Medal of Freedom, to Professor Hawking in a ceremony at the White House yesterday, Investor's Business Daily declared the disabled scientist would not receive treatment under Britain's healthcare system.

The newspaper's editorial claimed Mr Obama's proposal for a government-run health insurance scheme similar to that in Britain would punish the elderly and disabled.

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless," it said.

The reference to Professor Hawking, who is paralysed and speaks with a voicebox synthesiser, coincides with claims denied by Mr Obama that he favours "death panels" to help cut costs by determining whether people in his condition should receive treatment.

As debate on the proposals becomes more hysterical, Britain's public health system has been held up as an example of why the US should not embrace a public model for people who cannot afford private insurance.

Professor Hawking, the Cambridge University professor and author of A Brief History of Time, was quick to point out that he was, in fact, British and lived in his home country.

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said.

"I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

The newspaper has issued a correction, noting Professor Hawking does "live in the UK".

But the clarification has done little to stop public anger as debate over Mr Obama's proposals gets sidetracked by the issue of euthanasia.

Mr Obama's early expressed hopes of bipartisan support for health legislation looks unachievable after Republican senator Chuck Grassley repeated a claim dismissed as wild misrepresentation by Mr Obama that he wanted to "pull the plug on grandma".

Senator Grassley said people had every right to fear end-of-life counselling in health legislation.

The elder brother of Mr Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel also became a target yesterday, after critics seized on some of his academic writings suggesting healthcare might be withheld from the elderly and disabled.

Prominent oncologist and ethicist Ezekiel Emanuel, who advises Mr Obama on healthcare, wrote in a 1996 article discussing guaranteed medical services that active people could be favoured over dementia patients.

Dr Emanuel disputed the interpretation, saying he was taken out of context and it was a perversion of everything he had done in caring for hundreds of dying patients.

I'm in utter amazement that Senator Grassley decided to infer basically that people should be 'afraid' of the this plan. As a result, he's been widely criticized for his comments, and people have been saying how ridiculous the death panel comments from Sarah Palin and others have been-but some extremists somewhere must think it is sticking, I guess. And I guess it did, or else that blooper wouldn't have said that-but that's pretty sad.

This was the comment which is being referred to, I believe:

Hopefully all of the "normal," people sit down & read the 1000 page bill, which is more than we can say for congress. Then they'll know about the euthanization consultations that will be mandatory for anyone over 50. "One teenager is equal to fourteen 85 year olds," is the exact wording I heard on the news the other night. Meaning, if you're 65 years old & need a pacemaker or open heart surgery, you're out of luck because the government isn't coming off that money since you're getting ready to kick the bucket, anyway.

The irony is that if the writer of the comment had actually read the bill herself she would know that it does not say any of those things. They're things which are being assumed and presented innacurately by the overdramatic American media. Lol. I'd bet money that it doesn't say anywhere in that bill that "one teenager is equal to fourteen 85 year olds" in those such words.

Elderly people in Britain recieve just as top quality healthcare as anyone else. And in fact the majority of intensive care patients are over the age of 65. And a stay in intensive care costs many thousands of pounds. But it is all paid for by the NHS. No-one is discriminated against on basis of age alone.

Yep, that is the one.

Yep, I just love that she says those consultations are 'mandatory' when the bill clearly states they are optional for those interested in talking to someone about their wishes regarding advanced directives, which is certainly not the same thing as euthanasia :-S

I didn't realise it was actually about advanced directives. Honestly, it's shocking the way people (i.e. manipulative money hungry insurance companies and the melodramatic media) can twist things... and also shocking just how easily manipulated some people are by this nonsense. Advanced directives have nothing to do with euthanasia. And nothing to do with money! The purpose of advanced directives is to ensure that someone who is unable to consent to treatment (such as CPR or being kept alive on a ventilator) does not recieve treatment which they would not have wanted! Usually people with terminal conditions such as motor neurone disease, MS, huntingtons, cancer etc, who know their life is coming to an end and wanted to die in peace.

this article> from NPR that a classmate of mine posted on facebook explains it pretty simply-the optional measure is all about ensuring one's choices with life saving measures, hospice care, etc. By no means is the government trying to get rid of anyone! :-P

It only seemed fair to give the author of this comment the chance to respond so I made her aware of this thread. Her response made me laugh...

Just getting back to you - I may be misguided, but again, I'm not involved in planning this bill, so all I know is what the media says & what I can read for myself. What I said about, "one teenager being equal to fourteen 85 year olds," was a direct quote from the news. Again, it was the local news...not a right wing or left wing program. Simply the news.Then again, I'm as far right winged as you can possibly get & I hate the government & think it should stay out of personal affairs, so of course I'm going to oppose this.

Haha how did people not know that Hawking is British?! Lmao, fools.

I just commented on that entry about that particular comment. Nothing drives me more crazy than people spreading disinformation. The worst part is, so many people are happy to stick their fingers in their ears after hearing something like that and say "la la la la la" and not listen to the actual facts. Grrr.

Yes, I saw your comment. What I find especially funny is "have you guys even read the 1000 page bill?" when it's quite clear that SHE hasn't read it herself! (Or at very least hasn't understood it)

I think the current state of health care in this country is in a shambles, but Obama's plan is not the answer.

Here is a real-life scenario. I recently had a baby - a vaginal delivery followed by a two day hospital stay and post-natal care for my daughter and I. The total came to about $10,000. My health insurance covered 80% of it, leaving me with a $2,000 bill. Now to some, this sounds like a lot of money for a simple, routine delivery, but this is typical here in the United States. However, do I expect anyone to take responsibility for these expenses other than myself? No! My medical bill is no one's responsibility than my own. It's not my neighbor's responsibility, it's not my boss's responsibility, it's not YOUR responsibility - it's mine. It's incomprehensible for me to ever expect someone else to deal with MY medical expenses.

That's not to say that I'm happy with my outrageous bill. (For heaven's sakes, I have diapers to pay for now!) Instead of making my medical bills someone else's responsibility, why not get to the bottom of why my bill was so high to begin with? Dare I suggest that it might have something to do with the high population of illegal immigrants in this country? I believe that illegal immigration needs to be aggressively dealt with if we want to see FAIR health care reform in this country.

When you pay your insurance that money doesn't go into an account for the us of MadeToShine only, that money is used for everyone within your health insurance company, so someone else is paying your health care! An NHS is the same, only we all pay the same rate no matter what medical conditions we happen to be born with or develop.

use, not us sorry.

When I pay my insurance, I have made a contract with my insurance provider that if and when I need medical attention, my financial needs will be met at 80%. I take responsibility by paying my monthly premiums, meeting a deductible, etc. It's not perfect, but it works. Socialized healthcare, on the other hand, will not require illegal immigrants to pay into the "mass account" (because they are undocumented, obviously), thus driving up our premiums and making health care the mess it is today. Why not deal with that problem first, is my question.

Sorry about the hyper-italicising, don't know what happened.

It makes for a funky read :)

An NHS can easily make illegal immigrants pay, an health card or just by giving certain details when you receive health care (unless you are injured in such a way that they cannot be discovered in advance) could easily enable tourists or illegal immigrants to be billed for the care they receive.
Our NHS is meant to charge all patients who do not live legally in the UK, however some hospitals choose not to do this, only about a third are charged for their treatment, but I don't know the number of children in this as what ever the actions of their parents, a child is never billed for medical treatment on the British NHS or a pregnant woman.

I'm confused so hopefully you can help me out, illegal immigrants do not pay for private health insurance, so I don't understand how they can effect private health care, surely only those with insurance are treated at such hospitals?

In the US, if a patient walks through the door of a hospital, they are treated regardless of their citizenship or insurance status. This means that a large percentage of patients are receiving free medical services, leaving our hospitals in serious financial trouble. So who picks up the slack? In the end, it's the legal citizens. Insurance companies are getting billed more by the hurting hospitals, and then the increase is passed down to privately insured citizens in the form of hiked health care premiums.

As you can see, we are in need of reform whether we accept Obama's plan or not. I'd be open to any solution that is FAIR, and what we have right now is definitely not fair at all.

Ah I see, thank you that is something I had always wondered as here only private patients can be treated at private hospitals.

Also, over there is a doctor, surgeon etc paid for treatment he/she gives, or is he/she on set salary/hourly rate? Here staff are on a set wage, so whether they are treating someone for a cough or referring someone for scans, they receive the same money, which stops medical treatment that is not needed being given fr the doctors gain.

I'm not sure about that one. I have a feeling it's depended upon the type of treatment being given. My itemized bill from my OB separate totals for delivery and post-natal care.

I believe at hospitals (at least the one I worked in) the ER physicians were set up with a salary rate. However, surgeons are paid based on the operation they do.

It depends on the hospital. There are hospitals in the US (private hospitals) that will not treat patients without health insurance.

American doctors are paid according to the patients they treat (and in the case of anaesthetics i do believe they're paid more for patients who are high risk for an anaesthetic) and the treatments they provide. There is less incentive for doctors to treat patients as they see fit, as it's far more about the money. Unlike in the UK where doctors are salaried and paid according to the hours they work, regardless of the number of patients they treat in that time.