Stupid liberal idea of the day

[Defensive_Indifference]

@adaher

That’s how hard up the single payer system there is for doctors.

While the punishment seems light to me as well, I see no support in your cite for this conclusion.

[scr4]

@adaher

Thank you, Britain, for the greatest anti-single payer anecdote of all time:

Surgeon who burned initials into livers of two patients fined £10,000 | Birmingham | The Guardian

NHS doctor was burning his initials into livers he was transplanting. His sentence? Unpaid work. That’s how hard up the single payer system there is for doctors.

The article uses the terms “community order” and “unpaid work.” That’s the same thing as community service.

You may get a community sentence if you’re convicted of a crime by a court but are not sent to prison.

You may have to do unpaid work in your local community, like removing graffiti. This is called Community Payback.

Community sentences can be given for crimes such as:

[ul]
[li]damaging property[/li][li]benefit fraud[/li][li]assault[/li][/ul]
…

cite
This article from The Sun has further info.

[scr4]

Also, on top of the fine and the community service, he may still lose his license. According to this article:

It will be up to the General Medical Council to decide whether Bramhall will be struck off or allowed to continue doing the job he loves.

[running_coach]

@scr4

Also, on top of the fine and the community service, he may still lose his license. According to this article:

It will be up to the General Medical Council to decide whether Bramhall will be struck off or allowed to continue doing the job he loves.

He could always run a trophy shop. They do lots of engraving.

[jayjay]

@adaher

Thank you, Britain, for the greatest anti-single payer anecdote of all time:

Surgeon who burned initials into livers of two patients fined £10,000 | Birmingham | The Guardian

NHS doctor was burning his initials into livers he was transplanting. His sentence? Unpaid work. That’s how hard up the single payer system there is for doctors.

I really find it amusing that you posted this directly below septimus’s parody of Humpy’s typical spin…

[Ludovic]

I originally read that as he was burning the sentence “unpaid work” into the livers in protest of the low salary.

[adaher]

That’s why I said it was a “talking point”. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate, just persuasive. In the US I don’t think his continued practicing would even be a question, much less being sentenced to do his job. And Britain’s doctor shortage is well documented:

Thousands of NHS nursing and doctor posts lie vacant

The only part I can’t prove is that the doctor shortage affected the sentence.

[k9bfriender]

@adaher

That’s why I said it was a “talking point”. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate, just persuasive.

This thread is for stupid liberal ideas.

Admitting that the conservatives do not bother to be accurate, just persuasive in their talking points is off topic.

[running_coach]

@k9bfriender

This thread is for stupid liberal ideas.

Admitting that the conservatives do not bother to be accurate, just persuasive in their talking points is off topic.

The stupid liberal idea is expecting conservatives to uphold the same impossibly high standards they expect of liberals.

[adaher]

@k9bfriender

This thread is for stupid liberal ideas.

Admitting that the conservatives do not bother to be accurate, just persuasive in their talking points is off topic.

The stupid liberal idea is not rescinding the license of a doctor who burns his initials into livers. And even though the patients weren’t directly harmed, there should be some restitution. But single payer systems don’t do restitution, so there’s that too. Trial lawyers will kill single payer here long before conservatives get to it.

[running_coach]

@adaher

The stupid liberal idea is not rescinding the license of a doctor who burns his initials into livers. And even though the patients weren’t directly harmed, there should be some restitution. But single payer systems don’t do restitution, so there’s that too. Trial lawyers will kill single payer here long before conservatives get to it.

How is that liberal? Maybe the “crime” was considered minor enough to not deprive someone of their livelihood?
From your original link:

Simon Bramhall, 53, used an argon beam – used to stop livers bleeding during operations and to highlight an area to be worked on – to sign “SB” into his patient’s livers. The marks left by argon do not impair the liver’s function and disappear by themselves.

For one thing, he wasn’t deliberately causing harm and it appears he didn’t actually cause harm. And while it may be considered a form of assault, it was not the same as walking up to a stranger and belting them across the jaw.

[k9bfriender]

@adaher

The stupid liberal idea is not rescinding the license of a doctor who burns his initials into livers.

I had not heard that they had decided not to, just that they were still deciding what to do.

And even though the patients weren’t directly harmed, there should be some restitution.

What should they receive restitution for, if they were not harmed? How would you evaluate the restitution they should receive?

But single payer systems don’t do restitution, so there’s that too.

You can sue a doctor for malpractice under single payer. There is nothing stopping you. Restitution in malpractice is not as big an issue, as in the US, that restitution is needed to pay the medical bills that they have caused you to incur. If there are no medical bills, then restitution is not necessary for that. In cases where there was neglect or malie on the part of the doctor, you can absolutely sue for punitive damages.

Trial lawyers will kill single payer here long before conservatives get to it.

Conservatives already killed it at least twice (hillary care, early thoughts on the ACA), what are you talking about?

[adaher]

@running_coach

How is that liberal? Maybe the “crime” was considered minor enough to not deprive someone of their livelihood?
From your original link:

For one thing, he wasn’t deliberately causing harm and it appears he didn’t actually cause harm. And while it may be considered a form of assault, it was not the same as walking up to a stranger and belting them across the jaw.

True, he could have done something serious, like an offensive tweet.

[adaher]

@k9bfriender

What should they receive restitution for, if they were not harmed? How would you evaluate the restitution they should receive?

In the US you can get damages for emotional distress, plus punitive damages. In the US this hospital would be liable for a HUGE settlement. This isn’t even negligence, this is outright maliciousness. The hospital would be begging to settle in the US.

[ticker]

@adaher

But single payer systems don’t do restitution, so there’s that too.

That’s just bollocks (to use an appropriately British idiom)

@adaher

In the US you can get damages for emotional distress, plus punitive damages. In the US this hospital would be liable for a HUGE settlement. This isn’t even negligence, this is outright maliciousness. The hospital would be begging to settle in the US.

Perhaps your overly litigious society is one of the reasons US healthcare is so bloody expensive.

[running_coach]

@adaher

In the US you can get damages for emotional distress, plus punitive damages. In the US this hospital would be liable for a HUGE settlement. This isn’t even negligence, this is outright maliciousness. The hospital would be begging to settle in the US.

Malicious

Definition of malicious
: having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone : given to, marked by, or arising from malice

I don’t see where he had a desire to cause harm.

[k9bfriender]

@adaher

In the US you can get damages for emotional distress, plus punitive damages.

Are you saying that they cannot sue for emotional distress and punitive damages? I see no reason why they cannot. They just don’t have to sue for restitution, as, not only is there no actual harm that needs to be addressed, but if there were, their medical bills would be covered anyway.

In the US this hospital would be liable for a HUGE settlement. This isn’t even negligence, this is outright maliciousness. The hospital would be begging to settle in the US.

You could be right, that sounds like an excellent argument for single payer.

[andros]

@adaher

In the US you can get damages for emotional distress, plus punitive damages. In the US this hospital would be liable for a HUGE settlement. This isn’t even negligence, this is outright maliciousness. The hospital would be begging to settle in the US.

Wait, when did “tort reform” stop being a major conservative issue?

[adaher]

Tort reform is one good thing about single payer, although it can go too far. Punitive damages exist for a reason, to prevent the medical profession from violating standards with impunity. Pure reimbursement of medical expenses is not a sufficient deterrent.

Precisely because single payer has to include tort reform is why trial lawyers will side with conservatives to oppose it. At which point Democrats will pay them off, but that’s just another stupid liberal idea.

[adaher]

@andros

Wait, when did “tort reform” stop being a major conservative issue?

Tort reform to protect the private sector from excessive judgments is one thing. Tort reform to protect the GOVERNMENT from it’s own actions is a very different thing.