News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Is this an omen for the new year or just a fitting metaphor for it?
The next four years, really.
Minimum 4 years
I mean, he is 78 years old, apparently never exercises, and eats McDonald's on a regular basis...
With access to the best God damned Healthcare money can buy
He was almost defeated by a glass of water and a slight incline the last time he was president and his brain is pretty clearly Swiss cheese.
Good healthcare has its limits.
Even the best health care is only as good as the patient's willingness to listen to an expert. Unless there's some poor intern being tasked with wrapping Donvict's meds in cheese so he'll swallow them, that might not matter.
The people pulling the strings would probably have that happen tbh lol.
More money does not mean better treatment per se. The standard of care is the same for rich and poor. He may be able to get more doctor opinions and have an easier time getting meds/etc. though.
The standard of care is not the same in the US
"Oh, I see that you're a rich - come with me to the executive wing of the hospital where we keep the cures"
No - the standard of care is not defined based on who or how much you have. You treat the same disease with the same treatment. Rich people can just afford treatments easier.
When Trump got COVID five years ago, he got treatment that is still not available to the general public.
We didn't know much about COVID-19 at the time and expanded use was frequent for drugs that are "generally considered safe" but whose effectiveness was questionable.
What was the special circumstance for which Trump got that treatment? Would you have had the option to also get it?
It was an emergency use - that the virus was novel, that we didn't have adequate treatments for it yet, and Trump was considered to be in a high-risk category.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=312.310
Yes - I would have had the same option were I in a high risk category.
Remember all those assholes getting Hydroxychloroquine? They were using a similar same emergency use authorization to do so since it was being used for things it was otherwise not authorized for.
Would your insurance have covered it? Did other people also get it as soon as Trump did?
I haven't asked my insurance company. Maybe? I've been very clear that he will have easier access to healthcare due to his status. I expect you to ignore this as well as every other idiot who feels clever replying to me telling me that he will have easier access to healthcare.
But the standard with which he is treated is the same. He can just afford it more easily.
Edited to address:
They had access to it the same time Trump did - the rule I linked to does not say "ONLY IF YOU'RE PRESIDENT".
That's not what standard of care refers to solely. You're last sentence shows that the standard is not the same. Being able to afford things that others can't, being able to pay for early access to specialists, and diagnostics are exactly what I mean by differing standard of care.
This is how I am using it:
A standard of care is a medical or psychological treatment guideline, and can be general or specific. It specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition. .
He has access to about the same amount of care as anyone with good health insurance. Sure he can pay for more specialists and such but that is often wasted resources. "more doctors" does not always mean "better result". In fact some studies show it can be worse.
So what you're saying is that you are choosing a very specific section of the definition. Instead of the entire definition to suit your argument. He does not have the same amount of care as anyone else. He was potus, and will be again, unfortunately.
Every definition is a "very specific one". I'm clarifying what I said and you're coming at me with some sort of weird "gotcha" energy. I don't expect you have noble intentions.
I only pasted part because I wasn't going to put the entire thing in a post. But what part of the rest of the section do you feel I should have included?
Citation needed.
No, there are sections your cherry picked, you didn't use the entirety of the definition. Nothing about "gatcha", just showing that your point doesn't stand. The definition is also a legal matter, the potus has access to better health care, more direct health care. And you're right i don't have a citation for that because that was a typo. But here.
This is fucking stupid. I bloody well did. The POINT I am making is that "standard of care" is a medial term that applies to how disease is evaluated, treated, etc. It's not different based on income, social standing, etc.
In short - if you have X disease the standard of care says to treat it with Y treatment.
What YOU are talking about is... Which healthcare he has? The thing you posted just talks about how he has access to military benefits (which anybody in the military has access to).
But what wouldn't change is HOW he is treated. Walter Reed will treat X disease the same as any other hospital.
He's not receiving some extra-super-special treatment.
I would be surprised if he wasn't, hence using the special treatment for covid on him. Also he is treated different because he can access medical aid faster and easier than anyone else. That's littlerally a different standard of care.
It's literally not standard of care as I am using it and as the medical industry uses it. You seem to want to redefine my term to match your needs.
Others could access the same experimental treatment using the same exception he used as I pointed out already, and I even linked to the ruling that allows for it.
It's also not BETTER treatment it's EXPERIMENTAL treatment. Many experimental treatments do NOT work out. Look at all the assholes using the SAME exception to get treated with hydroxychloroquine.
It's literally is, you seem to want to redefine what i am saying to match what you want me to be saying. If you don't realize the leader of the country has more readily access to Healthcare with the fanciest bells and whistles, then I can't help you. Feel free to stop replying.
I am the one who introduced the phrase "standard of care" to this conversation. I even provided the definition of it to clarify. It means what I say it means in this context because it's what I am talking about. If it doesn't mean what you want it to mean then that's your problem.
It's like I said "murder is wrong" and you jump in and accuse me of "cherry picking" a definition for murder and start defending groups of crows!
"standard of care" is a medical and legal term of art. It has a specific definition about how to treat patients. It has nothing - zero - zilch to do with access to healthcare which is all you want to rant about and which I've already said would be easier for anybody with money. Even when you accused me of "cherry picking" a definition (which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard) you couldn't point to one that says anything about insurance.
Of course the president has easy access to healthcare. I even said that in my first reply. But the care he is given would be the same as to anyone else. There is no "magic medicine" that he gets that you don't. If he has a cut they give him a bandage with antibiotics. If he has cancer they will provide the same treatment as they would you. YES he may be able to afford medicines easier than you - THAT IS NOT MY POINT. The same options would be made available.
But there are no more "fancy bells and whistles" available - what does that even mean??? Do you think there are medicines that you wouldn't be allowed to get? Like if the president were diabetic do you think there is some "super insulin" that they'll give him that works better?
Medical standard of care is a medical industry standard that "Treatment standards applied within public hospitals ensure that all patients receive appropriate care regardless of financial means."
Well since you continue to reply, and this isn't going anywhere, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. I'll stop replying after this, you're welcome to continue to do so if you see fit, but I won't waste time anymore.
Per se is doing a lot of work there. Sure, if the rich person and the poor person chose the same insurance company and the company doesn't deny coverage to the poor person (it doesn't matter for the rich one, since they can afford it) they could get the same coverage if they have equal quality hospitals nearby and the rich person is happy to be treated by their nearest in network hospital
But poor areas have worse hospitals
And when the rich one is president of the united states that one also has a staff medical team, and access to military medical units, and a plane and helicopter on hand to move him
Just regular rich have access to faster transport to better hospitals than the 99% can have
But yeah, on paper, ignoring effects from socio economic status and where the 99% live versus where the 1% live, versus where the .001% live it's all equal
Thank you - that is my point and only my point. There is not "special medicine" that presidents get like all of Lemmy seems to believe.
The rest of your post is my third sentence...
It's just the best thing that will happen for the next four years.
Only time might tell