Falling in a vessel at a boat show

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

LS — I’ll take a quick look, but your restriction on using the "popular press," whatever that means, makes it difficult. But here’s one. Unvaccinated man denied heart transplant by Boston hospital https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60132765

And I suspect your argument about the liver transplant for a drinker only proves my point. Health care isn’t a "human right" if somebody can decide on whether giving it to you, or not, is based on their view of return-on-investment.

In the first situation, you have a mess of potential recipients, and a lower number of donated hearts. To manage this, there's a scorecard for trying to establish who will have the best outcome with a donated heart. So the person wasn't flat out denied a heart just because they were unvaccinated; his refusal to get vaccinated lowers his odds of survival enough that he's now behind more appropriate recipients. (and there may also have been other factors that reduced his suitability) It's a reasonable call; when you get a transplanted organ you're on immunosuppressants for life. Which makes it more likely that he'd be extremely sick or die if he caught COVID. The hospitals might make a different call once we're out of "pandemic" status.

In the alcoholic/liver situation, again the scarcity of donor organs means that there's a scorecard there too. If someone drank their liver off, but hasn't successfully kicked the habit, it's a bad bet to give them a new liver. In Ontario the rule is that you have to be in an alcohol abuse treatment program and haven't had a drink for 6 months before they'll put you on the list. An acquaintance of ours unfortunately died because of this. He just could not quit drinking.

Limited resources must be rationed. If anyone is bothered by the above two scenarios, commit to donating your body to medicine or science when you die, and urge everyone else around you to do so too. Vote for policies that make organ donation the default unless someone specifically objects to it. And make a person's own wish the last word, so that family can't override someone's request to donate their own body. If there were more organs than people needing them, there would be a lot less preconditions, delays, and premature deaths.

[Bycrick]

You did it again.

Limited resources must be rationed. If anyone is bothered by the above two scenarios, commit to donating your body to medicine or science when you die, and urge everyone else around you to do so too. Vote for policies that make organ donation the default unless someone specifically objects to it. And make a person's own wish the last word, so that family can't override someone's request to donate their own body. If there were more organs than people needing them, there would be a lot less preconditions, delays, and premature deaths.

I actually agree with you. But put "rationing medical care" on a ballot and see how many line up to support you. Everybody knows you have to ration it, but they want it to be rationed in a way they like. Politics. So much for "health care is a human right."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

But put "rationing medical care" on a ballot

J3sus H Chr1st, are you blind? I didn't say that.

Donated organs are in short supply. Not everyone who needs one is going to get one. Doesn't matter what your medical system is.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Unfortunately, threads drift. The readers often have strong opinions which they aren’t shy about pushing on others. So sometimes, I feel the compelling need to push back. It’s the nature of the beast.

Fair enough.
Please remember others read these threads too.
Maybe push back or not at all in a PM to them.
Threads sometimes get shut down because somebody get offended, off topic.
Thanks for your consideration.
It happens a ton on CF.

Boatyarddog

[Bycrick]

"you have a mess of potential recipients, and a lower number of donated hearts. So there's a scorecard," "more appropriate recipients." My child, that’s the exact definition of "rationing." Check your dictionary.

You are trying to hide that behind a bunch of rhetoric because few people want medical care rationed.

[Cadence]

Boy! This has drifted.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"you have a mess of potential recipients, and a lower number of donated hearts. So there's a scorecard," "more appropriate recipients." My child, that’s the exact definition of "rationing." Check your dictionary.

You are trying to hide that behind a bunch of rhetoric because few people want medical care rationed.

You are commiting two errors here:

1. calling the very limited supply of organs "rationing". No that's not rationing; rationing would be "everyone is entitled to 1/100 of a donated liver". Donated organs are allocated by best use, not rationing.
2. implying that socialized or universal medicine is rationed. It's not, in just about any real situations. If you need care, you get it. (no point in going deeper into it here. Too many misconceptions about this stuff)

btw, I'm not seeing you as progressive, sorry.


Sorry all for prolonging the derail. We're just here to entertain and cheer up the OP as she recovers.

[Bycrick]

Rationing is supplying a scarce resource among the the many recipients. The definition in no way implies that the scarce resource be divided equally. Or fairly. Or uniformly.

Medical care is rationed in any system. Maybe one has to wait six months for tests or surgery. That’s rationing time, or a shortage of doctors. Or the provider won’t cover something, you don’t get it if you can’t pay for it. Or the provider thinks that something isn’t cost-effective. Or there are political goals in mind, like the kerfuffle over ivermectin.

Not everybody gets all the medical care they want, when they want it., how they want it. In any system. That’s what rationing is about. But neither side of the argument wants to call it "rationing."

An American, a Russian and an Israeli are walking down the street in Moscow. A man walks up and asks, "Excuse me. Are they still rationing meat here?"

The Russian replies "What's meat?"
The American asks "What’s rationing?"
The Israeli asks "What’s excuse me?"

And before you complain, I’m Jewish and the joke was told to me by an Israeli.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Boy! This has drifted.

Not really, just the same handful of hijackers. They arrive like a swarm of locucst. Same handful push the same stuff on many threads on this forum.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

If we want to be honest about it, the real problem is the overall cost of health care. It costs so much more than it should. Everyone involved thinks they deserve to be rich on the provisioning of health care, and many are.

Hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and tort lawyers all get paid very, VERY handsomely.

And you're right, the AMA purposefully muddies the water. Keeps them in control, and healthcare profitable for all. They spend a lot of money on lobbyists and influence. It's in nobody's financial interest to fix it, other than the patients, and the whole system is designed to keep them in the dark.

None of this excuses the lawsuit lottery, however. We desperately need tort reform, and absolutely should limit damages to actual costs, with strict limits on "pain and suffering" and legal bills, which we all ultimately end up paying for.

While agreeing with the gist of your argument as a Libertarian I cannot support limiting patients' access to the courts and recovering for any damages inflicted upon them by the responsible parties. Free trade is not just "freedom to fleece a patient, a customer or a consumer" it is also "freedom to recover compensation for one's damages".

Perhaps the way out of this dilemma is to institute some sort of "loser pays" system where frivolous suits will be discouraged but meritorious suits will still be able to proceed one way or another. My biggest pet peeve is that today companies have no incentives to change their ways unless they are forced to do so by gov't regulations or by consumer lawsuits. There got to be another way to deal with it.

Perhaps another way out could be that when a company is incorporated as part of the charter it must sign a pledge to be consumer friendlier even if it means losing some profits. After all any corporation is a creature of the state and as such may be required to abide by various rules and regs which would not be applicable to individual proprietors. And if the shareholders do not like these requirements they would always be free to do business as sole proprietors or general partners with all that these choices entail.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Rationing is supplying a scarce resource among the the many recipients. The definition in no way implies that the scarce resource be divided equally. Or fairly. Or uniformly.

Wrong again.

Rationing: a system of limiting the amount of something that each person is allowed to have

EACH person. everyone, equal, uniformity. That's rationing. Eg gas rationing.

Not everybody gets all the medical care they want, when they want it., how they want it. In any system.

Nobody said that either. A working healthcare system will meet NEEDS, not wants.

Do you deliberately make these mistakes and continually misrepresent what people wrote as a means of generating conversation? There are better ways...


( sorry folks)

[Chili Palmer]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

If that is what you wanted. You could have asked a lawyer for free and not have sorted the boater responses. Now that you have all this CF thread response you are still at the "ask a lawyer" stage.

No reply needed as I wouldn't read anymore.

Cruisersforum is a community of sailor's and sometimes they ask questions that others don't quite understand or wouldn't ask themselves, but that doesn't give anyone the right to personally attack them or their reasoning for asking the question.

Maybe you should read your signature and follow the theme?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Boy! This has drifted.

I guess if you fall in a vessel at a boat show, drift should not happen. But if you fall off a vessel in a boat show, drift really is relevant, isn't it?

That's my parting shot for a Friday evening. Have a great weekend everyone!

[cuthbert]

I have some sympathy for the misfortune of the OP, some. But this being a sailing forum the prevailing mindset is one of personal agency. However I do have a (generic) question relevant to this. If the boat had not been at a boat show but instead was owned by an individual and the incident had occurred in a marina during initial boarding would this affect the legal path?

If some mishap occurs to a passenger with no medical insurance in the USA, they will be compelled to aggrandize the incident and lawyer up to come after the owner? Marina? Boat builder?

Boat insurance has a cap and most ambulance chasers stop at the cap as they just want to slice out a 1/3rd of the easy cash available for sending a boilerplate letter, but in theory as the owner/skipper the legal implications could extend beyond the marine insurance and require some type of umbrella policy or other means of lessening exposure.

Food for thought.

[Bycrick]

Rationing: a system of limiting the amount of something that each person is allowed to have

It says nothing about an equal amount, or a "fair" share, just that each person gets something. You should read what the definition says, without trying to modify it to suit your opinion.

And your example of gas rationing is particularly poor, because the last time they tried gas rationing in the US (the alternating day rule based on license plate number) there were dozens of pages of rules about who got more (" essential business", political clout, rental cars, farmers and lots more). The same thing was true in WW2.

NEEDS, not wants. So who decides what one needs? In one country I was in, when you went to the hospital, you got a bed and care. They’d provide a sheet. If you wanted a pillow or clean sheets, your family had to bring them. And it was a great weight-loss program if your family didn’t bring food.