Yuku free message boards

Jurate - it's neither. I figured no one would take the time to open the link and actually read the article unless I sensationalized it a bit. I got you to open it, didn't I? 8-)  Be honest - would you have bothered to open X529's little link if I hadn't posted what I did?

But you're right - it's not that ALL Brits can no longer get those procedures - it's that 90% of the trusts that used to offer them routinely now won't be doing that - unless the patient meets much stricter criteria - now.

NOW. Watch as things evolve. The British NHS is in decline.

My question remains - is this the model you would prefer to see us adopt here?  

You're pasting some obviously tragic stories here.  One can't possibly argue that severe illness isn't a horrible thing, and that medical care for them is expensive.  We're all debating solutions for how to deal with it.  I certainly don't have a clear one.  I'm not sure that anyone else here does.  But I like a lively discussion, and am willing to challenge people if they advocate one - just as I'm willing to have people challenge me and any points that I might try to make.

I assume that's why we're in a discussion forum.  I dunno, before I dropped in here recently, maybe it was all people nodding and agreeing with each other.  If that's everyone's preference, do let me know.  

I suppose I shouldn't multi-task when I post here. I usually have a few minutes to read and post, and shoot from the hip. Things sometimes come out incomplete.

But since I've been nailed on an error, I suppose I should take a bit more time to be exact in describing what happened.

I only skimmed x529's link - the fact that patients were being turned away for the procedures listed caught my eye, as an example of how rationing is setting in in the NHS. I actually DID miss that it was 9 out of 10 trusts tightening their standards. I had about 3 minutes to write a post, and from past readings, I've gathered that no one pays much attention to x529, or just dismisses him. My guess was that no one would ever open that link. I shot out that assertion about patients being denied those procedures. I didn't have time to read the article carefully, and yes, I went with the most sensational impression that it had left with me. I figured that would get others to think "What??" and go read the link.

When you did, Jurate, and posted the exact info, I only had a few seconds to re-open the link and glance through the paragraph - and found that, yes, you were right in what you posted - I had characterized it incorrectly. But it wasn't out of bias as you had presumed - and it wasn't out of complete dishonesty as was your other guess. It was sloppy reading combined with wanting to point out that there are problems with the NHS system - well known problems - to raise the question of - yes there are problems in the US system, but other problems emerge in other systems, so what are people suggesting as solutions?

Having my error pointed out was embarassing - and again I had 3 minutes to respond. In the 5 seconds I took to try to characterize my error, I knew it wasn't blatant dishonesty - my skimming just noticed that patients were being denied these treatments, and didn't notice that it wasn't ALL patients, so I had made a mistake. But it wasn't exactly the kind of "bias" that was your other possible explanation for my error - I don't have a position on what's the best health care system that I'm trying to defend, so I wasn't coming from a place of "this is what I think is the best solution, so I'm only able to see what supports that." I DID find the example to be useful to raise the issue that different solutions create new and different problems, so I quickly blabbed the one thing I quickly noticed in my quick skim of the article - in the hopes that others who might not normally open an x529 link (and my guess was that no one would), would open it and read it and add what was in it to their thoughts.

When I found out that my quick initial skim had missed the "9 out of 10" thing, and got accused of either having a closed mind made of cement that was incapable of actually seeing facts that disagreed with my "biases", or of blatantly lying, I knew that neither of those were accurate characterizations of what had happened - and had about 2 minutes to quickly try to describe what had happened. In the 5 seconds I took to try to come up with a more accurate account, I knew the answer (I read the article too fast, saw a quick item that raised a new issue, and just tossed that in to get others to read the article and respond to what it said).

But in the short time I had to describe THAT 5 seconds, I again gave a too-hasty and thus incomplete account which came out wrong. I didn't actually KNOW that it was 9 out of 10 trusts, and not the entire system, but I did use the most sensational language to describe what I had noticed in my incomplete skim of the article - in order to encourage others to read it.

It wouldn't make much sense for me to deliberately misstate what was in the article if my motive was to get folks to read it and respond.

In short, I had two charges leveled at me - blind bias or naked dishonesty - both of which were pretty damning - and I also had Rob suddenly popping in to use this as evidence of his view that my asking questions about some treatment he wanted me to do is a sign that yes, I am so filled with blind bias that all possible treatments for me are hopeless. And I had all of 2 minutes to try to clarify Jurate's charges and refutes Rob's charge. I shot out a quick reply to try to describe what had happened, and how neither of Jurate's 2 charges were exactly true - and it came out wrong.

No, I wasn't aware that it was only 9 out of 10 trusts doing this in the NHS and decided to lie about that (why would I? my intent was to get people who wouldnt' normally open an x529 link to actually open it. I'd be pretty dumb to try to get them to do it if it showed that I was wrong in summarizing it....). And no, I didn't read it fully, and was just too biased to notice that is was 9 out of 10. I just didn't read it fully.

And my "sensationalizing" didn't refer to knowingly misrepresenting facts that I knew otherwise. It referred to using strong language to characterize my first impression from an incomplete skim of the article.

But when I take all of 2 minutes in between doing 3 other things to partake in a lively discussion, what comes out isn't thesis-quality.

In short, I don't lie. I admit to having the same degree of bias that most everyone has - but I think I have a pretty open mind to hearing new ideas, and challenging my own. If i didn't, I'd spend my time in political echo chambers that seemed to agree with my opinions, rather than engaging in lively discussion with a group of people who all pretty much disagree with me. I like to learn from others. I like others to learn from me.

By being way too rushed, I messed up in characterizing an article that I didnt' completely read. By being too rushed, I messed up in describing what happened.