All my life I've never experienced claustrophobia, not even once. Being in an MRI machine, or being squeezed on all sides by screaming fans in festival seating at concerts - they never bothered me. But watching this gave my stomach knots. It made me think of how I would feel in that situation, and I'm guessing I would panic immediately if I thought I was getting stuck. Was there anyone behind him who could have pulled him backwards in case he couldn't do it himself, and forward progress became impossible? Or if his buddy ahead of him couldn't push or pull him either?

This is the stuff of nightmares. *Promote the *quality nightmare.

EDIT: I can't even look at the thumbnail now without feeling queasy. *losethumb

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ForgedReality" title="member since March 13th, 2009" class="profilelink">ForgedReality I just never realized that this much POV was actually a fetish. I think it's all weird, like the MRI sex we had here some where.

Okay, um... Did you actually go searching for that?

And to clarify, I was referring to the guy in the video. He's flaccid as a work glove.

edit - Do you realize how much of a huge pain in the ass it was to quote that just now? Good lord. It's bad enough that quotes show up UNDERNEATH the post... I wish VS would go back to the old way of quoting people.

edit2 - Fuck it. I can't get the goddamn quote to work, even though it shows up fine in the preview window. Retarded Videosift. >:[

@ForgedReality I just never realized that this much POV was actually a fetish. I think it's all weird, like the MRI sex we had here some where.

Might wanna get an MRI there buddy...

let's also look at what healthcare looked like in the "olden days" ....
you're not trading a few chickens for an mri.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Americans will invent it?
Hahahahah!


Why is that funny?
Some good ones, in chronological order:
Suspension Bridge,Refrigeration,Morse code
Steam Shovel, Vulcanized Rubber, Motorcycle,
Phonograph, Cash Register, Solar Cell,
Photographic Film, Skyscrapers, Radio,
Zipper, Tractor, FINALLY coming to the 20th century...
Air conditioning, Airplane, AC plugs and sockets,
Supermarket, Liquid Fuel Rocket, Frozen Food,
Particle Accelerators, FM, Digital Computer
, Microwave Oven, Transistor,
Mobile Phone, Supersonic Aircraft, Video Games,
Cable TV, CPR, HDD,
Industrial Robots, Videotape, LASER,
Carbon Fiber, Weather Satellites, GPS,
Heart Transplant, Cordless Phones, CDs,
Airbags, Lunar Module, WAN, PCs,
Microprocessors, Floppy Disks, Email,
Digital Cameras, Ethernet, MRI,
BBS, Internet (not WWW), Space Telescope,
DVRs, Composite Aircraft...whew that was fun. Thanks for egging me on, troll, and if you use any of the above, thank an American!

Oh yeah, Drachen, it is that way and I like it. When I first got diagnosed with cancer I had two MRI's within the week and three CT scans. Once everything was mapped and charted, we did the surgery and treatment. That was four years ago, now I get an MRI every year, just to make sure it hasn't come back. They're not worried about it coming back, but they're being diligent.

So, they setup where the year before I needed an MRI they scheduled me for one, so when the following annual checkup came about, I'd see the doctor the day after I got my MRI. That's how it's been going for two years now. Frankly, I love it, let the people who need MRI's right away get access to them.

>> ^Bruti79:

The woman he was talking about didn't have a life threatening brain tumour. She had one, and the doctors said it wasn't life threatening. She lived in Kingston, and got a second opinion in Toronto, and then again in Windsor, and they all said, it's not life threatening, it can wait and she got scheduled for 5 months down the road.
When it comes to wait times, getting an MRI in Ontario can be long if it's not threatening. That lady got 4 MRIs in one week. She wanted her surgery right away, so she did that of her own will. I'll find the link, but I hate this lady is being propped up as the reason why Canadian health care doesn't work =P


The CBC had a panel of experts look at her MRIs and, knowing the type of tumour (which was non cancerous by the way, "tumour", sounds bad but it's not always a dire situation) they concluded that the worst possible outcome for her waiting the five months is that she MIGHT begin to lose a little of her vision as the tumour pressed up against her optic nerve. But as soon as she received the surgery her vision would return to normal within days.

On the other hand my dad had some heart problems show up in his annual physical, his doctor referred him to a specialist, they installed a heart monitor which he wore for 24 hours. He was out of the hospital with a new pacemaker before his doctor even got the results of the specialist's tests. The system does work, especially for life threatening cases. It's only in cases where delay of treatment does not threaten life or long term disability that the system moves slowly.

Awhile back I did a face plant while riding my mountain bike and went to emergency to get fixed up. I was there for between three and four hours, and ended up with a $20,000+ hospital bill ($12,000 of it were for MRI/CT scans). It sucks not to have insurance.

The woman he was talking about didn't have a life threatening brain tumour. She had one, and the doctors said it wasn't life threatening. She lived in Kingston, and got a second opinion in Toronto, and then again in Windsor, and they all said, it's not life threatening, it can wait and she got scheduled for 5 months down the road.

When it comes to wait times, getting an MRI in Ontario can be long if it's not threatening. That lady got 4 MRIs in one week. She wanted her surgery right away, so she did that of her own will. I'll find the link, but I hate this lady is being propped up as the reason why Canadian health care doesn't work =P

As I said, in the individual case, the ideal -would- be that cost doesn't matter. It's only in the large picture that it should, simply because it must. Just because the Republicans are unwilling to admit the complexities of the issues are real, doesn't mean we should refuse to consider them (the complexities, that is...I'm pretty much sure we -have- to ignore the Republicans now).

I'm really not arguing with you, you know... I'm all for ensuring that everyone has good health care, and not just the emergency-only bankruptcy-inducing form we sort-of-kind-of have now. My preference would be for a single-payer system, preferably one that removes the fee-for-service incentives completely. But no matter what system is used, cost is still going to be an issue. Don't try to kid yourself, rationing, in some form, -always- exists. Currently, that form is by insurance coverage. In a single-payer system, it'll likely be something more along the lines of certain services won't be covered, or will only be covered in separate add-ons to the basic coverage.

[edited a typo]

>> ^gwiz665:
A lay person should never be in the position to decide his health based on the money in his pocket. That's barbaric. Regular joes have no clue if they really need an MRI or CAT scan or whatever, which is why a medical professional should make that call (while consulting the person of course). This doctor should ideally not consider the cost of the MRI, but whether it would actually help. In reality, some form of cost is evaluated as well of course - a CAT scan never really hurts, so if there's no evaluation then everyone would just get it for no real reason - but when it comes down to "This could really help you, but you can't afford it" it's just wrong.

A lay person should never be in the position to decide his health based on the money in his pocket. That's barbaric. Regular joes have no clue if they really need an MRI or CAT scan or whatever, which is why a medical professional should make that call (while consulting the person of course). This doctor should ideally not consider the cost of the MRI, but whether it would actually help. In reality, some form of cost is evaluated as well of course - a CAT scan never really hurts, so if there's no evaluation then everyone would just get it for no real reason - but when it comes down to "This could really help you, but you can't afford it" it's just wrong.

>> ^Stormsinger:
In any individual case, that is clearly the ideal. However, when looking at the overall picture, cost -is- important. Even if it's not a for-profit business, health care does have costs...and those costs do have to be paid somehow. Clearly, if the total costs of health care surpassed the total productivity of the country, that is not a supportable situation, and other things are also necessities.
In short, I agree that he's making his argument badly, but I'm not sure the argument is fundamentally wrong. I suspect though, that it's not even his -real- objection, if you could prove him utterly wrong here, he'd just switch to another argument. It's just a political ploy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Barasso is making a fundamentally bad argument.
"Cost should be the first question"
Like hell it should. Cost should not even be considered. The doctor should decide if you need an MRI, and he/she shouldn't consider cost either. Health care should not be a business, it should be a basic right.




None of that is true. It is merely a cultural and ideological system that has been ingrained into our psyche. Schooling does it, your parents do it, and eventually you do it to others and reaffirm it against yourself. I doubt beavers care what the cost of their dams are, for a small example.

Religion does the same thing. Or any system that creates a "institutionalized" type of behavior, were those actions sanctioned have always been status quo, and there is of course no other way to live. So sayeth the documents of yonder and old. There are few people that are selfless to the point of helping their fellow human beings whenever they can. There are seldom fewer that do the same, but see through the ruse and lead people to a truly revolutionary new age.

In any individual case, that is clearly the ideal. However, when looking at the overall picture, cost -is- important. Even if it's not a for-profit business, health care does have costs...and those costs do have to be paid somehow. Clearly, if the total costs of health care surpassed the total productivity of the country, that is not a supportable situation, and other things are also necessities.

In short, I agree that he's making his argument badly, but I'm not sure the argument is fundamentally wrong. I suspect though, that it's not even his -real- objection, if you could prove him utterly wrong here, he'd just switch to another argument. It's just a political ploy.

>> ^gwiz665:
Barasso is making a fundamentally bad argument.
"Cost should be the first question"
Like hell it should. Cost should not even be considered. The doctor should decide if you need an MRI, and he/she shouldn't consider cost either. Health care should not be a business, it should be a basic right.

Barasso is making a fundamentally bad argument.

"Cost should be the first question"

Like hell it should. Cost should not even be considered. The doctor should decide if you need an MRI, and he/she shouldn't consider cost either. Health care should not be a business, it should be a basic right.