Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open letter to conservatives
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 84 of 122 (566414)
06-24-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Hyroglyphx
06-24-2010 11:17 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
Hi Hyro,
Because the United States does not ration care. Other nations employing a socialized form of healthcare, by necessity, must ration care because for something like one's health, the demand will always be greater than the supply.
I don't think that "rationing" is a reasonable way of phrasing it. Yes, a tax-funded healthcare system must make decisions about which specific interventions are cost-effective enough to justify their use and which are not, but this isn't the same thing as "rationing", which has a rather different implication.
Here in the UK, one of the mantras of our National Health Service is "Free at the point of need". This means that when you need treatment, you get treatment. The most you will have to pay is a low flat-rate prescription charge (waived for those on benefits, pensioners, etc.). There is no ration or quota. You get treated as often or as extensively as the doctors deem necessary. Some treatments are not offered though - many drugs, for example, are very expensive but only offer marginal benefits. There is no good argument for making taxpayers fund those treatments. No tax-funded system can pay for everything , nor should it.
I just want to run you through the relevant portion of the article you linked to and have my say on how I think the arguments pan out in a UK NHS setting.
quote:
How do you determine what to do with limited resources?
The National Institute of Clinical Excellence sets guidelines for what the NHS can and cannot afford to pay for. There will also be local variance, based on the decisions made by individual hospitals. Mostly, the decisions are made based on balancing cost versus effectiveness. In most cases, this is straightforward. The tough calls come when an expensive yet marginal treatment is considered.
Of course, just as in the USA, if you really want the treatment and you have the cash, you can always go private. Private medical insurance is available.
quote:
How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated?
I couldn't put a figure on that, but it is only reasonable that the public is not asked to fund dubious treatments. The NHS focuses on what is known to work, but research is still done. If hospitals want to fund an experimental treatment, they are usually free to do so.
And again, if you really want that experimental treatment, you are free to go private.
quote:
If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30?
Yes! Of course. To each according to their need. In practice of course, the elderly use up far more of the NHS budget than the young.
quote:
Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old?
Yes! Of course! You're not going to get an expensive intervention if it was not going to significantly improve or prolong your life, but that would apply whether you were young or old.
quote:
Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments?
WTF?! NO! Sweet Jebus no! There would a rioting if an administration were even to attempt it. No. Unthinkable to the point of absurdity.
quote:
What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services?
Where on Earth is this stuff coming from? Yes, you would. Obviously.
quote:
What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you?
Yes. Although there are one or two rumblings of discontent on this one if I'm honest. At present though, you would get help. What you would not get is yet another liver transplant, after you pissed away your last one due to alcohol abuse. Doctors do have their limits.
quote:
You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?
Well fair enough, but you could say that about any government action. That is why I envy you guys your splendid constitution. In practice, no political party would dare endanger the NHS these days. After the neglect shown to healthcare during the Eighties and early Nineties, the safety of the NHS became a very big issue, deciding how many people vote. Labour swept into power under Blair largely on the back of promises to patch up the NHS. There now exists a new consensus on the NHS and even the Conservatives would not seek to diminish it.
In short, I find about half of those arguments quite easily answerable. The other half are just batshit crazy. Despite the misgivings of many Americans over publicly funded medicine, most people over here are very loyal to the NHS. It's not surprising; everybody knows at least a dozen or so people who've had their lives saved by it. None of them had to sell their houses for the privilege.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-24-2010 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 06-24-2010 4:19 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 89 by Taq, posted 06-24-2010 4:36 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 10:20 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 104 of 122 (566586)
06-25-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Hyroglyphx
06-25-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
Hi Hyro,
Granny, those quotes you are attributing to me are not mine, save the first quote about rationing care.
If you go back and try reading my post a little more carefully, you'll see that I did not attribute those quotes to you.
The rest is someone else (Artemis?)
Don't blame AE! The rest is from the article you linked to. As I said;
Granny writes:
I just want to run you through the relevant portion of the article you linked to and have my say on how I think the arguments pan out in a UK NHS setting.
You cited the article. I read the relevant portion. I thought it had a lot of insane scaremongering bullshit in it (especially for a site that appears to pride itself on being balanced). I thought I would tell you why I considered it to be off the mark. Okay?
Did you even read the article you linked to? Because you don't seem to recognise it when it's quoted back to you.
I don't think people can quite appreciate the monolithic task for the US, the 3rd most populous nation on earth, with the largest amount of debt in human history, to go towards a universal health care system.
Fair point. I do appreciate that it wouldn't be easy. There would be staunch opposition. It couldn't happen overnight. No-one is suggesting otherwise as far as I know. In truth, America probably isn't ready for universal socialised medicine. I just happen to think that it's a bit of a shame, that's all.
The majority of taxes already go towards human and health services as it is, dwarfing even defense.
And still people are having to sell their homes to pay for medical care. I just can't understand why Americans aren't more angry about that.
If the majority of Americans don't like healh care in America now, what on earth makes them think they will like it any better?
Did I mention that no-one loses their house to pay for healthcare under the British system? The strengths of universal health care should be enough to sway people. Of course the kind of dishonest extreme right-wing demagoguery that is criticised in the "open letter" is going to create a major barrier to understanding those strengths. Watching US politicians and pundits telling crazy lies about our NHS has been an annoying spectacle for us Brits over the last few months. Which brings me to something you very definately did say;
Hyroglyphx writes:
France, England, Canada, etc, all the citizens like the healthcare, but it is a system in peril.
Is it? That's news to me. Funny, you'd think that our media might have mentioned it if the NHS were on the brink of closure.
To be clear, I am certainly not accusing you of lying here, but I do think that you are mistaken. The NHS is not in peril. The NHS is in crisis. It's always in crisis. That is its natural state. There will always be more medical interventions than cash, that's just the nature of modern healthcare. The NHS has lasted sixty years. It will still be there in another sixty. Even if it has to be cut back, it will still be around for a long time to come, believe me.
There is no question that the current system is broken in America, and that something needs to be done. Instead of socializing medicine and instead of bankrupting companies through employer-paid insurance, would a Medical Savings Account be the most equitable and efficient means of health care for everyone?
Perhaps. I am not saying that universal healthcare is the only viable option. What I am saying is that there is no "rationing" involved in such a system. I am saying that the article you cited had a lot of unreasonable nonsense in it. I am also suggesting that perhaps you don't understand how how socialised medicine works as well as you think you do, or you wouldn't say these things.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024