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.