Britain Delays Operations 'as it waits for Patients to Die or go Private

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Health service trusts are “imposing pain and inconvenience” by making patients wait longer than necessary, in some cases as long as four months, the study found.
Executives believe the delays mean some people will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment” claims the report, by an independent watchdog that advises the NHS.

Now I'm not 100% against government in health care but proponents should recognize that every system has to ration in some way. If you're a proponent of universal health care you should explain who is at the bottom in terms of priority. (And if you're for completely privatized care you should be honest to admit some people will simply not get treatment either.)
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
Right.. Ration based on how much money you have; because that's related to how valuable you are as a human right?

Maybe the fuck-head that blew out his knee playing high-school ball can wait a fucking half year while someone with no money but a life-threatening (but non-emergency) condition using the MRI machine.


How about that you heartless bastard ?


You tax the % we spend on doctors and spend it directly on doctors (cutting out the totally useless greed driven insurance providers) and you'll see massive improvements in wait times and health outcomes not just for the worst off, but even for the average Jo.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Healthcare spending is 17% of GDP.

We could take every tax dollar we collect now and still not have enough to pay for healthcare.

Plus we'd end up with about 30% of our GDP going to just the feds. Add in state spending and over 50% of the money in the country would be going to government.

We would turn into Europe in a decade. (Low economic growth, low income growth, high unemployment etc etc)
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
How about a 17% tax to cover that health spending; taken from people in the same way it is now?
going to just the feds
No, it would not be 'going to the feds' it would be going to health care instead of for-profit insurance companies.

insurance company profit is already a tax, just one levied by share holders. Kill the share holder tax and turn it into tax-breaks for everyone that doesn't hold stock in one of these money-for-murder companies.

Edit:

Sandorski, as usual, said it better and faster

Depending on how it was implemented: Add approx 10% to Fed GDP amount, Cover 100% of the Population, and result in an Approx 7% GDP Savings.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
Maybe the fuck-head that blew out his knee playing high-school ball can wait a fucking half year while someone with no money but a life-threatening (but non-emergency) condition using the MRI machine.

Sounds like you got some personal issues there...
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,306
4,966
136
Right.. Ration based on how much money you have; because that's related to how valuable you are as a human right?

Maybe the fuck-head that blew out his knee playing high-school ball can wait a fucking half year while someone with no money but a life-threatening (but non-emergency) condition using the MRI machine.


How about that you heartless bastard ?


You tax the % we spend on doctors and spend it directly on doctors (cutting out the totally useless greed driven insurance providers) and you'll see massive improvements in wait times and health outcomes not just for the worst off, but even for the average Jo.

Lighten up there Francis.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Depending on how it was implemented: Add approx 10% to Fed GDP amount, Cover 100% of the Population, and result in an Approx 7% GDP Savings.
Government already spending around 7-8% of GDP on healthcare now and what percentage of Americans are covered?

You are suggesting that be spending $200 billion more we can cover everyone?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Now I'm not 100% against government in health care but proponents should recognize that every system has to ration in some way. If you're a proponent of universal health care you should explain who is at the bottom in terms of priority. (And if you're for completely privatized care you should be honest to admit some people will simply not get treatment either.)

Link?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Healthcare spending is 17% of GDP.

We could take every tax dollar we collect now and still not have enough to pay for healthcare.

Plus we'd end up with about 30% of our GDP going to just the feds. Add in state spending and over 50% of the money in the country would be going to government.

We would turn into Europe in a decade. (Low economic growth, low income growth, high unemployment etc etc)
The US has the best Health Services in the world...if you have the money.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
How about a 17% tax to cover that health spending; taken from people in the same way it is now?
No, it would not be 'going to the feds' it would be going to health care instead of for-profit insurance companies.

insurance company profit is already a tax, just one levied by share holders. Kill the share holder tax and turn it into tax-breaks for everyone that doesn't hold stock in one of these money-for-murder companies.

Edit:

Sandorski, as usual, said it better and faster

So why do not-for-profit insurance companies usually have similar rates and rate increases as regular insurance companies?

Please state the sum of money needed to provide treatment for 100% of te diseases occurring in the US. You obviously think that prices should be lower, with more people being covered, so it shouldn't matter how many resources are expended in treatment... The costs are directly proportional to.... Something. Right moron?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,759
6,324
126
Government already spending around 7-8% of GDP on healthcare now and what percentage of Americans are covered?

You are suggesting that be spending $200 billion more we can cover everyone?

The Government doesn't have the Cream of the Population.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Depending on how it was implemented: Add approx 10% to Fed GDP amount, Cover 100% of the Population, and result in an Approx 7% GDP Savings.

The devil is completely in the details. We should also be explicit about were the savings are coming from. Craig will probably come in here and post a made up number about how insurance companies add 1000000x10^78% to the cost of health, but it's just not the case. The savings come from rationing, and from paying doctors less. I'm not necessarily opposed to the single payer system, but we need to be honest about why it's cheaper.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,759
6,324
126
The devil is completely in the details. We should also be explicit about were the savings are coming from. Craig will probably come in here and post a made up number about how insurance companies add 1000000x10^78% to the cost of health, but it's just not the case. The savings come from rationing, and from paying doctors less. I'm not necessarily opposed to the single payer system, but we need to be honest about why it's cheaper.

Craig, assuming you're correct, would be partially correct. Another thing where a lot of that is going is your horrendous Drug Prices. Your current system is a big Corp Welfare Program.
 

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
Healthcare spending is 17% of GDP.

We could take every tax dollar we collect now and still not have enough to pay for healthcare.

Plus we'd end up with about 30% of our GDP going to just the feds. Add in state spending and over 50% of the money in the country would be going to government.

We would turn into Europe in a decade. (Low economic growth, low income growth, high unemployment etc etc)

You're assuming that we'd be paying the same amount. The UK, by comparison, pays 7.7% of GDP towards healthcare. It is certainly not a perfect system (as the OP makes clear, wait times for non-life threatening surgery and for the elderly are much too long). The question is, though, is our system twice as good as Britain's?

The US is not ready socially, politically, or structurally for single-payer health care, but there needs to be some reining in of costs. The problem with a purely free-market system is that there is infinite demand. People will pay everything they have to stay alive, as it is better to stay alive with nothing than die with a fortune. This means that when a company has a monopoly on a medical technology or medicine (as provided by patents, for example), they can charge whatever they want. If a company found a cure for cancer right now, they'd charge hundreds of thousands of dollars a person until the patent ran out (they already charge tens for high end chemo drugs, which are crude poison compared to a real cure).

We can't get rid of patents, as it will remove the incentive to create these innovations in the first place, but there needs to be some balance between that incentive and the affordability of the treatment as a whole.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Now I'm not 100% against government in health care but proponents should recognize that every system has to ration in some way. If you're a proponent of universal health care you should explain who is at the bottom in terms of priority. (And if you're for completely privatized care you should be honest to admit some people will simply not get treatment either.)

It doesn't matter who pays the tab, we can not afford to give everyone the latest and greatest health care.

As heartless as it sounds, it is the end of life care that will and must be severely rationed. We simply can not afford to pay hundreds of thousands to extend your life by a few months. If you can afford it yourself, more power to ya.
 

911paramedic

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2002
9,448
1
76
*snip*

Maybe the fuck-head that blew out his knee playing high-school ball can wait a fucking half year while someone with no money but a life-threatening (but non-emergency) condition using the MRI machine.

/snip

Can somebody explain this to me please? I can't seem to make heads or tails out of it. :hmm: