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

[Genx87]

No, it goes into Peoples pockets.

7% is comsumption. How do you curtail consumption by 7% of GDP? The answer is you dont.

 

[sandorski]

7% is comsumption. How do you curtail consumption by 7% of GDP? The answer is you dont.

It transfers elsewhere.

 

[spikespiegal]

Can somebody explain this to me please?

I think he's referring to the fact that well to do suburban populations with a high level of sponsored health care have been shown to spend 3-4x more on non critical services than non-profit managed systems.

In other words, if you're a white kid in a wealthy suburb your stupid knee gets a higher priority than poor people with critical needs.

No one disputes the fact we have finite health care resources and an infinite need, but we need to do a better job distributing those services than we are now. The current system of making profit off other people getting sick is neither Christian, nor humane. Not to mention the hypocrisy that while you and your employer may brag about offering good benefits your CEO is looking at out-sourcing your job to a country without modern health care services.

Those of you who continue to advocate employer based at_will sponsored insurance are complete and utter morons. Politicians may be sleezebags, but at least you can vote for them. I can't vote my boss out of office.

 

[ShawnD1]

Government already spending around 7-8% of GDP on healthcare now and what percentage of Americans are covered?

To be fair, you're talking about 7-8% of GDP to cover the sickest people in the entire world - Americans over 65 who eat too much and never exercise.
How much extra would it cost to provide care for normal people like me? I'm young, no diseases, no surgeries, no major accidents, etc.

Ideally there would be two systems operating at the same time. Government care for people who either can't or don't want to pay for health care, then private care for people willing to throw down cash and get things fixed the next day. That way everyone is covered, and rationing becomes less of a problem. Gov-only and private-only systems both suck.

 

[Yreka]

How does the UK, Canada handle healthcare for non-citizens (illegal or otherwise) ?

For example, I found in Canada you need to provide a health card is issued by the Provincial Ministry of Health. Do you need to provide some kind of proof of citizenship to get this card ?

 

[ShawnD1]

How does the UK, Canada handle healthcare for non-citizens (illegal or otherwise) ?

For example, I found in Canada you need to provide a health card is issued by the Provincial Ministry of Health. Do you need to provide some kind of proof of citizenship to get this card ?

When I lost my wallet, I had to give them a social insurance number to get a new health card. As long as you know someone's social insurance number, you can probably have a card sent anywhere you want. I had the new card sent to my parents house because they live in the same city, so that's probably why they didn't grief me over the address.
If you do have a health care card, you're good to go. Very rarely have they ever asked to see photo ID. If you decide to stay in Canada as an illegal, the first thing you should do is steal someone's wallet, or at least their healthcare card.

If you don't have a health card, you're basically limited to emergency care only. If you have a broken leg, the hospital will take you in and fix you up without even asking for some form of identification. For things like cancer screening, there's basically no way you can get that without a health card.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If you're a proponent of universal health care you should explain who is at the bottom in terms of priority.

In the UK, we already know who is at the bottom in terms of priority. Minorities. The UK health system has been manipulated in such a way to ensure more minority deaths, it's a very serious problem that the world should be looking into.

 

[ShawnD1]

In the UK, we already know who is at the bottom in terms of priority. Minorities. The UK health system has been manipulated in such a way to ensure more minority deaths, it's a very serious problem that the world should be looking into.

LOL

So you're saying there is someone looking at the list and trying to figure out which race someone is based on their name? I guess it's a good thing I didn't name any of my kids Shaniqua.

 

[RabidMongoose]

LOL

So you're saying there is someone looking at the list and trying to figure out which race someone is based on their name? I guess it's a good thing I didn't name any of my kids Shaniqua.

They probably look at more than just your name. It's a very significant issue that has been discussed in length over the years. The UK is a very racist society and this racist attitude permeates through the NHS.

 

[Broheim]

LOL

So you're saying there is someone looking at the list and trying to figure out which race someone is based on their name? I guess it's a good thing I didn't name any of my kids Shaniqua.

please don't feed the troll

 

[WackyDan]

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?

No.. He is suggesting that you can snap your fingers and magically add 10% to the country's GDP.... Pure theory/idealistic but ultimately unrealistic.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

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

because of the population served.

 

[Darwin333]

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

I think his question is still valid, are you saying that we can cover the remaining "cream of the population" with $200B?

Isn't it also true that compared to other countries per capita spending on their universal healthcare systems that we should be able to cover every last American with what we currently spend to cover a relative few with Medicare? I don't think even the Republicans could derail a plan that would cover everyone without requiring additional spending.

 

[silverpig]

If you don't have a health card, you're basically limited to emergency care only. If you have a broken leg, the hospital will take you in and fix you up without even asking for some form of identification. For things like cancer screening, there's basically no way you can get that without a health card.

Actually, I think you can pay yourself. When I last went to the doctor my impression was that if I didn't have a health card, they'd just bill me and not the province. It'd have been $60 or whatever to see the doc. I don't know if this is true, but it is what I suspect.

 

[HAL9000]

It's because the peasants like inflicting pain on the lower classes or lower races. If you're not white and a member of the royal inbreds in Britain you aren't allowed to live.

</RabidMongoose> :sneaky:

 

[xj0hnx]

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

You know, the high school jock that fucked the girl he had a crush on then pushed him into a locker is getting the treatment, while the guy with the non-emergency, life threatening (lol) situation is getting ignored it's just so not fair :'(

 

[mect]

To be fair, you're talking about 7-8% of GDP to cover the sickest people in the entire world - Americans over 65 who eat too much and never exercise.
How much extra would it cost to provide care for normal people like me? I'm young, no diseases, no surgeries, no major accidents, etc.

Ideally there would be two systems operating at the same time. Government care for people who either can't or don't want to pay for health care, then private care for people willing to throw down cash and get things fixed the next day. That way everyone is covered, and rationing becomes less of a problem. Gov-only and private-only systems both suck.

To be fair to our current system, we are covering the least healthy population in the entire first world. Everything you say about those over 65 also applies to those under. I'm not arguing either way about private vs public (I think you are probably right about a hybrid system being best), but I don't think the reason our medical costs are approximately double other countries is due to the fact that it is private, but more so to the fact that we are an unhealthy population. Changing to a government system won't magically make people stop watching tv all day eating their bucket of KFC.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

"going to the feds" is code for "going to poor black people"

You're such a douche. No one wants their money going to ghetto folk.

Actually he's a bigger douche for attempting to derail the topic with a red herring statement.

 

[BoberFett]

No, it goes into Peoples pockets.

Ah, so you're cutting jobs?

 

[silverpig]

Ah, so you're cutting jobs?

Some jobs that don't produce anything, as well as dividends.

 

[ProfJohn]

Fact: We pay 17&#37; of GDP for healthcare



Converting to a single payer government plan and expanding coverage to all Americans is not going to provide enough of a savings to lower the amount spent on healthcare.

Look at Mass. The system they put in place has caused healthcare spending in the state to rise.

In addition, emergency room visits and their costs both went up.

The idea that people with insurance won't go to the emergency room has proven to be a fallacy. Instead they go more often because they expect their insurance to cover the costs instead of them.

Check this out from CNN of all places
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

Lesson 1: The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.

When Massachusetts launched its reform program in 2006, it already had the highest medical costs in the nation. Today, the burden is still rising far faster than wages or inflation, from those already lofty levels. A report from that state attorney general in March -- remember, this is a Democratic administration -- asked rhetorically "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'"

Costs are rising relentlessly for both families and for the state government. The median annual premium for family plans jumped 10% from 2007 to 2009 to $14,300 -- again, that's a substantial rise on top of an already enormous number. For small businesses, the increase was 12%. In 2006, the state spent around $1 billion on Medicaid, subsidies for medium-to-lower earners, and other health-care programs. Today, the figure is $1.75 billion. The federal government absorbed half of the increase.

Hence reform's proponents boast that expenses have risen only $354 million or around 6% a year. But the real increase is double that, including the federal share. And it's highly possible that given the current budget pressures, the U.S. will reduce the contribution that has encouraged the state to spend so lavishly.

 

[Zebo]

They'll pull your grandma from life support before they cut "defense" spending. It's all about priorities infohawk. Plently of nations do NHC just fine but they are not in search of monsters to destroy world over like UK and USA.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You know, the high school jock that fucked the girl he had a crush on then pushed him into a locker is getting the treatment, while the guy with the non-emergency, life threatening (lol) situation is getting ignored it's just so not fair :'(

Lawlz;

Cancer; you should die of brain cancer because some fuck wants to play a game and happens to have rich parents.

This is sure to lead to the best societal outcomes and the best individual outcomes. Ayn Rand = proven.

 

[shira]

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)

Do you realize how silly your argument is? The U.S. is going to spend 17% (and growing) of GDP on healthcare whether it's paid by the government, private individuals, or a combination of the two.

Healthcare costs are going to eat us alive regardless of who pays, and they're going to drive our economy into the ground. Thus, the argument shouldn't be over who pays, but over how to control costs.

Right now, the U.S. spends approximately double on a per capita basis what the rest of the 1st-world pays. That alone should tell you that the funding model for our healthcare system is horribly screwed up.

One of the obvious problems is that our system is for-profit. Another is that physicians in the United States are paid about double what physicians in the rest of the 1st-world are paid. Still another problem is that traditional healthcare insurance as practiced in the United States gives very little disincentive for insured people to consume healthcare services. Still another is that our system has huge administrative costs (a problem that could greatly reduced if there were universal coverage).

Obviously, there are other costs drivers that will be much more difficult to control: An aging population and people living longer and longer is a huge strain on the system. But even this driver could be mitigated by raising the age of retirement and the qualification age for Social Security.

And, no, healthcare malpractice is NOT a significant problem - I believe the CBO estimate was less than 0.5%. But by all means, let's save that 0.5%, too.

Too many idiots play politics with healthcare and almost no one is proposing solutions to the real problems: The U.S. already pays far more than it should for healthcare and costs are rising much too fast.

 

[mect]

One of the obvious problems is that our system is for-profit.

And, no, healthcare malpractice is NOT a significant problem - I believe the CBO estimate was less than 0.5&#37;. But by all means, let's save that 0.5%, too.

And profits cash in at an estimated 0.6% (according to factcheck), but for some reason you didn't include that in the insignificant category. In fact, you state it as an "obvious problem".