The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Let's have Health Care like the UK

  1. #1
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default Let's have Health Care like the UK

    "Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding."

    source
    http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...great-britain/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,477

    Default

    And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

    As your linked article states in the UK health care accounts for 7.5% of GDP. In the US estimates range from 15-17% (twice what is spent on education).

    So, the US is far and away number one in cost per person and in the percent of GDP spent on health care yet we are consistently is middle of the pack in outcomes (of course not according to the CATO inst.). These great results despite 20 years of attention to health care costs and many projections are that health care will consume 20% of GDP in the near future. I am sorry but these are not results to be proud of, especially if you are a fiscal conservative.

    If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.

  3. #3
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

    As your linked article states in the UK health care accounts for 7.5% of GDP. In the US estimates range from 15-17% (twice what is spent on education).

    So, the US is far and away number one in cost per person and in the percent of GDP spent on health care yet we are consistently is middle of the pack in outcomes (of course not according to the CATO inst.). These great results despite 20 years of attention to health care costs and many projections are that health care will consume 20% of GDP in the near future. I am sorry but these are not results to be proud of, especially if you are a fiscal conservative.

    If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.
    People in the UK who can offord to, pay outside the system in order to get faster and better service, and access to drugs the gov't won't pay for but are readily availble in the US.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    to bad they all die from cancer

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.
    I've never heard of anyone who had a mandatory waiting period of 122 days before being admitted to a hospital here in the U.S. Quite the reverse, I have had friends whose doctors insisted on immediate hospitalization upon examination of the patient.

    Would the mandatory waiting period make the statistics look better than they actually are? Some of the people waiting would die before they get into the "official" medical statistics?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Matt McKenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

    As your linked article states in the UK health care accounts for 7.5% of GDP. In the US estimates range from 15-17% (twice what is spent on education).

    So, the US is far and away number one in cost per person and in the percent of GDP spent on health care yet we are consistently is middle of the pack in outcomes (of course not according to the CATO inst.). These great results despite 20 years of attention to health care costs and many projections are that health care will consume 20% of GDP in the near future. I am sorry but these are not results to be proud of, especially if you are a fiscal conservative.

    If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.

    Or you could just save yourself some trouble and move a few hundred miles north. Enjoy all the medical rationing you can stand. A few years ago, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. She underwent chemo and radiation and a week after she was pronounced, "in remission", she was diagnosed with colon cancer and we started the whole process again. It's been almost four years and so far, she's in the clear. If we had been forced to wait any signifacant amount of time for the treatment of her breast cancer, she would no longer be with us. If necessary, I'll work three jobs for the rest of my life to pay for overpriced American health care for my wife or children rather than have to settle for waiting lists and substandard health care so that we can all get it for "free".
    This is going to sound terrible to some of you, but if you have made choices in your life that have resulted in your inablity to get health care in this country, you have made some bad ones. If you "can't afford" health care for your family but have a cell phone, a car, a television or new clothes, your priorities are screwed up and I'll be damned if I'm willing to sacrifice my family to make up for your lack of judgement and responsibility.
    Statistically, we can expect my wife's cancer to return at some point. I want access to the best treatment on the planet if that happens. The best treatment on the planet is currently in the USA but if the left gets their way, that will no longer be true. But at least it will be "fair". We can all suffer together, then. Screw that!
    Matt McKenzie

    "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    NPR recently discussed a recent study in Sweden that compared cost of medical care to life expectancy. The bottom line was that the greater the life-cycle cost, the longer lived was the population.

    The reason is that if the population is healthy, there will be several more years of life in which to incur some medical cost. Further, in countries with say a life expectacy of 70 compared to one with a life expectancy of 75, the end result was the same with comparable costs. Thus, the country with the 5 years of extra life expectancy had 5 years of routine care plus the end result to pay for.

    This is a single study and it screams a need for replication.

    Eric

  8. #8
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,198

    Default

    France is considered to have one of the best health care systems. When I visited France a year and a half ago, the French I spoke with were very happy with their system.

    Basically, it requires universal insurance coverage. You may visit a health care provider of your choosing. Hospitalization is covered by the government. Treatment for catastrophic illness such as cancer is covered by the government. There are no gatekeepers regulating access to specialists and hospitals. It delivers a better result at lower cost than the US system.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447687

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  9. #9
    Senior Member twall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.
    Do you really understand what you are saying? What do you think "some" rationing means? What do you consider better outcomes? Look at the states in the US with state sponsored insurance and where physician assisted suicide is legal. In Oregon a woman had a recuurance of her breast cancer. The state insurance refused to pay for chemotherapy but would pay for physician assisted suicide. Do you think she is happy with the lower cost and "better" outcome?

    Why are healthcare costs higher in the US? Have things improved with HMO's and PPO's? How will universal (government) healthcare be better? If you think you will be happy with government insurance look at getting on medicaid and then tell me what you think. Look at provider lists and then tell us how great you think government insurance is. Shop for malpractice insurance and then figure that into the costs fo government insurance. Figure out how many non-US citizens are either receiving medicaid or incurring cost at hospitals that will never be reimbursed and then tell me about US healthcare costs. Ask a senior citizen on Medicare about their "donut hole" and then tell me how great it will be to have the governement run our healthcare system.

    What has the government ever taken over from the private sector and done a better job at? Do you want your medical decisions made by a government employee who reports to a political appointee? I don't understand why free people are so willing to give up their freedom so willingly. The grass isn't green on the otherside of the fence.

    If socialism is so great then how come people from socialist countries have been immigrating here for so many years? People in this country nwo expect to have everything given to them. They are so hungry for government handouts they will willingly give the one thing that sets this country apart from all ther rest, our freedom.

    God help us!

    Tom
    Tom Wall

  10. #10
    Senior Member Matt McKenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zeus3925 View Post
    France is considered to have one of the best health care systems. When I visited France a year and a half ago, the French I spoke with were very happy with their system.

    Basically, it requires universal insurance coverage. You may visit a health care provider of your choosing. Hospitalization is covered by the government. Treatment for catastrophic illness such as cancer is covered by the government. There are no gatekeepers regulating access to specialists and hospitals. It delivers a better result at lower cost than the US system.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447687

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm
    Are you ready to be taxed at French rates?
    Matt McKenzie

    "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford

Similar Threads

  1. Free Health Care!!
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-21-2009, 04:36 PM
  2. Here's why health care is so expensive....
    By TXduckdog in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 05:11 AM
  3. We'll get it right with health care.....
    By Ken Archer in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 04:16 PM
  4. Health Care Video
    By tpaschal30 in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-20-2009, 12:10 PM
  5. So...how about health care???
    By Uncle Bill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 06:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •