Health care - administrative incompetence

PDiGirolamo said:
I think the bigger issue is why can't we cover everyone's health with the money they are already stealing from us?
Click to expand...


Never mind the other expenditures, which sound like small investments which may well have good reasons behind them. The above is the crux of it.

For about 8% of GDP, which is about what the government spends in tax on healthcare already (oh, quit with the "stealing" part, that's just childish nonsense), everybody else manages to provide comprehensive healthcare to their entire populations.

We have politicians we'd happily burn at the stake too, so it isn't entirely that.

Why can't the USA provide comprehensive healthcare to all legal residents for the 8% of GDP it has available for the purpose of healthcare spending?

Rolfe.
 
PDiGirolamo said:
kelly,

I don't think anything can bring down the cost of Ducky's treatment because it is so specialized. I think xjx is more referring to basic healthcare and preventative visits being affected by the free market but I can't speak for him.

As far as the "Your money being spent by other people on other people" - that is exactly what the government does and does so completely inefficiently.


Here is where the US government spent over 16 billion dollars in 2010:

$2,000,000 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory
$3,623,453 for wool research
$98,000 for perennial wheat research
$250,000 for turtle protection funding
$700,000 for shrimp industry fishing research
$1,793,000 for a comprehensive study of the Ohio River basin
$1,000,000 for the Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan

http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-files/2010/2010-pig-book-summary.pdf

I think the bigger issue is why can't we cover everyone's health with the money they are already stealing from us? Perhaps the US government needs to spend tax dollars on healthcare instead of fruit and shrimp.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with making government "smaller" and not funding fruit companies.

I just don't understand why every US citizen isn't outraged that what we already pay for Medicare and Medicaid alone could fund a US NHS-like program without raising taxes.

What we have going on right now is madness.

eta:

I think xjx is more referring to basic healthcare and preventative visits being affected by the free market but I can't speak for him.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he means at all. I think he thinks expensive, high tech medicine should become a "niche market" for those who can afford it.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
Agatha said:
Rolfe and I are so British, despite she being Scottish and I being English! We both use the phrase "couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery" to describe the apparent view Americans have of the Government they elect.

Rights are granted or revoked by society, they are not inalienable. If you live in the UK, some of your taxes, direct and indirect, fund the health service that everyone can use and which will pay for everything that you need. If you live in the UK, more of your taxes go to fund Medicare/Medicaid which not everyone can use, and apparently only provides a very basic level of care.
Click to expand...

That attitude to government is apparently the fundamental difference between America and most of the rest of the world. I find it fascinating. It makes no sense to assert that the government can't run anything and yet believe that the armed forces are very good: and the fire service etc etc. The inherent contradiction in that boggles my mind.

Of course it may be that those who believe the government can't run anything are not the same people who admire those services. It is hard to tell from here. I have not seen any americans on this board stating that the us armed forces are completely useless, but they may believe that. In which case they presumably oppose anyone joining up because they are going to certain unnecessary death.

It is just weird
Click to expand...

Indeed, I posted earlier that the horror stories in the UK are used to fix problems.

Any large organisation is going to have "dilbert moments". The UK government can create monumental cockups, and as a patriotic Brit I refuse to believe that is one area where the US government can beat us.


Even in the NHS, there are utter fiascos, google "NHS IT project delay" for example, but despite this, it still is more efficient and equitable than the US system. Part of the reason is that nobody's performance targets involve finding loopholes to refuse funding for treatment in order to maximise profits.

I do admit that Geoff Hoon was never health secretary, and Michael Gove isn't either, so the most spectacular incompetents of the last two governments have been given "unimportant" departments like education and defence...
 
xjx388 said:
Forget about laws . . .

Let me expand the question.
Do I have an unalienable right to a share of your pay to use for my own needs?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right.

Those poor? They should just die. After all, what do you care? You have everything you need. Anyone who cannot afford Healthcare sdo not deserve it. Let them die.

I bet even those who can afford it, yet have it denied, they deserved that too. They should die.

Let the Free Market Reign! Death for those who cannot afford to get sick!
 
Rolfe said:
Why can't the USA provide comprehensive healthcare to all legal residents for the 8% of GDP it has available for the purpose of healthcare spending?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Why don't we freakin' DEMAND it?

The actual reason is that it would piss off the pharmaceutical companies, and those thousands of private lab and radiology company CEOs, and the insurance industry, etc.

I say we tell them "tough s***."
 
Tatyana said:
I assert you are ignorant of medical ethics and clinical practice.

The monoclonal antibody drugs still have issues.

Do you have any sort of scientific training at all?

Do you have any ethics training?

What is your education?

I have three science degrees, B Sc Biology, B Sc Biomedical Sciences (first class honours), and a Masters degree in Clinical Biochemistry.

I work as a Biomedical Scientist, I have a special interest in endocrinology.
Click to expand...
Ah, the argument from authority I've been accused so many times of employing.

I find it odd you continue to make such claims despite the evidence presented.

The breast cancer drug Lapatinib is under clinical trials.

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Canceri...atinib.aspx#DynamicJumpMenuManager_6_Anchor_1

There are more issues in medicine that just giving a patient a treatment or scan because it it NEW.
Click to expand...

Yet most insurers in the US provide lapatinib to their patients with very few restrictions. Can you explain how a profit monster ($307mil in Q3 '10)like CIGNA can provide it yet the wonderful NHS will not?
 
PDiGirolamo said:
kelly,

I don't think anything can bring down the cost of Ducky's treatment because it is so specialized. I think xjx is more referring to basic healthcare and preventative visits being affected by the free market but I can't speak for him.

As far as the "Your money being spent by other people on other people" - that is exactly what the government does and does so completely inefficiently.


Here is where the US government spent over 16 billion dollars in 2010:

$2,000,000 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory
$3,623,453 for wool research
$98,000 for perennial wheat research
$250,000 for turtle protection funding
$700,000 for shrimp industry fishing research
$1,793,000 for a comprehensive study of the Ohio River basin
$1,000,000 for the Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan

http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-files/2010/2010-pig-book-summary.pdf

I think the bigger issue is why can't we cover everyone's health with the money they are already stealing from us? Perhaps the US government needs to spend tax dollars on healthcare instead of fruit and shrimp.
Click to expand...

But it isn't only Ducky's treatment, it is the general high-tech treatment that we are often told that the US excels at, and which it does if you have the money. It is just that other countries manage to supply healthcare to their entire population at levels that are nearly as good as the best in the US, but for far less money.

As Canada used to have a similar system to the US, and worse life expectancy, their system must be interesting, as this is no longer the case (This is the link that Blutoski posted originally).
 
PDiGirolamo said:
kelly,

I don't think anything can bring down the cost of Ducky's treatment because it is so specialized. I think xjx is more referring to basic healthcare and preventative visits being affected by the free market but I can't speak for him.

As far as the "Your money being spent by other people on other people" - that is exactly what the government does and does so completely inefficiently.


Here is where the US government spent over 16 billion dollars in 2010:

$2,000,000 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory
$3,623,453 for wool research
$98,000 for perennial wheat research
$250,000 for turtle protection funding
$700,000 for shrimp industry fishing research
$1,793,000 for a comprehensive study of the Ohio River basin
$1,000,000 for the Idaho Sage-Grouse Management Plan

http://www.cagw.org/assets/pig-book-files/2010/2010-pig-book-summary.pdf

I think the bigger issue is why can't we cover everyone's health with the money they are already stealing from us? Perhaps the US government needs to spend tax dollars on healthcare instead of fruit and shrimp.
Click to expand...

Geez, this again? "Look, here are a handful of research projects that sound funny. The government is wasteful!"

There are numerous scenarios in which the information gained by these studies far outweighs the cost of them. It is in the best interest of the government to be aware of the possible implication of change caused by an increased population, shifting weather patterns, loss of habitat, etc. Would you have policy makers rely on opinion and guesswork?
 
Shalamar said:
You are absolutely right.

Those poor? They should just die. After all, what do you care? You have everything you need. Anyone who cannot afford Healthcare sdo not deserve it. Let them die.

I bet even those who can afford it, yet have it denied, they deserved that too. They should die.

Let the Free Market Reign! Death for those who cannot afford to get sick!
Click to expand...

This is your faulty assumption. My community cares for it's indigent everyday of the week. Doctors and hospitals donate their time, expertise and resources to provide care.
 
xjx388 said:
This is your faulty assumption. My community cares for it's indigent everyday of the week. Doctors and hospitals donate their time, expertise and resources to provide care.
Click to expand...

Amazing! Yet, under a nationalized health plan, they wouldn't have to donate their time, and these people would still get treated!

Tell you what, when *everyone* in the USA gets treated as in your statement, then we'll back down. Otherwise, the free market will continue to let these people die.
 
xjx388 said:
This is your faulty assumption. My community cares for it's indigent everyday of the week. Doctors and hospitals donate their time, expertise and resources to provide care.
Click to expand...

So, in your scenario, you are relying on some doctors & hospitals providing free care. Private citizens and corporations who feel like helping the poor will pick up the slack. If there aren't enough of those to go around, then what?
 
bookitty said:
So, in your scenario, you are relying on some doctors & hospitals providing free care. Private citizens and corporations who feel like helping the poor will pick up the slack. If there aren't enough of those to go around, then what?
Click to expand...

The same as what happens now. People die without proper care.

Perhaps XJX only wants the proper people to get the care they cannot afford?
 
Shalamar said:
Amazing! Yet, under a nationalized health plan, they wouldn't have to donate their time, and these people would still get treated!

Tell you what, when *everyone* in the USA gets treated as in your statement, then we'll back down. Otherwise, the free market will continue to let these people die.
Click to expand...

If doctors are going to be paid what doctors are paid under the NHS, it will feel like donating time to most doctors.

The free market doesn't let anyone die. People die everyday; can't change that can we?
 
kellyb said:
]
kellyb said:
Not with insurance involved. (Your money being spent by other people on other people.)

So, how are you going to bring down the costs of Ducky's surgery/treatment by increasing the freeness of the market?

Unless you're advocating high-tech, expensive treatments becoming "niche market" products for the rich, it's not possible.

I can't tell if you are unable to grok this, or are just too ashamed to admit that's what you actually want.
Click to expand...

Bump.
I really want an answer to this.
Click to expand...


And I want an answer as to where my assumptions are wrong - they will be wrong but I have erred on the side of underestimating costs by assuming only the costs of thee surgeon and anaesthetist, and that the cost model is based on both having only one year experience and working 60-hours per week for 50 weeks in theatre, which I hope is laughably high, I'd hope... This provides a very conservative hourly rate for the cost of labour involved in a 5-hour surgery.
 
Rolfe said:
Never mind the other expenditures, which sound like small investments which may well have good reasons behind them. The above is the crux of it.

For about 8% of GDP, which is about what the government spends in tax on healthcare already (oh, quit with the "stealing" part, that's just childish nonsense), everybody else manages to provide comprehensive healthcare to their entire populations.

We have politicians we'd happily burn at the stake too, so it isn't entirely that.

Why can't the USA provide comprehensive healthcare to all legal residents for the 8% of GDP it has available for the purpose of healthcare spending?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Childish or Realistic? -
I pay over $1000.00/month in property taxes alone - and I live on less than 1/3 acre.

I pay over 40% on every dollar and that does not include sales tax, gas tax, payroll tax, personal property tax, blah, blah, blah.

Enough is enough, really.
 
xjx388 said:
Yup, just as I expected. My depiction of exactly what happened is starry-eyed, but your rosy-cheeked depiction of the UK health system is "reality," despite the numerous proofs offered to the contrary.

No, not everyone has strong families. This is a very sad situation, but inevitable in human affairs. If worst had come to worst, we could have sponged off the taxpayers. In either case, the parties in question have been amply repaid.
Click to expand...


You have provided tabloid newspaper, typically the Daily 'Hate' Mail.



I would like to know what sort of education you have that you think anecdotes from a tabloid is a proof.
 
Tatyana said:
You have provided tabloid newspaper, typically the Daily 'Hate' Mail.



I would like to know what sort of education you have that you think anecdotes from a tabloid is a proof.
Click to expand...
My education is irrelevant, really. As is yours.

Apparently you are ignoring all the other stuff I've cited and focusing on the tabloid.

What about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom