Health care - administrative incompetence

Who do you think runs the government? Is it we the people?.

Yup. It's why we're in the mess we're in now.

Democracy simply doesn't work. The weak can never govern the strong. It must be the other way around.
 
Oh dear, TFian's escaped from his energy contraction thread, and looks like he's trying to spread the same old ideas in different places. Nurse! Bring the quarantine nets!
 
Then they were right. I'm not a "right winger', or a "left winger", those labels mean nothing to me.

I agree. At the moment you're strong and healthy. But one day, not too far in the future, you'll be weak and sick and even more feeble minded than you are now. When that time comes you'll have to negotiate with an insurance company run by people who are smarter and even more malevolent than you are today.
 
<snip>

If you can't pay for a luxury (life), there's no reason you should expect society to pay it for you.

Huh? It's the rich who are consuming far more of the resources of the earth than the poor. So surely you should be advocating killing off the resource-intensive rich and saving the efficient poor?
 
Here is an anecdote which may be relevant to this thread

Just before Xmas a friend of mine received an e-mail forwarded to her by a colleague. It was request for people to visit a particular site and click on the adverts there because that would generate funds for the charity concerned. The text said that three clicks would provide basic screening for breast cancer for poor women who would otherwise have no access to that. My friend initially assumed that this was for women in the third world. Closer examination revealed that this was for American women.

Now I am perfectly prepared to believe that this was not meant to be targetted at people outside the US. But such is the internet. Whatever the intent the richest country in the world is begging charity from outside its borders. While I sympathise with the women this charity helps I am afraid I agree with my friend when she concludes that there are better uses of her time.

How is this not shameful ?
 
Couldn't agree with Mises more there. That's why everyone hates Rand. She simply told the truth.
And furthermore, some of us who hate Rand for simply telling the truth use the flimsy excuse that her books consist of the most asinine drivel in the known universe.

Carry on.
 
Democracy simply doesn't work. The weak can never govern the strong. It must be the other way around.
One problem with that statement is the weak outnumber the strong.

Which is why in such systems the strong live in perpetual fear of revolution by the masses - and having their heads chopped off.

I prefer my life in a civilized country. Which includes UHC.
 
THIS is what America would get if it adopted universal healthcare.



Universal healthcare? Hell no!



Let's have a look at how the choice is actually made, shall we?

South Africa is a combination of universal health care and private insurance.

It is unfortunate that developing country has to choose.

South Africa GDP $285.37 Billion

US GDP $14.12 Trillion

Population South Africa 49,320,150

Population of USA 307,006,550

The USA has 50, 000 times the wealth with 6 times the population.

South Africa is also just recently coming out of a difficult history.

I don't think the comparison is fair.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12045132

How South African doctors make life-and-death choices

On a recent Tuesday morning, around a dozen medical professionals gathered in a small conference room at Tygerberg hospital. The committee meets weekly to select patients for the dialysis treatment and transplant programme.

For decades, patients and the public had limited insight into the basis for the committee's decisions. Recently, provincial health officials joined with hospital staff, ethicists and patients to develop official guidelines for patient selection.

"The main thrust of this was to be fair and equitable and transparent," said Dr Rafique Moosa, a kidney specialist at Tygerberg hospital.

I hate to break this to you duck, what you have is insurance companies and government denying necessary organ transplants.

I think you will find that the UHC systems base their organ donation recipient requirements on medical necessity and ethical concerns.

For example, in the UK, as long as you do not have end stage AIDs, you will get an organ.

Not so in the US. The refusal isn't medical either.

In late September 2005, California became the first state to prohibit health insurance companies from denying coverage for organ transplantation The transfer of organs such as the kidneys, heart, or liver from one body to another.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/the-denial-of-organ-trans_b_435348.html

The Denial of Organ Transplants to Medical Marijuana Patients


Woman Dies After Being Denied Organ Transplant Because she Tested Positive for Marijuana

A Hawaii woman diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, chronic hepatitis - infection, and end-stage kidney disease died after being denied a liver transplant by her insurance company, Hawaii Medical Service Association, because trace amounts of cannabis were found in her body.

Reyes was twice denied a transplant by HMSA for "technical reasons," such as missing required Alcoholics Anonymous meetings -- because she was too weak.

However, on July 17, HMSA approved Reyes' request for a liver transplant.

That approval signaled the Reyes family and HMSA had apparently resolved compliance issues, Herhold said.

Three days later, however, HMSA withdrew the transplant approval after it received toxicology tests that showed cannabis in Reyes' system, her attorney said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/07/business/fi-transplant7

Patient sues Anthem Blue Cross over liver transplant


Ephram Nehme was gravely ill when Anthem Blue Cross of California agreed to pay for a liver transplant his physician said he needed to survive. Then, his condition went downhill fast.

The news from his doctor was bad. The word from his insurer was worse.

Nehme's doctor told him he could die waiting for an organ in California and urged him to go to Indiana, where the waiting list was shorter. But Anthem Blue Cross said no. It would not pay for a transplant in Indiana.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/15/business/fi-lazarus15/2
Organ donors run risk of being denied health insurance


I contacted most major health insurers to ask whether a person who had donated a kidney or partial liver would be regarded as having a preexisting condition and thus subject to higher rates or denial of coverage.

Not one responded with a definitive answer.

"We would have to look at the specific facts before making a decision," said Ashley Wilkerson, a spokeswoman for Blue Shield of California.


 
Last edited:
What should be done? After decades of denial it is now widely
accepted that NHS rationing is endemic and has harmful
consequences for patients. Would ‘more money’ be the answer?
This is not the place to go into the complex issues entailed in
any search for an alternative to the NHS, but state finance has
now been tested in a 50-year pilot scheme which any reasonable
and impartial observer would concede has been a failure. We need
an urgent public debate about how best to introduce a bigger role
for personal payment and insurance without compromising the
principle of access for all.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/rationreport.pdf
 
"We thought we had satisfied NICE's criteria for how Nexavar would be assessed -- however, the goal posts appeared to have moved," said Nicole Farmer, the company's British head of oncology.

"This proposal by NICE conflicts dramatically with the government's strategy to bring UK cancer outcomes in-line with the rest of Europe, where Nexavar is already widely available in countries such as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Romania, and Greece."

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common form of liver cancer, accounting for 80 to 90 percent of all primary liver tumors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58810C20090909
 
what is the coverage for cervical screening in the US, PDiGirolamo?

Once per year for every plan I've ever seen. Except Medicare is once every 2 years unless you are considered high-risk. Interestingly having 5 or more sexual partners in your life is high risk. :jaw-dropp

ETA: I've never, ever seen a claim denied for someone being too young. In fact, some of them are so young it makes me wonder WTH.
 
Last edited:

These are shameful injustices. But in the U.S., decisions to withhold care like this are made by faceless insurance company clerks every day. In the UK and elsewhere such decisions are made by public officials who must answer to the public for their decisions and which may be appealed to higher-ranking public officials. In universal-care systems, unlike the U.S., clerks don't get rewarded with bonuses for boosting profits by denying claims. And of course, comparing the two systems leaves out the 40 million or more Americans who can't qualify for or afford health insurance. They get nothing.
 
Just another question: what would happen if people paid out of pocket for a smear which indicated further investigation/treatment was necessary and they did not have insurance ? What would happen if the smear was abnormal and the person was insured: would they always get whatever follow up is required or does that depend on the policy?
 

Back
Top Bottom