Health care - administrative incompetence

[Architect]

The problem is they actually are eligible, but we should probably keep this medically related and on Medicaid.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503release.html

That very brief article is some 8 years old. Do you have anything more detailed and more recent?

 

[Architect]

Likewise has he managed to explain why the NHS is "crappy"? You know, beyond unsupported assertions?

So you like medicine rooted in the 1970s?

I never claimed that. Standards and technology available are two different things.

Then I suggest you clarify your claim, because it seems quite clear that you're claiming our standards in the NHS are "rooted" in the 1970s.

 

[TFian]

You're still carefully avoiding the previous questions put to you:

1. Evidence of your claim regarding 1970s standards of clinical treatment in the UK?

2. Evidence of your claim that clinical outcomes in the UK are below US standards, including alternative measures to admittedly rough and ready IM and LE as suggested elsewhere?

Come on, put up or shut up (as they say)!

Then I suggest you clarify your claim, because it seems quite clear that you're claiming our standards in the NHS are "rooted" in the 1970s.

My apologies, I did not mean that.

 

[Architect]

Fair enough.

 

[stokes234]

One thing that everyone agrees on is that an aging population, advancements in technology and other factors will make health care costs continue to rise. In Single-Payer systems like the NHS, how will these costs be contained? It seems to me the only choices are increased rationing of care, raising taxes or privatization. Indeed, most countries with UHC use some mix of private/public funding. Even in the UK, the current thinking is that privatization will have to increase. So maybe, just maybe, America has more right with the healthcare system than it does wrong. The key is going to be to figure out how to make HC more U, without overburdening the already busted federal budget. I don't see how we can do this without making people more responsible for their own healthcare costs.

Perhaps UHC systems will end up having to ration healthcare for the elderly, if the costs end up ridiculously disproportionate - but why would the results end up any worse than in a system where elderly people have to pay for their care themselves? Surely their care is being "rationed" to just as much an extent, but the barrier to care becomes their own personal wealth, rather than government wealth? Unless you can provide sources showing that private sector does healthcare cheaper than the public sector, which I can't imagine will be easy.

And the only reason that the current thinking in the UK is that "privatization will have to increase" is because we just got the more right wing party into power after 13 years of the more left wing party. It's Tory thinking, not British Public thinking. And for their election campaign, they put thousands of billboards up over the country stating they would not cut funding to the NHS even as they cut the rest of the public sector by up to 40% - hardly an indicator that public opinion favours the private sector for healthcare.

 

[Tatyana]

Architect is from the UK, so I focused there.

Interesting.

However, this is an issue that is facing every single developed economy.

I don't understand why you are focusing on only one UHC healthcare system.

 

[TFian]

IHowever, this is an issue that is facing every single developed economy.

I don't understand why you are focusing on only one UHC healthcare system.

Well, Europe as a whole is experiencing this issue, along with Japan and South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, etc.

All countries with UHC as well. You don't see this issue for example in Ghana.

 

[Architect]

And the only reason that the current thinking in the UK is that "privatization will have to increase" is because we just got the more right wing party into power after 13 years of the more left wing party. It's Tory thinking, not British Public thinking. And for their election campaign, they put thousands of billboards up over the country stating they would not cut funding to the NHS even as they cut the rest of the public sector by up to 40% - hardly an indicator that public opinion favours the private sector for healthcare.

Indeed the Scottish Government has basically told Cameron that he can away and get stuffed (and a new Labour administration in May are likely to say the same), although whether swinging cuts in the budget from Westiminster force it on the NHS Scotland remains to be seen.

 

[Architect]

Well, Europe as a whole is experiencing this issue, along with Japan and South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, etc.

All countries with UHC as well. You don't see this issue for example in Ghana.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are useful comparisons to be made between sub-Saharan Africa and the industrialised West in this respect? Really?

 

[TFian]

Are you seriously suggesting that there are useful comparisons to be made between sub-Saharan Africa and the industrialised West in this respect? Really?

No. I think there's useful comparisons to be made between sub-Saharan Africa and the Industrialized West, and Industrialized Asia, and South Africa.

 

[Tatyana]

Well, Europe as a whole is experiencing this issue, along with Japan and South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, etc.

All countries with UHC as well. You don't see this issue for example in Ghana.

Yes, because they have an higher infant mortality rate and a higher incidence of death from AIDs, which are both not an issue in countries with UHC.

I am not sure what your point is.

Please state it clearly so I can follow your argument.

 

[Architect]

TF

I'm going to cut you some slack here, as I suspect you're fairly young, and explain where you seem to be going wrong.

You seem to be suggesting that Ghana isn't suffering from the ageing profile (and hence future healthcare costs) of western countries. This, however, fails to consider a number of key issues which may affect that including (but not exclusively):

- Continuing population growth in third world countries in comparison to stable first world industrialised states, a phenomenon which we know tends to diminish as wealth and health improve.

- Impact of high infant and child mortality rates on age profile and long-term impact of improving healthcare standards (particularly vaccination) on the age profile over the next 30-40 years.

- Impact of diseases such as Aids which result in lower life expectancy, particularly amongst the poorer parts of the population.

For your argument to be compelling, you'd have to construct quite a detailed argument about long-term trends and how issues of ageing population were managed in such countries.

Instead, what you seem to be doing at the moment is making some very certain statements based on preconceptions which, in fact, do not turn out to be correct. Be frank: did you know that IM and LE in the UK were higher than the US, or that we could get pretty much every treatment you can but for about 2/3 the tax cost? Or did you just believe the crap that Fox and the right wing churn out?

I'm not seeking to beat you up for the sake of it. This is the James Randi Educational Forum, to encourage sceptical and critical thinking. Let those edges get rounded off a bit, read-up a lot more before posting, and you'll learn a lot. Just don't listen to the AE911 nutters, trust me.

 

[stokes234]

Indeed the Scottish Government has basically told Cameron that he can away and get stuffed (and a new Labour administration in May are likely to say the same), although whether swinging cuts in the budget from Westiminster force it on the NHS Scotland remains to be seen.

I live in wales myself, and the labour government has decided themselves to cut the NHS (by ~7%), in order to save their sustainability and renewable energy budgets as well save their own students from the £9k tuition fees, even if they go to university in england.

If labour want to win the next election, they should really be modelling themselves as a whole on the welsh and scottish factions. However, that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[kellyb]

Nope. It's a well known fact here illegals are eligible for all sorts of social benefits. Welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid. Our immigration policy "Hop over the border, get a free check".

I just want to mention that this is a huge lie. And if TF wants to argue that point, he/she needs to provide evidence.

 

[kellyb]

Yes, because they have an higher infant mortality rate and a higher incidence of death from AIDs, which are both not an issue in countries with UHC.

I am not sure what your point is.

Please state it clearly so I can follow your argument.

He/she is saying (and this is not comedy/hyperbole/etc on my part) that the developed nations should be far more brutal and less "developed".

More children need to die, the old shouldn't live so long, etc.

 

[TFian]

He/she is saying (and this is not comedy/hyperbole/etc on my part) that the developed nations should be far more brutal and less "developed".

More children need to die, the old shouldn't live so long, etc.

Why should we spend 300,000 dollars just to extend the life of someone for six months?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why should we spend 300,000 dollars just to extend the life of someone for six months?

Perhaps what you should do then is have open rationing based on scientific evidence and public discussion.

E.g., the publically funded healthcare system would only fund treatments up to $50k/life-year*.






*It's amazing how pharmaceutical companies realise they can sell a drug for less than their initial asking price once they realise there's little chance of the NHS paying for it.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Perhaps TF can answer a question that's been nagging at me for a while. As we have the money to provide healthcare to every American, it can be done (and is being done in other countries), why SHOULDN'T we do it? Everything we need is already here, why shouldn't we take the path already demonstrated to be a success?

 

[Wildy]

Yes, I'm aware of what the programs are.

So then you accept that those people are at the later stages of illness and are therefore more expensive to treat?

Not if we don't have the money for it. Again, if we don't have the money for a select few, how do we have the money FOR everybody?!

As I said, if you can treat the disease before it gets to the point where it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat it you will end up saving money.

Then again I notice that it seems that programmes like Medicaid and Medicare and the VA system seem to provide healthcare to those covered by them just fine.

Explain how it's not.

To use your food analogy it would be more accurate to say that you're complaining because you don't have enough food supplies to feed 5 people who weigh 250 kg and then saying that you wouldn't have enough supplies to feed people who weigh far less.

Well, Europe as a whole is experiencing this issue, along with Japan and South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, etc.

All countries with UHC as well. You don't see this issue for example in Ghana.

So it's all countries with UHC except for Ghana which has a UHC system?

 

[xjx388]

Perhaps TF can answer a question that's been nagging at me for a while. As we have the money to provide healthcare to every American, it can be done (and is being done in other countries), why SHOULDN'T we do it? Everything we need is already here, why shouldn't we take the path already demonstrated to be a success?

Do what exactly? How do you propose we implement UHC in the US?