Health care - administrative incompetence

Depends on who's inflicting the suffering, and who's suffering really.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Because most humans have emapthy. It actually hurts people to know that others are suffering, to the point that they are willing to share their resources to reduce that suffering.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the reason why I strongly support a public option. It has been shown it can work (See: Rest of industrialized world), and the fact that I can't help everyone.

I do what I can, but I hate to see reports of people suffering, people unable to get the care they need.. just because they live in the USA.

The fact that there are those who say 'well, then they should just die', makes me bitter towards humanity. I would say 'Well, I'd rather everyone lived'.
 
Panda Bear MD has some good insights into what socialized medicine really looks like.

http://www.pandabearmd.com/2007/06/13/socialized-medicine-survival-of-the-fittest/

Of course, if you want anything done in the Greek public medical system you can always pay extra for it with a well-placed bribe. Maybe a couple of hundred Euros in a fakelaki (envelope) to the general surgeon to put your father at the head of the line for a colectomy. Perhaps some well-placed Euros to the charge nurse to make sure she watches your sister. My mother, who lives in Greece, relates to me that this system of bribery is endemic and almost institutionalized. In a country where doctors who elect to work for the state barely make what a garbageman makes over here, not only are there shortages of trained doctors in the public system but they have very little incentive to make the system work and the fakelaki is necessary and expected.

And things like hemodialysis or Critical Care? Not if you are elderly or poor. You are going to die, just like Darwin intended, because in Greece as in most socialized countries they do not keep the weak and the helpless alive when they become a burden to the state. That’s the secret of socialized medicine. It’s like Logan’s Run. When your life-clock runs out you are done. Finito. Buh-bye. So sorry. Appreciate the taxes and everything but now it’s time to pay the bazouki player.

What’s my point? Nothing really, except you get what you pay for. Providing the high level of medical care that is expected by the American public is not cheap. Attempts to nationalize, socialize, quasi-socialize, or we-swear-we’re-not-going-to-socialize will do nothing to lower costs unless medical care is strictly and severely rationed. Oh sure, you can get yer’ stinking ineffectual primary care provided by a poorly-trained Nurse Practitioner but when your heart starts to give out or you need a new knee, well, you will see the truth to the adage that free health care is great as long as you don’t need it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anyway, my point is nations that don't spend money on healthcare will do better than ones that don't, since they don't have to content with the aging population.

When Medicare is finally cut, we'll have a huge relief on healthcare costs here.
 
TFian said:
Anyway, my point is nations that don't spend money on healthcare will do better than ones that don't, since they don't have to content with the aging population.

When Medicare is finally cut, we'll have a huge relief on healthcare costs here.
Click to expand...

You might want to edit that until it makes sense - or as much sense as your other posts, at least.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
You might want to edit that until it makes sense - or as much sense as your other posts, at least.
Click to expand...

We won't be bankrupt from aging population costs though.

Europe's not going to look pretty with all those free loading elderly outnumbering the working youth.
 
TFian said:
The Canadians sure are.

So is MEP Daniel Hannan
Click to expand...


Sorry, TF, I'm going to call you on this one.

1. Provide substantive evidence that the majority - or a sizeable minority - of Canadians wish to dispense with their current healthcare system and adopt (say) the American model. Be clear; I'm not interested in them griping about flaws in their current system, inasmuch as that simply demonstrates there are areas they might think require further attention, but rather show that this has reached the extent where the support its dismantling.

2. Daniel Hannan, who tends to the right wing of the Tory Party, is known for some unorthodox views. If you believe that he is representative of a much wider school of support amongst the British public or political establishment then please post links and evidence. Do not seek to suggest, however, that one swallow a summer makes.
 
TFian said:
Shame. I'd rather let the elderly just die. They had their time.
Click to expand...

What's particularly worrying about this quote is that I suspect you believe it; you are condoning the effective murder of the elderly by witholding medical treatment.

If you can't see what's wrong with this, as opposed to be merely tongue in cheek, then you seriously need help. Seriously.

I'm so glad to be American :D
Click to expand...

What, you mean paying 50-75% more than us for a health service that produces results no better than UHC countries - arguably worse - and lets millions drop through the safety net? You mean a country which provides holiday and sick leave entitlement far below that of other comparable Western democracies?

How peculiar.
 
Architect said:
What's particularly worrying about this quote is that I suspect you believe it; you are condoning the effective murder of the elderly by witholding medical treatment..
Click to expand...

Not at all. I would never support a measure that wouldn't let the elderly procure healthcare, I just don't think everyone should pay for the elderly to get healthcare.

Architect said:
you can't see what's wrong with this, as opposed to be merely tongue in cheek, then you seriously need help. Seriously.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that is. We simply have a difference of opinion on how long the benefit of living should be extended at large to the elderly. Why spend 300,000 dollars just so some dementia case can live another 6 months?

Architect said:
How peculiar.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree our current system sucks, but I really don't want to see a universal health system. That being said, I feel the battle will probably be waged in the states, with some going the way of Alaska, or Vermont. We'll see who wins I suppose.
 
TFian said:
I'm not sure why that is. We simply have a difference of opinion on how long the benefit of living should be extended at large to the elderly. Why spend 300,000 dollars just so some dementia case can live another 6 months?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that our UHC system does that?

Any treatment regime, be in public or privately funded, will inevitably make a value judgement - the few high-profile cases which XJX has managed to highlight regarding refusal of new treatments on the NHS is where the drugs typically cost tens of thousands and produce only a few weeks of additional life expectancy.

The question is not whether there should be such a balance, which is inevitable, but where the decisions lie and how they are made.

There is also a huge difference between your £300k figure and your statements previously which imply that any expensive treatment should be witheld - how do you feel about, say , £10k? £25k? £50k? Where does your cutoff point lie?

Well, I agree our current system sucks, but I really don't want to see a universal health system. That being said, I feel the battle will probably be waged in the states, with some going the way of Alaska, or Vermont. We'll see who wins I suppose.
Click to expand...

But you agree that UHC systems are producing at least comparable results for a fraction of the cost? Is your objection political rather than practical?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom