How That Free Healthcare in the UK Doing???

[soonercruiser]

The headline in the Daily Oklahoman was "U.K.'s free healthcare faces financing threat"

Would you like to wait a year for a hernia operation when you are acutely symptomatic?
Apparently, that not uncommon in the UK healthcare system.
This is what we would face with Obamacare in the future.

Health Squeeze: UK's free health care under threat
MARIA CHENG Associated Press 0 Published: December 11, 2011


LONDON (AP) — When David Evans needed a hernia operation, the 69-year-old farmer became so alarmed by the long wait that he used an ultrasound machine for pregnant sheep on himself, to make sure he wasn't getting worse.

It was only after repeated calls from himself, his doctor and his local member of parliament that the hospital performed the surgery, nearly a year after it was first requested. Under government guidelines, he should have started getting treatment within 18 weeks.

"I was in quite a lot of pain," Evans said of his ordeal in Cornwall, southwest England. "It really restricted what I could do around the farm since I couldn't lift anything heavy."

Across Britain, an increasing number of patients like Evans are facing more pain and longer waits. That's because the National Health Service is being forced to trim 20 billion pounds ($31 billion) from its budget by 2015, as part of the most radical changes made since the system was founded more than 60 years ago.

For many hospitals, that means saving money by raising the threshold for who qualifies for treatment and extending waiting times for non-lifesaving surgeries.

In January, the government introduced a new health bill that many fear will bring even more draconian cuts and competition from private providers. The bill, now in the process of being adopted, will ax more than 20,000 health jobs in the next two years and shut an undisclosed number of hospitals, possibly including the iconic St. Mary's in London, where Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin.

The medical profession is outraged.
http://newsok.com/article/feed/325859

[AlboSooner]

People still read the worst newspaper in America?

Plus we already have the Baptist Messenger. Oh yeah I forgot, the Baptist Messenger doesn't do sports.

[SCOUT]

It is a London (AP) story.

[hawaii 5-0]

How 'bout a list of countries that have abandoned National Healthcare.


UK Healthcare isn't free. Super high taxes in Britain. The citizens pay for it, out the nose.


5-0

[cleller]

All of Europe (except Germany) is sliding into a sinkhole due to their many years of entitlements such as this. We're next.

If the Oklahoman is too offensive, the same story is also at Boston.Com and Salon.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eur..._under_threat/

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/11/heal..._under_threat/

[KantoSooner]

I really wish we could have had a health care debate. I kept waiting for one, but, alas, we got mumble, mumble from the White House, some closed door meetings on Cap Hill and Republicans reacting to the nothingness by running in little circles shouting 'Socialism!'

We have a national health care system now. And it covers everyone. Doubt me? Go to an emergency room on the first of any month or any given weekend night. It's a system that may or may not be optimal, but make no mistake, we have a system.

We also have, hand's down, the most expensive medical care system in the world. As a nation, we pay more than double what our nearest competition pays. And we get worse results in terms of public health. (although to be fair, if you're in need of heroic medicine or come down with some syndrome that no one's seen before, we are the place to be.)

So, my question to you is: How much should healthcare cost as a percentage of the economy? Let's use GNP as a stand-in for 'the economy'. And let's not worry for the moment about how this money will be collected or doled out. Let's just see if we can reach a rough consensus about how much seems reasonable.

Me, I'd go with somewhere between 6% and 9% of the national pie.

What do you think?

[pphilfran]

We are currently at 15% or so...

Outside of the US the world avg is about 9%

So I will go with 9%...

So we need to cut costs by 40% or about 900 billion dollars a year (GDP at 15 trillion)...or 3000 for every US citizen...

Ain't gonna happen....

[TheHumanAlphabet]

All I need to know about Government running or influencing health care is the Indian Health Service or the VA...

[KantoSooner]

I have a buddy who got a quadruple bypass from the VA. He's made a complete recovery and it cost him less than $1,000 out of pocket. His biggest bitch was that he didn't have a private room.
I can live with that kind of health care.

[soonercruiser]

I really wish we could have had a health care debate. I kept waiting for one, but, alas, we got mumble, mumble from the White House, some closed door meetings on Cap Hill and Republicans reacting to the nothingness by running in little circles shouting 'Socialism!'

We have a national health care system now. And it covers everyone. Doubt me? Go to an emergency room on the first of any month or any given weekend night. It's a system that may or may not be optimal, but make no mistake, we have a system.

We also have, hand's down, the most expensive medical care system in the world. As a nation, we pay more than double what our nearest competition pays. And we get worse results in terms of public health. (although to be fair, if you're in need of heroic medicine or come down with some syndrome that no one's seen before, we are the place to be.)

So, my question to you is: How much should healthcare cost as a percentage of the economy? Let's use GNP as a stand-in for 'the economy'. And let's not worry for the moment about how this money will be collected or doled out. Let's just see if we can reach a rough consensus about how much seems reasonable.

Me, I'd go with somewhere between 6% and 9% of the national pie.

What do you think?

Kanto,
Don't be distracted by all the arguments.
Obama promised an "open & transparent" administration.
And, promised open hearings on the healthcare legislation.

Did we get what he promised??
NO!
All we got were secret meetings and secret deals with the insurance and drug companies behind closed doors, and Peeloski's quote of "we'll have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it"!

This is as corrupt a legislative process as we have ever had in history!
To say nothing of the hypocrisy on Obama's part!

[Ton Loc]

Kanto,
Don't be distracted by all the arguments.
Obama promised an "open & transparent" administration.
And, promised open hearings on the healthcare legislation.

Did we get what he promised??
NO!
All we got were secret meetings and secret deals with the insurance and drug companies behind closed doors, and Peeloski's quote of "we'll have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it"!

This is as corrupt a legislative process as we have ever had in history!
To say nothing of the hypocrisy on Obama's part!

So what you're saying is nothing's changed and that politicians lie... shocking...

So what else is new?

[KantoSooner]

Cruiser, Ton Loc, I think we're in broad agreement that the 'process' used to arrive at...whatever it is that was passed, was highly disappointing, unacceptable and produced something that no one is very happy with.

To me the scariest thing about our healthcare status quo is that the costs keep going up 12%+ a year. That means doubling every six years. With no end in sight. At some point we, as a nation, will simply turn around each month and fork over 100% of everything to insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals. (Obviously not, but you get teh point: costs can not simply keep rising ad infinitum.) We're becoming a nation that works simply to pay the doctor bills. And this hyper inflation has continued my whole life.

This isn't the way it is in Australia (which resembles the US in life style and ethnic mix), it isn't this way in Japan (another wealthy, but aging country). And, say what you want about waiting lines for kidney tranplants or access to cyberknife, the basic healthcare is excellent in both.

I'm all for debating how we distribute health care, and I enjoy being healthy and going to a doctor when I need one, but I'm fascinated that none of the national figures involved in the 'debate' seem interested in the least in how healthcare will be made affordable. And no matter who ultimately pays, it's got to a workable bill.

[Dale Ellis]

So what you're saying is nothing's changed and that politicians lie... shocking...

So what else is new?

Oh so now it's acceptable. What happened to all the "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction?" chit the libs were pissing their pants about?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I have a buddy who got a quadruple bypass from the VA. He's made a complete recovery and it cost him less than $1,000 out of pocket. His biggest bitch was that he didn't have a private room.
I can live with that kind of health care.

So you got a buddy who got what he earned from his service, that is what should be happening. I can list story after story where the VA has substandard care, substandard doctors who are protected by the government or poor follow-up. There is some good there, but it is not a model system.

No arguement from me on the cost of the system. It is like a run away train. However, people keep wanting everything, pay little for it and then want to make sure nothing bad happens or they will sue the dr. because he didn't do everything to find out an obscure ailment... This society has an unhealthy fixation on living and nothing bad happening... Not sure how we fix that.

[Dale Ellis]

And, say what you want about waiting lines for kidney tranplants or access to cyberknife, the basic healthcare is excellent in both.

Great, if I have a runny nose, I'm covered, if I need a hip replacement, or heart bypass, I'm *ucked. Sounds good to me where do I sign up? Oh wait, I don't have to sign up Nancy and the crooks on capitol hill already took care of that for me?

[soonercruiser]

Don't act like somehow this healthcare bill address any of the 3,000 pound gorillas in the room, like tort reform and cross state lines competition!
All the secret deals with the insurance companies and drug companies will insure that costs stay up, with more going into Democratic pockets.
Saying we are all disappointed is a very, very, very mild understatement of most American's feeling about the corruption in Washington!
Obama, Peeloski, and Reid have taken corruption to a new level in Washington, while promising the opposite.
Has the swamp been drained yet?
No! The alligators are still being fed ery well!

[badger]

England really does have high taxes. For sales, it's like 20 percent and they call it "value added tax." They are gonna make some serious cash off the Olympics, even if they aren't gonna have their usual jock tax in place.

If people start getting fed up with long waits here after Obamacare takes effect, I could see some fringe treatment places opening up that have revolving door speed. If there's a demand for a business, that business will open here. England? Not sure. America? Definitely.

[KantoSooner]

If we take this conversation the distance, we'll have the chance to beat each other up plenty. I'm not putting forward any prescription as of now for one system over another. I am pointing out that countries not dissimilar to ours in wealth, ethnic makeup, lifestyle and age are achieving vastly superior results (seriously, we are not a terribly healthy country and part of that has to relate to our healthcare system) for something like half the cost. That, it seems to me, is an important aspect to the debate.

Do:

Doctors get paid too much?

Are admin costs too high? If so, why?

Is it all about duplicative testing and needless procedures/tests/meds?

Is that to cover the doctor's *** legally? Or to satisfy bitchy patients who demand it in order to feel 'treated'?

How serious a problem is litigation? (How much do doctors pay out in settlements and judgement? How much in malpractice insurance?)

How much cost is related to outright fraud? (real, criminal stuff, not simple bill padding or the like)

How much is related to waste due to insurance or government rules (medicare won't reimburse dear old dad's wheel chair if we wanted to buy it ($400), but they'd cover nearly the whole thing if we leased with an option (total cost of lease: $800)

Is it ever ethical for an insurance company, or the government if they are the provider, to cut off end of life heroics? Or to limit the care to palliative? (How many seniors do you know who'd opt to be maintained in a vegetative state vs. putting the money into a school breakfast/lunch program?)

If you're tired/bored with this and have read a good overall explanation, I"d appreciate a reference to it.

Thanks

[NormanPride]

I already answered this crap in a different thread that dale and diver crapped up. It's a racket that has virtually no checks and balances due to the nature of the supplier and the nature of the good.

And we're unhealthy as a culture because it's profitable for everyone to be sick.

[Dale Ellis]

I already answered this crap in a different thread that dale and diver crapped up. It's a racket that has virtually no checks and balances due to the nature of the supplier and the nature of the good.

And we're unhealthy as a culture because it's profitable for everyone to be sick.

Yes we need the feds to step in and save us all from ourselves. So who's going to pay for all of this "FREE" chit again?