Young woman in UK almost died because of national healthcare system

which would make sense if the US had better healthcare. Or wasn’t a National disgrace

 

The OP is actually worthless.
Using 1 person in an entire country as proof the whole system is bad?

The other poster is correct in correcting the bad assumption made in the OP. It's the overall system, not some isolated case.

 

Oh, it's only just one example. I've posted others before.

You are welcome to post any counter anecdotal examples of this type of thing, if you can find it in the US.
(And if you can find such an example, it would probably be at an HMO, I'd bet)

 

Anecdotal evidence is worthless evidence.
It's rankings of overall systems.

 

Um, no, that's not quite true.
I agree that anecdotal evidence has to be seen in context and taken with caution.

Once lots of anecdotal evidence starts racking up, that can be an indicator that there may likely be a problem and it is time to take a closer look at things.

Keep in mind that I don't think this was just one doctor she saw, there were multiple doctors in the system.
When a situation happens multiple times in a row like this, that begins to invoke statistics and numerical probabilities, and very probably isn't just a single isolated fluke occurrence.

 

You need enough anecdotal evidence to affect statistics.
When you can point to statistics making NHC a problem, then you would have a case.

 

No, a prime indicator for overall healthcare in any country is infant mortality along with maternal mortality, along with life expectancy

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...d=CCC72E7CFFC21743A29F474AF5488B51?sequence=1

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/si...eport_2017_may_mossialos_intl_profiles_v5.pdf

 

No. You are just changing the argument. I suggest you do so in a different thread.

(You are welcome to link to that thread here, if you want)

Like I said, I am going to be reluctant to engage in off-topic arguments (especially when they are long and complicated).

 

I could I suppose argue that 'patient engagement' is a far, far less important metric than say infant mortality rates but that aside I concede I should have amended my statement given I realized myself (albeit too late to edit) that there were some (few) measurements where the US outperformed other Western Nations.

That being the case I'll do so now and restate my point as follows: 'data clearly shows that virtually every national health care system in the western world outperforms the US health care system by a significant margin on almost all key metrics, relating to efficiency and cost.'

Now all you have to do is argue exactly what difference, if any that change really makes to the key takeaway.

 

I do wonder how fair it is to bring "infant mortality rates" into the picture, in this argument here, when probably most of those infants who died never saw a doctor in the first place.

Is that really an indictment of the quality of the medical system? Or rather an argument that even a crappy medical system is better than a system where not everyone gets seen by a doctor.

 

This is on topic the only difference is that I am talking about overall statistics and you are talking about anecdotes

 

Thank you, Obamacare and Anarcho-Tyranny open borders policy.

 

You should really read Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer.

See IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London)

12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).

In the Western World, only four States have a national healthcare system: Britain, Spain, Portugal and Sweden, but Sweden has been privatizing its system for the last 10 years due to the extraordinary high costs.

There are different forms of universal healthcare. National healthcare systems are just one form. Note that the Supreme Court in the Sebelius decision (after Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's former Secretary of H&HS) said a national healthcare system in the US is unconstitutional.

What Liberals conveniently forget to tell everybody is that healthcare has a limited budget.

I'll let the former German Minister of Health explain it to you....

"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income.

Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent."

[emphasis mine]

See: How Germany is reining in health care costs: An interview with Franz Knieps

When the money's gone, that's it. Game over. You are either denied treatment, or delayed treatment, or they will treat you but not tell you that your treatment is diluted to the point of being ineffective (but you think you're being treated and that makes you happy.)



The UK doesn't report data because it's an embarrassment to them.

But note that in spite of the fact that France, Germany and 27 EU-member States have some form of universal healthcare, the people do not get the healthcare they need due to:

1) Financial Reasons
2) Too far to to travel
3) Waiting Lists

Too far to travel? Yeah, that's right....in those States you cannot choose your hospital/clinic if you require specialized treatment.

In Cincinnati, which has a population of 325,000 and 3 Million in the surrounding 11 counties, there are 15 hospitals to go to if you have a heart problem.

In Germany, not likely. You'll have to travel up to 6 hours and miss up to 3 day's work to see a cardiologist.

That is part of the reason healthcare costs less in those States.

In the US, hospitals are monopolies or organized as monopolistic cartels.

Monopolies have redundancy which is wasteful, inefficient and very costly.

That's why you pay through the nose for "insurance" (snicker) because the cost of medical care dictates the cost of "insurance" (snicker) and monopolies are redundant, inefficient and over-charge for everything.

As soon as your State legislatures repeal the "enabling laws" that allow hospitals/cartels to escape anti-trust legislation, and then your State goes after and prosecutes those monopolies for anti-trust violations, the cost of medical care will drop 40%-60% overnight.

Because the cost of medical care has decreased 40%-60%, your fee-for-service health plan coverage masquerading as "insurance" will drop 40%-60%.

Then if your State legislature charges an annual licensing fee of 50% of gross revenues for any hospital that offers 4 or more services, medical care will decrease another 10%-30% causing "insurance" (snicker) to drop another 10%-30%.

And finally, if your State legislature repeals the burdensome regulations on fee-for-service health plan coverage, your plan coverage will decrease another 25% to 30%.

The average cost of health plan coverage is claimed to be $20,000 but employers pay at least 50% of that.

Eliminate the monopolies and now it costs $8,000 to $14,000.

Convert to clinics/polyclinics like Germany and the rest of the EU (sans Britain) and now it's $5,600 to $12,600 annually.

Then repeal the regulations and it's $3,290 to $9,540.

What's more, since the regulations have been repealed, a single person could buy $50,000 in ER coverage for $6-$8/month.

 

Probably that combined with extraordinarily high levels of foreign immigration.

Like Robert Putnam said, "Birds of a feather flock together".
Ethologist Frank Salter wrote: "Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States... find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogenous cities."
Salter, Frank, On Genetic Interests, pg.146.

Citizens in general tend to be less willing to invest in the public good when people from "outside" are coming in and putting a strain on those resources.

 

How is there a difference FGS? If you have a sick child and can't access a GP or Pediatrician then by the default your local health system is crappy! The first key measure of efficiency is can I access thee medical expertise I require when I require it. Not how effective the treatment is when I finally manage to get treatment.

 

Yes, buts that's part of the down side of national health systems, a degree of rationing of rationing/redistribution so that all citizens have access to the medical services they require. The 'quid pro quo' however is that there can be delays in accessing certain (non life threatening) services depending on demand/supply. The alternate option, a US style 'free market' system posits immediate access to all services but only for those who can afford it. Those who cant? They're left swinging in the wind!

The question then becomes do you or do you not consider access to medical care an essential public good. If not, then you get the poor outcomes seen in the US health system. If you do then the you have some form of redistribution of market power between buyer (the patient) and seller (the medical system) via government intervention i.e a national health care system.

 

This trending to have the worst healthcare outcomes in the developed world predates Obama

why didn’t Trump fix this?

 

glad no one almost dies in our for-profit health care system, we have no horror stories like that <\end sarcasm>

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/enlarg...-for-hours-froedtert-hospital-emergency-room/

 

Let me briefly clarify that the user you've replied to has a lot of things wrong. The person he claims to be the former German health minister is an associate & chairman of one of the many health service providers and used to work for the health ministry. At no point was he the health minister. The user also claims that people in Germany don't get the treatment they need or deserve or cannot choose what hospital they want to go to. That's simply incorrect, I'm free to choose what doctor I want to see. Incorrect is also the claim that people have to travel up to 6 hours and miss up to three days of work to get an appointment with a cardiologist. If one lives in a remote rural area and the next cardiologist is a two hours ride, then one has to travel of course. Btw, even if one misses one or two days of work for a medical examination, one doesn't loose two days of salary. Relatives of mine travel 25 minutes to see their cardiologist. I myself have never heard of anybody not being treated because it was "too far to travel." Plenty of incorrect claims in that post.

 

Yes I suspected that poster was putting the 'worst possible' face on the health system concerned but I believe my point was still valid re: the equitable allocation of resources under a national health care system.

 

Largely because even if he wanted to (which is doubtful) he would have had to fight and alienate the medical lobby and aggravate right wing elements of his support base who view any kind of equitable health care system as 'socialism'. That said while in office he did actually approve measures to lessen the cost of a range of medications in the US. Presumably because while that same support base vehemently opposes 'socialized ' medicine they have no problem whatsoever with the idea that prescription drugs might suddenly become cheaper. Presumably because in their minds this is not socialism! (And yes, I know the mental gymnastics required for such reasoning defies logic.)

 

Depends - if you mean refuse to out. 98 year old on dialysis because it is futile treatment which would only be a money making gesture then yes that happens - can’t say I disagree with that

twaddle




There are different forms of universal healthcare. National healthcare systems are just one form. Note that the Supreme Court in the Sebelius decision (after Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's former Secretary of H&HS) said a national healthcare system in the US is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

there are ways around that ie pay the states to provide the care

Twaddle on twaddle

All gods children got budgets and private health is even tighter than public

 

A tiny sop to the masses meanwhile he and the GOP were trying to dismantle what little public funded healthcare there is in America during the pandemic

 

Regardless of the official structure, every country in the world has a two-tier health care system, either on the books or off. More money = better, quicker care, everywhere and always.

 

Certainly there's a degree to which access to care plays a role--that's why the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has been linked to reductions in infant mortality. But at a broader level, our infant mortality problem isn't all that well understood and seems to be about much more than the medical system.

SPECIAL REPORTGONE TOO SOON:WHAT’S BEHIND THE HIGH U.S. INFANT MORTALITY RATE

That's the general story such rankings tell. Predictably, the U.S. fared poorly because of the well-known inefficiencies, inequities, and access issues it faces. These are all problems that need to be addressed. But when it comes to the part where actual care is delivered by the health care system, the Care Process domain, the U.S. does quite well.