U.K.'s Healthcare Horror Stories Ought To Curb Dems' Enthusiasm For Single-Payer

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Professor Peabody, Aug 30, 2019.

  1. nra37922

    nra37922 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    13,118
    Likes Received:
    8,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't sweat it. We're all dead within 12 years anyhow.
     
  2. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,408
    Likes Received:
    26,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see. Unable to show why a nationalized system Repubs oppose is inferior to the system we have now you assign nefarious motives to Dems without a shred of proof. It's an exceedingly lame effort to deflect attention away from the subject at hand.
     
    Marcotic likes this.
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That must be why their death rate is 4 times higher than ours.
     
  4. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feelings > reality.
     
  5. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Great post. Healthcare is personal. You should have the ability to control it.
     
  6. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell us why and how ours would be different? Be specific.
     
  7. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,211
    Likes Received:
    14,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of all the superior healthcare systems of advanced nations that achieve Trump's stated objective of providing quality care for everyone at less cost, the NHS is but one. The US, when it progresses to realizing Trump's goal, will not be identical to any one of them, merely adopt the proven paradigm that all share.
     
    Marcotic likes this.
  8. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have a quality healthcare system.

    https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

    There are two separate but not equal systems. If your in Medicaid (MediCal in Calif) or no insurance at all, you have to be seen specific doctors and facilities. Most likely not the ones you'd like go to. I think that's what rubs them the wrong way. Why should WE get excellent service quickly when we work for our health insurance and they have to wait because they don't work for theirs but want the same service. Universal Health Care gives crappier health care to folks that work hard for better care now, and more expedient care for those that don't or won't work for theirs. It's typical class envy, they want what you have without working for it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  9. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,211
    Likes Received:
    14,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Medical insurance means others paying your bills, and vice versa.

    Sharing risk and pooling resources is a practical, pragmatic, communitarian accommodation antithetical to libertarian dogmatism.

    It is, demonstrably, best achieved in the manner all advanced nations that cover everyone at far lower cost have done so - in contrast to the US that pays far more and still leaves medical expenses for tens of millions uninsured for the taxpayer.

    I know of no alternative paradigm in the real world that comes close to that advanced nations have in common.

    Of course, imaginary ones can be truly wonderful as well.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  10. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    In Britain, some 30,000 deaths because people in need had to wait 2-3 months to be seen. Just saw that report this morning. Waiting times for health care directly translates to cost and loss of life.They can't get enough doctors and nurses in Britain; they have made the environment such that it's unattractive to them. Even if the treatment were actually better, you still have to count those losses and delays as part of the "qualitiy' issue.

    You can't realistically change the cost of anything by shuffling the path of payment through multiple agencies and regulating things to death- but of course, you can use that to get someone else to pay your bills for you; to shift the burden. That is the outcome that the government health promoters seek- the big sugar daddy in the sky who just showers money from nowhere. Or at least, they choose to believe that can work. That will do absolutely nothing to reduce cost, and doubtful it would improve quality. Nothing to gain; much to lose.

    I think most people agree the way we handle health care is a nightmare, and needs improving. The argument is how to do that. The real problems come from the costs of medical services unrelated to actual medical care- such as incredibly high insurance, vast volumes of paperwork; so much regulation doctors have to practice defensive medicine, plus a massive tort legal system that thrives on suing doctors, hospitals and pharma companies. We have made medical care into a adversarial industry, full of predators. A tylenol doesn't really cost $15, until you add the expenses of servicing that situation. We have three times as many lawyers per capita than the next most litigation-happy nation in the world, and most of that is tort- suing for damages for everything. The answer is not shifting ways to pay for the predatory system- it is to eliminate it, and let doctor practice medicine. In other words- if government would get the hell out of the way, stop enabling the aggravating conditions- great things would happen, and fast.
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  11. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're referring to the UK, it looks like a lot.
     
  12. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well said!
     
  13. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    30k dead at the hands of socialism
     
  14. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    While I haven't researched other countries, I suspect that you would not find health care in other nations to be plagued with the burden of tort lawyers promoting lawsuits where ever possible, against hospitals, doctors, pharma companies. I know that must be true, because we have more than three times the lawyers per capita of the next most litigation happy nation in the world. Every penny of the cost of litigation adds directly to the cost of health care. That number is staggering; the prime reason we don't have reasonable cost health care (and thereby reasonable cost health insurance) in America.
     
  15. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they simply don't pay nurses more that grocery store shelf stockers that's why they're down 42,000. Who wants the responsibility of being a doctor where one non perfect decision could end your career, when they could make as much or more money doing something with a safer future? If the UK were to tax enough to pay their doctors and nurses what they need to, there would be a revolt by the people.
     
    557 likes this.
  16. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then we need tort reform, not health care reform. The easiest way to accomplish that is to institute the same as many other countries without massive constant laws suits..........loser pays all costs for both sides, bankruptcy as no relief from the debt. The losers counsel would have to pay half as well. That way only dead bang cases would go to court.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  17. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You started this thread to attack Democrats. If you want a thread to discuss the practicalities of delivering healthcare, you should start one. :cool:

    I'd recommend reading up on some basics like the difference between primary, secondary and emergency healthcare first though.
     
  18. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,375
    Likes Received:
    9,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven’t researched the UK but I know Canada has shortages of doctors. The only way they are keeping afloat is immigrant doctors willing to work for less. Canadian born are opting for better professions. You’ve brought up one of the mostly ignored ugly underbellies of these schemes.
     
    Professor Peabody likes this.
  19. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Medicare for All" is a misnomer. They are trying to brand crap health care with a name synonymous with a good system. Currently Medicare is good because they are only approx. 40 to 45 million in the system. Add another 300 million people to that number and see what happens to the whole thing.
     
  20. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I needed a hip in Jan 2017, from first GP visit Jan 11th to operating table by March 19th. If I lived in Canada I would have had to wait till November 2017 to even get the surgery, then add in recovery time of 8 weeks. I was back to work the last week of May 2017.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
    557 and ProgressivePower like this.
  21. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Our context is different than yours and what may work for us may not for you - but in Australia we have a sort of hybrid system.

    We have medicare for the bulk of the masses, which provides care - this is not so much like your Medicare. Then, on top of this, we have private insurance and employer assistance.

    For instance, I get my healthcare from 3 sources:

    1. Medicare for GP visits, surgery and the such. Lots fully bulk bill, some of them have an additional fee of about $75, usually the better doctors.

    2. Private insurance. This covers me for optional extras as well as use of a private hospital. Years ago I had to have surgery... down there... and I got a wonderful room overlooking the river. It was really quite astonishing.

    3. Employer provided mental health. As I work with a good employer I can access therapy and psychiatry free of charge. I have used it on occasion and find it pretty damn good.
     
  22. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm right on topic as this is what the Democrats want for us.
     
  23. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you choose your doctor and what facilities you go to?
     
  24. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    7,870
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to tell the CDC. They are reporting the following
    Leading Causes of Death
    Data are for the U.S.

    Deaths: Leading Causes for 2016 pdf icon[PDF – 2 MB]

    Number of deaths for leading causes of death
    • Heart disease: 647,457
    • Cancer: 599,108
    • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
    • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
    • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
    • Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
    • Diabetes: 83,564
    • Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672
    • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,633
    • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

    Everything else reported unofficially by the most expensive medical care providers can realistically be classified as marketing.
     
    Professor Peabody likes this.
  25. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. I have indeed changed doctors all the time. I have used fully bulk billed doctors (Medicare covers the whole thing) and private doctors who charge a fee on top.

    This is why I say we are a sort of hybrid system.

    The whole point of me getting private insurance was to have a beautiful room in a private hospital. It was really quite breathtaking. Not to mention they are a whole lot more lenient in administering painkillers, with all the morphine they shot into my ass I was having an absolute ball :blowkiss:

    I understand your opposition and truth be told I am not ideologically committed to this system at all. But hey, this is where I was born and it ain't all that bad.

    We are in fact moderate on a lot of stuff. Our 'social security' is not a top down semi-ponzi scheme like yours, part of our pay is put aside into a superannuation account which you can invest. Heck, you can even withdraw it all into bullion if you want to self manage it. At retirement age you can cash it out.

    We are no where near as far out there as Europe.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019

Share This Page