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

Uk population is 66 million, US population is 327 million, why use incorrect numbers?. I find it quite absurd that some people are too lazy to look that up when trying to make a point.
There is an article that says around 750 preventable deaths in UK hospitals every months.
The number for the US is over 13,000 per month.
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/sa...occur-hospitals-annually-leapfrog-group-finds
I've never been really good at maths but the number for the US is more than 3 times higher per one million.
This very much indicates that preventable deaths are not exclusive to universal health care systems (as if any sane person would think that) and that things are obviously a bit more complicated than some people would like them to be.

 

So a quote from a group self describing as foot soldiers for positive change in the US healthcare system --- in other words, an opinion of a collection of agitators is worth posting as though it were fact. No wonder we're in trouble.

 

The study, published Wednesday and conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality through a contract with the Leapfrog Group, found that poor hospital performance on 16 patient safety measures used by Leapfrog Group to assign hospital grades caused more than 161,000 deaths annually. The findings actually represent a decline in deaths from 2016 when Johns Hopkins conducted a similar analysis for Leapfrog Group in which 206,000 preventable deaths occurred each year.
https://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/media/file/Lives-Saved-White-Paper-FINAL.pdf

I don't think it's accurate to call this an opinion, it's what their findings are. If one carries out an evaluation, the numbers are the findings, interpreting these numbers would be where an opinion comes in. If you have other/different sources re this number and preventable deaths in US hospitals, please post them.
The point is that the OP used an article from the guardian which states that there are up to 750 preventable deaths in UK hospitals every months and he clearly linked this to "socialized medicine" trying to convince others of his political aganda, while completely ignoring that the same problem exists in the US as well, seemingly even worse.
Plus, he apparently was too lazy to look up simple numbers re populations, which does not add credibility to an argument at all.

 

I love my Medicare

 

It is that party which made it a point to openly defend that nation's health care.And, contrary to the FAKE NEWS report which claims Brits died due to national health care, the British press reports that 30,000 Brits died due to CUTS in the national health care system:



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.html

 

Damn people die because the govt can’t pay...well maybe don’t depend on the govt...

 

Corporations die when the government fails to bail them out as well. Just imagine what the military industrial complex will be like if the money from Washington DC suddenly dried up. Texas nearly went bankrupt because of its debt until it got its sorry butts bailed out by Obama.

Same with farmers and Israel - no government $, kaput.

 

Bottom line is that once again a right winger starts a thread with a false premise - that, somehow, government medical care causes death. When the truth is that it is cut backs in government health care that caused those deaths.

Once again, the TRUTH wins out, as always happens on this forum.

 

Why would I be wrong, you don't know the owner of my company. If he did not give the the extra 6000, I may leave to go to a place that does. If your company valued your work at 100,000 a year total wage and benefit package because the feds pass a law they no longer value you/me at the same price point? I made allowance that the feds "paid" for a 40% of my private insurance in tax breaks to both my employer and myself. So instead of the 9000 grand that they contributed to my healthcare, I would only see 6000 of that.

 

There is no push in the US to move to a completely government-run healthcare system. But thanks for the warning I guess.

 

The OP did not even frame his point that it would somehow not get it thrown back in his face. He says that people that only spend 40% of what we do, have waits for doctors and procedures. I read it and yeah, water is wet and you get what you pay for, except we don't get what we pay for. We pay twice as much as Canada and get a slightly better result and only in some areas, we should be getting at least a 50% better outcome than Canada if we pay 100% more even accounting for diminishing returns.

 

If you really believe employers will give that money to their employees, I have a unicorn I'm willing to sell.

 

Only every Democrat Candidate.

 

What the UK has is a healthcare system where the government runs the hospitals, hires the doctors, sets the costs and prices on everything, and citizens can show up and get those services for free. Kind of like a public fire department where taxpayers pay the government to run a fire department service and we don't have to pay to get a fire truck to come to our houses.

What Biden, the leading democratic candidate is proposing, is adding a public health insurance option where people can purchase public health insurance, or choose private health insurance, and both of these cover most of the cost of care at private US hospitals. This isn't anything at all like the UK.

But if a major candidate suggested a completely government-run healthcare system, then you can re-post this thread and it will finally be relevant to the healthcare debate in the US.

 

Why do they pay us at all then? I don't know what you did for a living but I was in technical sales mainly serving telecom and defense. I had 20 years of mech eng background and another 15 in Sales. I made money for the owner and he tried to keep me as happy as reasonably possible. He spent 10 years developing me, You think he was going to lose me for 6000 a year that he was already paying me?

 

Name one, and a link to his platform stating such.

 

That's with only 42 million insured.

 

What do you think the private insurers have for fraud . The fed government has laws saying these items must be made public. If a private insurance company published the money that they were defrauded out of, how would that affect thier competitiveness in the marketplace.

You probably don't think that Walmart or Target has theft. How many billions do you think the private insurance companies are defrauded in just medical stuff for car accidents? Workmans Comp? These are all private insurance companies.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/2012072...report-healthcare-fraud/#navtab-3[/b][/quote]

Medicare and Medicaid fraud dwarfs private industry fraud per person in the system. Medicare insures approx 43 million and generates $60 to $90 billion in fraud.

That's 43 million (Medicare) vs 213 million (Private Insurance)

213 million private insured with $70 billion in fraud. 43 million Public insured with $60 Billion in fraud (I used the lowest estimate).

Private insurance fraud has approx $330 in fraud per insured.

Medicare Government run insurance approx $1430 in fraud per insured.

Fraud in the public sector insurance is over 4 time that in the private sector, yet our Government thinks it can administer health insurance better, that would include the fraud too. The ACA regulates private insurance companies to spend 80% - 85% of their collected premiums on insurees and limits administrative costs like the ones used to combat fraud 4 time more effectively than Medicare.

 

Wait till the Democrats add another 300 million people to the system.

 

Fraud happens. But that doesn't mean Medicare = UK Healthcare.

 

Yep. That's why this argument is a loser for the righties. Everybody know someone on Medicare.

 

Yet somehow it's still 1/2 price.
Slick, huh?

 

The problem with UK NHS, the money is controlled by the politicians and not by the organization.
If the taxes collected for NHS were untouchable and 100% designated for that purpose, the NHS would well of.
That's how it is done in Germany. In the UK everything goes into the big pot. The politicians decide how much money goes to NHS.
In Germany the tax for Health Insurance goes into a separate pot. The only control the politicians have, how high or low the tax is, percentage, and oversight.
Currently with the very good economy and high employment, the Health Insurance and care system is flush with money, with billions in profits.
They are none profit, but can built nest eggs, for not so good times. All health care prices are controlled by government, pharma companies have to explains their prices, show their calculations. Excesses as in the US are not possible.
One example. When I had the shingles, very bad outbreak, lasting nearly for 2 years, I was prescribed a ointment, topical, the 50 mg cost in the US $950, exactly the same product cost in Germany 150 Euro, 50 mg. After the second, my US HI got grumpy. I needed that stuff bad, to get control of the shingles. So I got me from a doctor friend in Germany a prescription, it was possible, e-mail a photo of the beauty and the answer is holy sh... and a prescription. Every week my brother send me a tube, FedEx, for 2 fricking years. My US HI refused to pay this nutty US price, after the third dose.

How classy is the US health system. Every month a bus leaves the town I live in, going to Canada. Full. People with diabetes, half of them on Medicare, they drive 2 days to by insulin.
Every month.

 

The problem often lies in how such things are defined from country to country.