British healthcare...another name for obamacare, who needs cancer drugs anyway...

[auditor0007]

One of my brothers lives there and his wife is dealing with recurring cancer.

One my nieces here in America is an oncologist and has recommended specific treatments, and my sister in law has been told that those treatments are not available there.

This isn't a slam on the whole system, just pointing out that we do have to strike the right balances in our own system.
.

The weird thing is this.

The Labour Party brought the NHS back from the dead. Mistakes were made etc which led to a lot of criticism.

The Tories got in and began slashing funds. They claim that the NHS costs too much. They want a US style system. Which ironically costs twice as much as the NHS.

The UK system is being destroyed so the Tories can then point out that it isn't working, so they can then justify sending things out to private firms (who charge 15% more) and then when that's fully embedded in the system they'll make insurance compulsory.

The question is this. If the NHS doubled its spending, would it be better than the US system? It's probably be less corrupt and more efficient.

The other thing they don't tell you is that you can purchase supplemental insurance if you choose. By having supplemental insurance, you get to see doctors sooner and are eligible for some treatments that may not be available for those without supplemental insurance. Beyond that, there is a whole different perspective to this. The drug companies push their drugs on us, even when they know they really don't work. Sure, a certain drug might extend a cancer patient's life by 30 days, but they will be 30 very miserable days. There is no payoff if the drug only slightly extends life and does not cure the cancer. If a drug, that is truly not very effective, costs $10,000 per use, and a patient needs it three or four times, should we be footing the bill for that if the drug really isn't going to do more than extend the patient's life by 30 days?

The problem is that this is exactly what we are doing in the US. It is the reason we pay so much for healthcare, yet we do not have a longer life expectancy than any other comparable country. The reason for this is simple. Those drugs aren't working. We pay for them; they don't. Find drugs or treatments that work, and paying would make all the sense in the world. Selling snake oil is not a cure.

Here is an interesting comparison. While the cancers are different, and we can never be certain of how people will respond to cancer treatment, I find this interesting. A guy I worked with was diagnosed with stomach cancer five years ago. Doctors told him he had a ten percent chance to beat it and would die within six months if treatment was not successful. He chose to refuse all treatment, and he's still alive. Now, he is pretty much on his last months, but he made it five years with no treatment. The mother of another friend of mine was diagnosed with lymphoma ten months ago. She did the chemo and radiation. She died two months ago.

 

[2aguy]

Yes...who needs life saving cancer drugs inBritain...they cost too much anyway.......the people who think like that, just passed obamacare here....

NHS Cuts £100m From Cancer Fund - As Govt Hands Extra £100m to Syria

The NHS has pulled funding for cancer treatments affecting 5,500 patients claiming that the drugs involved, which prolong human life, are not cost effective. In total it has now halved the number of cancer treatments on offer, citing financial pressures.
As of November this year the Cancer Drugs Fund in England will no longer pay for 17 drugs, used in 25 different treatments for a range of cancers including blood, breast, bowel and prostate cancers, according to the Telegraph.

The Fund was set up in 2011 by Prime Minister David Cameron, following a manifesto commitment to fund drug treatment for rarer cancers. But over the intervening four years the number of treatments on offer through the fund has been reduced by two thirds, the majority cut this year.

Pretty soon you will have to be rich to have health insurance in this country.

And that is the design of obamacare.....

 

[2aguy]

One of my brothers lives there and his wife is dealing with recurring cancer.

One my nieces here in America is an oncologist and has recommended specific treatments, and my sister in law has been told that those treatments are not available there.

This isn't a slam on the whole system, just pointing out that we do have to strike the right balances in our own system.
.

The weird thing is this.

The Labour Party brought the NHS back from the dead. Mistakes were made etc which led to a lot of criticism.

The Tories got in and began slashing funds. They claim that the NHS costs too much. They want a US style system. Which ironically costs twice as much as the NHS.

The UK system is being destroyed so the Tories can then point out that it isn't working, so they can then justify sending things out to private firms (who charge 15% more) and then when that's fully embedded in the system they'll make insurance compulsory.

The question is this. If the NHS doubled its spending, would it be better than the US system? It's probably be less corrupt and more efficient.

The other thing they don't tell you is that you can purchase supplemental insurance if you choose. By having supplemental insurance, you get to see doctors sooner and are eligible for some treatments that may not be available for those without supplemental insurance. Beyond that, there is a whole different perspective to this. The drug companies push their drugs on us, even when they know they really don't work. Sure, a certain drug might extend a cancer patient's life by 30 days, but they will be 30 very miserable days. There is no payoff if the drug only slightly extends life and does not cure the cancer. If a drug, that is truly not very effective, costs $10,000 per use, and a patient needs it three or four times, should we be footing the bill for that if the drug really isn't going to do more than extend the patient's life by 30 days?

The problem is that this is exactly what we are doing in the US. It is the reason we pay so much for healthcare, yet we do not have a longer life expectancy than any other comparable country. The reason for this is simple. Those drugs aren't working. We pay for them; they don't. Find drugs or treatments that work, and paying would make all the sense in the world. Selling snake oil is not a cure.

Here is an interesting comparison. While the cancers are different, and we can never be certain of how people will respond to cancer treatment, I find this interesting. A guy I worked with was diagnosed with stomach cancer five years ago. Doctors told him he had a ten percent chance to beat it and would die within six months if treatment was not successful. He chose to refuse all treatment, and he's still alive. Now, he is pretty much on his last months, but he made it five years with no treatment. The mother of another friend of mine was diagnosed with lymphoma ten months ago. She did the chemo and radiation. She died two months ago.

Actually, the life expectansy thing is a scam...they don't measure our country against European countries the same way. They also do the same with infant mortality, Europeans measure infant death differently than we do, skewing it in their favor........

 

[Old Rocks]

One of my brothers lives there and his wife is dealing with recurring cancer.

One my nieces here in America is an oncologist and has recommended specific treatments, and my sister in law has been told that those treatments are not available there.

This isn't a slam on the whole system, just pointing out that we do have to strike the right balances in our own system.
.

Nobody I know of has a perfect system. All are ran by humans. However, when you are at the bottom of the list for 1st world nations concerning infant mortality and human longevity, and pay more for your health care system than any other nation, period, then that is a hint you have got something badly wrong.

 

[2aguy]

One of my brothers lives there and his wife is dealing with recurring cancer.

One my nieces here in America is an oncologist and has recommended specific treatments, and my sister in law has been told that those treatments are not available there.

This isn't a slam on the whole system, just pointing out that we do have to strike the right balances in our own system.
.

Nobody I know of has a perfect system. All are ran by humans. However, when you are at the bottom of the list for 1st world nations concerning infant mortality and human longevity, and pay more for your health care system than any other nation, period, then that is a hint you have got something badly wrong.

The infant mortality ranking is a scam...Europeans count infant death differently than we do and it skews in their favor.....

 

[2aguy]

Here is a look at why the left uses life expectancy and infant mortality as measures of healthcare systems....because they are innaccurate ways to do it and skews the stats against the U.S.

Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years.11 What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question.12 The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. One study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors.13 Another study found that much of the disparity was due to higher rates of HIV, diabetes and hypertension among African Americans.14 Even studies that suggest the health care system may have some effect on the disparity still emphasize the importance of factors such as income, education, and social environment.15

A plethora of factors influence life expectancy, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, income and educational levels. A health care system has, at best, minimal impact. Thus, life expectancy is not a statistic that should be used to inform the public policy debate on health care.

 

[2aguy]

And on infant mortality......how they use the stats to lie about the U.S.


Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others



But infant mortality tells us a lot less about a health care system than one might think. The main problem is inconsistent measurement across nations. The United Nations Statistics Division, which collects data on infant mortality, stipulates that an infant, once it is removed from its mother and then "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles... is considered live-born regardless of gestational age."16 While the U.S. follows that definition, many other nations do not. Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure.

**********************

Italy has at least three different definitions for infant deaths in different regions of the nation.18 The United Nations Statistics Division notes many other differences.19 Japan counts only births to Japanese nationals living in Japan, not abroad. Finland, France and Norway, by contrast, do count births to nationals living outside of the country. Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium. Finally, Canada counts births to Canadians living in the U.S., but not Americans living in Canada. In short, many nations count births that are in no way an indication of the efficacy of their own health care systems.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

One of my brothers lives there and his wife is dealing with recurring cancer.

One my nieces here in America is an oncologist and has recommended specific treatments, and my sister in law has been told that those treatments are not available there.

This isn't a slam on the whole system, just pointing out that we do have to strike the right balances in our own system.
.

The weird thing is this.

The Labour Party brought the NHS back from the dead. Mistakes were made etc which led to a lot of criticism.

The Tories got in and began slashing funds. They claim that the NHS costs too much. They want a US style system. Which ironically costs twice as much as the NHS.

The UK system is being destroyed so the Tories can then point out that it isn't working, so they can then justify sending things out to private firms (who charge 15% more) and then when that's fully embedded in the system they'll make insurance compulsory.

The question is this. If the NHS doubled its spending, would it be better than the US system? It's probably be less corrupt and more efficient.

What really bothers me is that we already have systems up and operational that could be scaled from coast to coast with relatively little difficulty, but since health care has been so politicized, it just won't happen.

This is madness.
.

They could have simply given people who couldn't afford healthcare, or who had pre existing conditions a voucher for their health insurance.....that would have fixed the entire problem without taking control of the whole thing....but that is the point....they want control.....

Yes and that's why we hate obamacare and especially its namesake.

 

[Old Rocks]

National Center for Public Policy Research - A Conservative ...
www.nationalcenter.org/ - Similarto National Center for Public Policy Research - A Conservative ...

A conservative think tank and policy institute covering Congress, insider political information, global warming and the environment, legal reform, Social Security, ...

Hmmmmmm.................. now why would they say those things? Might have something to do with their political agenda?

 

[jknowgood]

Uh, that's the UK. Not the US. There's an ocean between there and here.

BUT - lucky US patients here have ObamaCare.

Yes obamacare is so good we still need free clinics.

 

[Mac1958]

One of my brothers lives there and his wife is dealing with recurring cancer.

One my nieces here in America is an oncologist and has recommended specific treatments, and my sister in law has been told that those treatments are not available there.

This isn't a slam on the whole system, just pointing out that we do have to strike the right balances in our own system.
.

Nobody I know of has a perfect system. All are ran by humans. However, when you are at the bottom of the list for 1st world nations concerning infant mortality and human longevity, and pay more for your health care system than any other nation, period, then that is a hint you have got something badly wrong.

Our system - even with the ACA - is spectacularly wrong. Seven different healthcare delivery/payment systems: Group, individual, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, indigent and worker's comp. And they don't communicate/coordinate with each other. The inefficiencies in that one issue alone have to be massive. That is fucking madness.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

The health insurance industry wrote the ACA. They didn't do it to screw themselves.

 

[Brain357]

Yes...who needs life saving cancer drugs inBritain...they cost too much anyway.......the people who think like that, just passed obamacare here....

NHS Cuts £100m From Cancer Fund - As Govt Hands Extra £100m to Syria

The NHS has pulled funding for cancer treatments affecting 5,500 patients claiming that the drugs involved, which prolong human life, are not cost effective. In total it has now halved the number of cancer treatments on offer, citing financial pressures.
As of November this year the Cancer Drugs Fund in England will no longer pay for 17 drugs, used in 25 different treatments for a range of cancers including blood, breast, bowel and prostate cancers, according to the Telegraph.

The Fund was set up in 2011 by Prime Minister David Cameron, following a manifesto commitment to fund drug treatment for rarer cancers. But over the intervening four years the number of treatments on offer through the fund has been reduced by two thirds, the majority cut this year.

Pretty soon you will have to be rich to have health insurance in this country.

And that is the design of obamacare.....

That's funny costs have been skyrocketing long before obamacare.