Where All Govt Healthcare Ends Up

Not sure about the UK, but in the US many statins cost a lot more than pennies per pill. Either way, the UK needs to fully fund its NHS.

That's an interesting proposition. How do you 'fully fund' healthcare? What is the success condition? No one dies? No one suffers?

The doctor and staff pumping on your dead chest get paid, have the drugs available to try to save you, and are not doing it all by oil lamp. People are going to suffer and die regardless, and you know that.

Of course. And you know I was trying to make a point. We seem to have this delusion that we can somehow contrive a 'system' where everyone gets all the health care they "need". But that's a bottomless cup of coffee.

It isn't bottomless. If the $3T of GDP per year the US spends on healthcare then the bottom is $3T. It isn't like most people will go to the doctor even when they have insurance for every cough and sneeze. They soldier through as best they can instead of losing time at work, sitting in a hard-ass chair in the waiting room for hours, etc.
 
Not sure about the UK, but in the US many statins cost a lot more than pennies per pill. Either way, the UK needs to fully fund its NHS.

That's an interesting proposition. How do you 'fully fund' healthcare? What is the success condition? No one dies? No one suffers?

The doctor and staff pumping on your dead chest get paid, have the drugs available to try to save you, and are not doing it all by oil lamp. People are going to suffer and die regardless, and you know that.

That does not define the metric.

If 100 million women in this country decide they want botox injections in their butts.....do we give it to them ?

Yes.

That would be stupid.

Only if you want women to have ugly asses.
 
We are not meeting our arbitrary financial goals, so we'll just stop treating people.


Statins costing just pennies are being rationed by the NHS in measures “born out of desperation”, leading doctors have warned.

The decision to restrict the heart drugs was last night attacked by health watchdogs, who said wider prescribing of the medication had been recommended to stop “lives being destroyed”.

The restrictions emerged amid growing concern about rationing across the NHS, with increasing limits on surgery for cataracts, and hip and knee operations, as the health service faces the worst financial crisis in its history.

NHS trusts are expected to announce that they are missing a swathe of performance targets, with long waits in Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments, even in the height of summer, and delays for cancer treatment.

On Wednesday a leading surgeon raised fears that growing numbers of patients will be left to endure “crippling pain” amid tightening restrictions on common treatments and operations.

'We are beginning to see some very strange decisions born out of desperation'Dr Andrew Green, British Medical Association
It followed the emergence of plans from St Helens clinical commissioning group (CCG) in Merseyside to suspend all but the most urgent treatment for four months, in a bid to stave off a cash crisis.

Statins being rationed by NHS in 'desperate' bid to save cash

Uh Oh.....

Things finally come home to roost.
 
We are not meeting our arbitrary financial goals, so we'll just stop treating people.


Statins costing just pennies are being rationed by the NHS in measures “born out of desperation”, leading doctors have warned.

The decision to restrict the heart drugs was last night attacked by health watchdogs, who said wider prescribing of the medication had been recommended to stop “lives being destroyed”.

The restrictions emerged amid growing concern about rationing across the NHS, with increasing limits on surgery for cataracts, and hip and knee operations, as the health service faces the worst financial crisis in its history.

NHS trusts are expected to announce that they are missing a swathe of performance targets, with long waits in Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments, even in the height of summer, and delays for cancer treatment.

On Wednesday a leading surgeon raised fears that growing numbers of patients will be left to endure “crippling pain” amid tightening restrictions on common treatments and operations.

'We are beginning to see some very strange decisions born out of desperation'Dr Andrew Green, British Medical Association
It followed the emergence of plans from St Helens clinical commissioning group (CCG) in Merseyside to suspend all but the most urgent treatment for four months, in a bid to stave off a cash crisis.

Statins being rationed by NHS in 'desperate' bid to save cash

I knew it, all I had to do was google NHS and pay raises..sure enough they are getting a pay hike while cutting back on statins to save money..

NHS workers offered 10% pay rise

images



.
A 10% pay raise is huge.

That would depend on your current wage.

That's why one needs to write in actual dollars.
 
Not sure about the UK, but in the US many statins cost a lot more than pennies per pill. Either way, the UK needs to fully fund its NHS.

That's an interesting proposition. How do you 'fully fund' healthcare? What is the success condition? No one dies? No one suffers?

The doctor and staff pumping on your dead chest get paid, have the drugs available to try to save you, and are not doing it all by oil lamp. People are going to suffer and die regardless, and you know that.

Of course. And you know I was trying to make a point. We seem to have this delusion that we can somehow contrive a 'system' where everyone gets all the health care they "need". But that's a bottomless cup of coffee.

It isn't bottomless. If the $3T of GDP per year the US spends on healthcare then the bottom is $3T. It isn't like most people will go to the doctor even when they have insurance for every cough and sneeze. They soldier through as best they can instead of losing time at work, sitting in a hard-ass chair in the waiting room for hours, etc.

Maybe my metaphor wasn't clear. The demand for healthcare will always outstrip our ability to pay for it. Some demand will always remain unmet. I'm just wondering how that could ever be 'fully funded'. But maybe I'm taking the term too literally. If you were simply saying that taxes should be raised to fully cover the expense of any given program - that I agree with wholeheartedly.
 
Not sure about the UK, but in the US many statins cost a lot more than pennies per pill. Either way, the UK needs to fully fund its NHS.

That's an interesting proposition. How do you 'fully fund' healthcare? What is the success condition? No one dies? No one suffers?

The doctor and staff pumping on your dead chest get paid, have the drugs available to try to save you, and are not doing it all by oil lamp. People are going to suffer and die regardless, and you know that.

Of course. And you know I was trying to make a point. We seem to have this delusion that we can somehow contrive a 'system' where everyone gets all the health care they "need". But that's a bottomless cup of coffee.

It isn't bottomless. If the $3T of GDP per year the US spends on healthcare then the bottom is $3T. It isn't like most people will go to the doctor even when they have insurance for every cough and sneeze. They soldier through as best they can instead of losing time at work, sitting in a hard-ass chair in the waiting room for hours, etc.

Maybe my metaphor wasn't clear. The demand for healthcare will always outstrip our ability to pay for it. Some demand will always remain unmet. I'm just wondering how that could ever be 'fully funded'. But maybe I'm taking the term too literally. If you were simply saying that taxes should be raised to fully cover the expense of any given program - that I agree with wholeheartedly.

I don't know that the demand isn't already paid for. If I go to the ER and don't pay, that cost gets absorbed somewhere somehow and it is "paid" for in relation to demand.
 
That's an interesting proposition. How do you 'fully fund' healthcare? What is the success condition? No one dies? No one suffers?

The doctor and staff pumping on your dead chest get paid, have the drugs available to try to save you, and are not doing it all by oil lamp. People are going to suffer and die regardless, and you know that.

Of course. And you know I was trying to make a point. We seem to have this delusion that we can somehow contrive a 'system' where everyone gets all the health care they "need". But that's a bottomless cup of coffee.

It isn't bottomless. If the $3T of GDP per year the US spends on healthcare then the bottom is $3T. It isn't like most people will go to the doctor even when they have insurance for every cough and sneeze. They soldier through as best they can instead of losing time at work, sitting in a hard-ass chair in the waiting room for hours, etc.

Maybe my metaphor wasn't clear. The demand for healthcare will always outstrip our ability to pay for it. Some demand will always remain unmet. I'm just wondering how that could ever be 'fully funded'. But maybe I'm taking the term too literally. If you were simply saying that taxes should be raised to fully cover the expense of any given program - that I agree with wholeheartedly.

I don't know that the demand isn't already paid for. If I go to the ER and don't pay, that cost gets absorbed somewhere somehow and it is "paid" for in relation to demand.

Not sure what you're saying here.
 
The doctor and staff pumping on your dead chest get paid, have the drugs available to try to save you, and are not doing it all by oil lamp. People are going to suffer and die regardless, and you know that.

Of course. And you know I was trying to make a point. We seem to have this delusion that we can somehow contrive a 'system' where everyone gets all the health care they "need". But that's a bottomless cup of coffee.

It isn't bottomless. If the $3T of GDP per year the US spends on healthcare then the bottom is $3T. It isn't like most people will go to the doctor even when they have insurance for every cough and sneeze. They soldier through as best they can instead of losing time at work, sitting in a hard-ass chair in the waiting room for hours, etc.

Maybe my metaphor wasn't clear. The demand for healthcare will always outstrip our ability to pay for it. Some demand will always remain unmet. I'm just wondering how that could ever be 'fully funded'. But maybe I'm taking the term too literally. If you were simply saying that taxes should be raised to fully cover the expense of any given program - that I agree with wholeheartedly.

I don't know that the demand isn't already paid for. If I go to the ER and don't pay, that cost gets absorbed somewhere somehow and it is "paid" for in relation to demand.

Not sure what you're saying here.

I went to the ER recently. My insurance pays some; I pay some; most is written off. If I had no insurance and paid nothing, maybe the hospital would get something from the government; maybe not; but I still got the same treatment. Healthcare is provided. In one case, the hospital gets some money. In the other case, the cost isn't paid by the patient, but by other people who pay for my treatment as part of their bills and is written off by the company.

Perhaps let me put it a different way, if I shoplift, I pay nothing but the store still pays the supplier the same for the product so the store absorbs the loss.
 
Of course. And you know I was trying to make a point. We seem to have this delusion that we can somehow contrive a 'system' where everyone gets all the health care they "need". But that's a bottomless cup of coffee.

It isn't bottomless. If the $3T of GDP per year the US spends on healthcare then the bottom is $3T. It isn't like most people will go to the doctor even when they have insurance for every cough and sneeze. They soldier through as best they can instead of losing time at work, sitting in a hard-ass chair in the waiting room for hours, etc.

Maybe my metaphor wasn't clear. The demand for healthcare will always outstrip our ability to pay for it. Some demand will always remain unmet. I'm just wondering how that could ever be 'fully funded'. But maybe I'm taking the term too literally. If you were simply saying that taxes should be raised to fully cover the expense of any given program - that I agree with wholeheartedly.

I don't know that the demand isn't already paid for. If I go to the ER and don't pay, that cost gets absorbed somewhere somehow and it is "paid" for in relation to demand.

Not sure what you're saying here.

I went to the ER recently. My insurance pays some; I pay some; most is written off. If I had no insurance and paid nothing, maybe the hospital would get something from the government; maybe not; but I still got the same treatment. Healthcare is provided. In one case, the hospital gets some money. In the other case, the cost isn't paid by the patient, but by other people who pay for my treatment as part of their bills and is written off by the company.

Perhaps let me put it a different way, if I shoplift, I pay nothing but the store still pays the supplier the same for the product so the store absorbs the loss.

O.K. This isn't new news.

Was this related to something else ?
 
There are well-run, well-managed, fully functional healthcare systems in Canada*, Australia, and many Scandinavian countries, but the RW always hyperfocuses on the NHS.

*Cue the Usual Idiot reiterating the canard about "millions of Canadians flocking to Florida because they can't get care in their won country."

And, go...
If you call having to wait 6 months for cancer treatment or pacemaker well managed, you have your bar pretty low.

News & Opinion | Heartland Institute

Check your link. It does not say what you think it says.
It adds to the facts stated. Canadians flock to America for healthcare. If you're unaware of the wait times for critical healthcare in Canada it explains why you're so ignorant in praising them.

You've linked to the homepage. Kindly link to the actual article about Canada.

But thank you for self-identifying as the Usual Idiot.

Do you live in any of those countries that you mentioned? If so what has been your experiences?

Do you prefer anecdotal evidence? If so, why?
You too lazy, dufus? Ignorant fools like you ignore the facts.
 
There are well-run, well-managed, fully functional healthcare systems in Canada*, Australia, and many Scandinavian countries, but the RW always hyperfocuses on the NHS.

*Cue the Usual Idiot reiterating the canard about "millions of Canadians flocking to Florida because they can't get care in their won country."

And, go...
If you call having to wait 6 months for cancer treatment or pacemaker well managed, you have your bar pretty low.

News & Opinion | Heartland Institute

Check your link. It does not say what you think it says.
It adds to the facts stated. Canadians flock to America for healthcare. If you're unaware of the wait times for critical healthcare in Canada it explains why you're so ignorant in praising them.

You've linked to the homepage. Kindly link to the actual article about Canada.

But thank you for self-identifying as the Usual Idiot.

Do you live in any of those countries that you mentioned? If so what has been your experiences?

Do you prefer anecdotal evidence? If so, why?

I prefer a personal experience, if you have used the system for a health reason .
 
Folks....

I feel badly for Britain.

I feel badly for those who struggle with health issues.

Any system is going to balance the tension of resources against the defined "needs" of the people.

We spend a lot of money on health care already.....

Obamacare has not changed that one bit.

Does not mean we should not be discussing it.

But this pointless back and forth is a waste of time.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top