The Cost of Free Government Health Care

[ozzmdj]

Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:


Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."


Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.


Edited for copyright policy - KK

American Thinker- Print Article

 

[Political Junky]

Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:


Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."


Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.


Edited for copyright policy - KK

American Thinker- Print Article

American Thinker is a conservative website that, surprise, is spreading propaganda straight from Big Pharma and private healthcare companies.
Nothing new here.

 

[KittenKoder]

Proponents of government-run health care like to point out that countries with such a system spend a smaller percentage of their gross domestic product on health care than the United States. What they don't like to mention is how those savings are achieved. For example:


Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive. Instead, patients receive whatever care politicians and bureaucratic number crunchers decide is "cost effective."


Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence usually won't approve a medical procedure or medicine unless its cost, divided by the number of quality-adjusted life years that it will give a patient, is no more than what it values a year of life in great health - £30,000 (about $44,820). So if you want a medical procedure that is expected to extend your life by four years but it costs $40,000 and bureaucrats decide that it will improve the quality of your life by 0.2 (death is zero, 1.0 is best possible health, and negative values can be assigned), you're out of luck because $40,000 divided by 0.8 (4 X 0.2) is $50,000.


Edited for copyright policy - KK

American Thinker- Print Article

American Thinker is a conservative website that, surprise, is spreading propaganda straight from Big Pharma and private healthcare companies.
Nothing new here.

Did you ever stop to think and look at why "big pharma" has so much damned power, or are you just spouting "left wing" propaganda still?