NHS is the world's best healthcare system, report says

[maxparrish]

Sorry folks, too many folks with anti-US system meme glasses filtering out the obvious:

The report is claiming that the NHS is better than all the other 30 (plus) health care systems - that alone makes the report very, very suspect. Having much familiarity with actual health care statistics and outcomes, the NHS scores poorly against far better systems. France beats the crap out the NHS in results, as does Canada. In fact, the NHS is normally considered a middle of the pack contender, behind 1/3rd to 1/2 of Europe.

One need not be a US booster to question a report that unfairly disses far better systems. I MUCH rather be treated in France or Canada than the UK.

Yeah, why won't those US-haters acknowledge that France and Canada have better systems?!

Apparently because to acknowledge that the report's ranking is nonsense undermines the report's utility and credibility in its lower ranking of the US. A bad methodology produces bad results.

 

[doubtingt]

Sorry folks, too many folks with anti-US system meme glasses filtering out the obvious:

The report is claiming that the NHS is better than all the other 30 (plus) health care systems - that alone makes the report very, very suspect. Having much familiarity with actual health care statistics and outcomes, the NHS scores poorly against far better systems. France beats the crap out the NHS in results, as does Canada. In fact, the NHS is normally considered a middle of the pack contender, behind 1/3rd to 1/2 of Europe.

So, if your "much familiarity with actual health care statistics and outcomes" is so much that it is a rational basis to reject this systematic analysis of measured variables, then you should easily be able to cite those statistics and explain how you systematically analyzed all those stats to come with your rankings. Or maybe you could cite a peer reviewed study that did this work and happens to support your person feelings.

 

[bilby]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

Ah. That explains why smoking and obesity are so much more common amongst the wealthy.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

I am a health care worker and somehow I have managed to never make any distinctions between medically needy persons based on whether they caused their condition. They are medically needy, that's it. The need is there and has to be met. Medical needs will be better met in a nation with a single payer system where financially based discrimination has been eliminated. The more medically needy, the more access.

Yeah, you are paid to treat people, regardless of whether their problem is misfortune or self-inflicted via indulgence. So, I would hope you would do your paid job and treat them all.

You have no insights in my private life therefor you are in NO position to assume that I have not made choices to provide pro bono services to home bound folks needy of the services of a certified HHA.Again and standing by what I stated : I do not make distinctions based on whether such needy persons have caused their health related predicament or if tgheisr situation is the result of misfortunes. Again, there is a need, I meet it. Clear enough? And you need to know that I am certainly not alone among certified, licensed and registered health care personnel who will provide pro bono services to medically needy persons.

and If you also want to be the one who pays for that treatment, no matter how needlessly reckless a person was in causing their own problems, then you are quite free to be so generous.

If I were in the 1% wealthy, I have no doubt that both my husband and I would use our wealth to meet the needs of medically needy folks with restricted access to health care without dwelling on whether their predicament was caused by a "misfortune" or an "indulgence".

I am just pointing out that your pithy quote is objectively wrong in claiming that healthcare treats only "misfortunes" which implies random bad luck, and that no health problems are the result of chosen and highly avoidable indulgences. By any sane definition, paying for these self-inflicted indulgent consequences is an act of generosity. It is quite rational, ethical, and even generous for other people to question the rightness of such generosity, particularly since generosity is very much a zero-sum game and uses highly finite resources such that one act of generosity precludes the possibility of other acts. People who question whether our communal generosity should be used in other ways are not less generous or ethical than you.

The moment we rely on personal judgement of whether a suffering human being deserves our intervention, we become detached from the suffering aspect of their reality. Compassionate societies do not dwell on whether suffering fellow human beings deserve our generosity.

 

[Togo]

A bad methodology produces bad results.

Nothing wrong with the methodology, but you do need to read it. The report measures health care systems on a number of criteria, not all of which are related to results. The UK system has slightly poorer results than France or Canada, but is significantly cheaper, hence rated higher overall. Obviously if you only look at results, you get a different picture.

One need not be a US booster to question a report that unfairly disses far better systems. I MUCH rather be treated in France or Canada than the UK.

Depends on what you're being treated for. UK does well for exotic diseases, life-threatening conditions, and emergency care. France has better results for routine and elective surgery. Most UK doctors I know show a strong preference for the UK for serious illness, and France for elective surgery. Note that it's entirely possible, through the NHS in the UK, to be treated in France.

You don't need to take my word for it though - just check the statistic you've been citing.

 

[SimpleDon]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

What you say is true. But in any collective risk pooling health care scheme, whether it is a for profit private insurance based one like the US's or a tax based system like the UK's, it is going to be true. The cautious are going to pay for the risk takers, the healthy are going to pay for the sick,

The point of the study is that the cautious and the healthy are going to pay a lot more in the US than they are in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Nothing wrong with the methodology, but you do need to read it. The report measures health care systems on a number of criteria, not all of which are related to results. The UK system has slightly poorer results than France or Canada, but is significantly cheaper, hence rated higher overall. Obviously if you only look at results, you get a different picture.

One need not be a US booster to question a report that unfairly disses far better systems. I MUCH rather be treated in France or Canada than the UK.

Depends on what you're being treated for. UK does well for exotic diseases, life-threatening conditions, and emergency care. France has better results for routine and elective surgery. Most UK doctors I know show a strong preference for the UK for serious illness, and France for elective surgery. Note that it's entirely possible, through the NHS in the UK, to be treated in France.

I am surprised that those UK physicians "show a stronger preference for the UK for serious illness" considering France rates as one of the best oncology care delivery system in the world. For example, the UK shies away from gene mutation research and testing because of the cost. France has been actively pursuing such target research to facilitate personalized cancer treatments. If the pharma protocol in France to treat my type of cancer offers the most innovative non chemo based treatments (monoclonal), NHS still applies what is the equivalent of the US C.H.O.P (toxic chemo) because it is cheaper. Let me tell you that having access with 100% coverage to the most innovative oncology designed drugs with no toxicity especially for a type of incurable lymphoma which reoccurs periodically (meaning long term oncology care) is an absolute plus compared to the NHS oncology protocols.

The article below gives you a comparative summary between France and NHS addressing oncology care delivery :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/21/new-europe-france-health-worldbeating

This one gives you more of a clinical analysis as to how oncology care in France pursues to maintain its AAA rating :

http://www.cancerworld.org/Articles...cting-Frances-AAA-rating-for-cancer-care.html

Also considering that part of the reason why the majority of British ex pats moving to France in their retirement years is because they do not trust the NHS system.

Regarding this :

Note that it's entirely possible, through the NHS in the UK, to be treated in France

That was put on hold in 2007 when the Sarkosy administration suspended access to health care for foreign residents. To be restored a few months later. However, current British expats residing in France will now have to contend with :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204961/UK-expats-fall-victim-health-tourism.html

coming from the UK side.(not affecting their access in France but affecting their access when they return home to the UK).

 

[doubtingt]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

Ah. That explains why smoking and obesity are so much more common amongst the wealthy.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

Obesity does not equal indulgence and choice. The poor have far fewer healthy options in diets they can afford. Only the person who can afford to eat a healthier diet but chooses not to in favor of short term pleasure of unhealthy foods is engaging in indulgences the cause self-inflicted health problems. The poor have more health problems because poverty causes many unhealthy behaviors (not to mention having less healthcare access and less education which impacts their decision making)

 

[doubtingt]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

I am a health care worker and somehow I have managed to never make any distinctions between medically needy persons based on whether they caused their condition. They are medically needy, that's it. The need is there and has to be met. Medical needs will be better met in a nation with a single payer system where financially based discrimination has been eliminated. The more medically needy, the more access.

Yeah, you are paid to treat people, regardless of whether their problem is misfortune or self-inflicted via indulgence. So, I would hope you would do your paid job and treat them all.

You have no insights in my private life therefor you are in NO position to assume that I have not made choices to provide pro bono services to home bound folks needy of the services of a certified HHA.Again and standing by what I stated : I do not make distinctions based on whether such needy persons have caused their health related predicament or if tgheisr situation is the result of misfortunes. Again, there is a need, I meet it. Clear enough? And you need to know that I am certainly not alone among certified, licensed and registered health care personnel who will provide pro bono services to medically needy persons.

I made no such assumption that you don't provide pro-bono services. Your lousy reasoning is at fault for your indignation. I merely stated that as a paid healthcare worker, you are obligated to provide all paid for services, regardless of the underlying cause of the problems being treated. That in no way suggests you don't treat people without getting any pay and covering all expenses yourself or via a charity (which is what I hope you mean by pro-bono and not that you steal from your employer by providing services at their expense on time they are paying you for).

I am just pointing out that your pithy quote is objectively wrong in claiming that healthcare treats only "misfortunes" which implies random bad luck, and that no health problems are the result of chosen and highly avoidable indulgences. By any sane definition, paying for these self-inflicted indulgent consequences is an act of generosity. It is quite rational, ethical, and even generous for other people to question the rightness of such generosity, particularly since generosity is very much a zero-sum game and uses highly finite resources such that one act of generosity precludes the possibility of other acts. People who question whether our communal generosity should be used in other ways are not less generous or ethical than you.

The moment we rely on personal judgement of whether a suffering human being deserves our intervention, we become detached from the suffering aspect of their reality. Compassionate societies do not dwell on whether suffering fellow human beings deserve our generosity.

Yes they do, because contrary to your naive fantasyland there is a finite limit to public resources that can be used to help the suffering and every choice to help someone is a defacto choice not to help some others. Thus, your are choosing who gets help and who doesn't whether you want to be honest enough to acknowledge that or not. Providing universal healthcare does not help all those in need. Their are those in need of help outside of healthcare issues, and the amount of help they get will be less the more public resources go into healthcare. It may not be practical to be able to determine the source of health issues or to make choices of who to help based upon that, but it certainly is compassionate in principle.

Rational and compassionate adults willing to accept reality acknowledge this, so rather than have on the choice be random and arbitrary, they are inclined to help those most the victims of misfortune or harm by others before those who willfully put themselves at risk. Blindly ignoring the reality that we make implicit choices and where to direct finite assistance is a selfish act in which one is not being more compassionate but merely trying to maintain a self-serving self-image of being more compassionate than those willing to accept the reality. A guy in a bar starts a fight with another, and the other guy defends himself resulting in both guys being equally seriously hurt and bleeding out. You cant help both at the same time? Who do help first? Does your naive worldview make you view the bystander who first helps the victim risking the death of the aggressor a "detaches" and "uncompassionate" person?

 

[Togo]

A guy in a bar starts a fight with another, and the other guy defends himself resulting in both guys being equally seriously hurt and bleeding out. You cant help both at the same time? Who do help first? Does your naive worldview make you view the bystander who first helps the victim risking the death of the aggressor a "detaches" and "uncompassionate" person?

Yes. It does.

Medical attention should be based on clinical need, not perceived merit.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

I am a health care worker and somehow I have managed to never make any distinctions between medically needy persons based on whether they caused their condition. They are medically needy, that's it. The need is there and has to be met. Medical needs will be better met in a nation with a single payer system where financially based discrimination has been eliminated. The more medically needy, the more access.

Yeah, you are paid to treat people, regardless of whether their problem is misfortune or self-inflicted via indulgence. So, I would hope you would do your paid job and treat them all.

You have no insights in my private life therefor you are in NO position to assume that I have not made choices to provide pro bono services to home bound folks needy of the services of a certified HHA.Again and standing by what I stated : I do not make distinctions based on whether such needy persons have caused their health related predicament or if tgheisr situation is the result of misfortunes. Again, there is a need, I meet it. Clear enough? And you need to know that I am certainly not alone among certified, licensed and registered health care personnel who will provide pro bono services to medically needy persons.

I made no such assumption that you don't provide pro-bono services.

To my stating I make no distinction, you immediately assumed that the "no distinction" has to do with my work ethics while you totally missed the point that contrary to you, there is no mental and emotional process on my part which engages in evaluating whether a medically person deserves my assistance. To the extent that I volunteer my time and skills SEPARATELY from my paid employment and that without undergoing a mental and emotional process dwelling on whether a medically needy person deserves my free and volunteer time and skills.

Your lousy reasoning is at fault for your indignation.

Your missing the point is the issue here.

I merely stated that as a paid healthcare worker, you are obligated to provide all paid for services, regardless of the underlying cause of the problems being treated. That in no way suggests you don't treat people without getting any pay and covering all expenses yourself or via a charity

And I am telling you again that even without being paid, I do NOT dwell on whether a medically needy person deserves my assistance. Again, if there is a need, I will meet it.

(which is what I hope you mean by pro-bono and not that you steal from your employer by providing services at their expense on time they are paying you for).

Totally inappropriate passive aggressive crap. I am a home health aide legally employed by a home health care agency and I stick to the plan of care designed by my clinical manager with the patients they assign me to. The medically needy folks I choose to help on my own time are NOT admitted clients/patients by the agency which employs me. They would not have the necessary financial means to hire the services of a licensed home health care agency. I will expect no further venturing on your part into speculations at this point.

I am just pointing out that your pithy quote is objectively wrong in claiming that healthcare treats only "misfortunes" which implies random bad luck, and that no health problems are the result of chosen and highly avoidable indulgences. By any sane definition, paying for these self-inflicted indulgent consequences is an act of generosity. It is quite rational, ethical, and even generous for other people to question the rightness of such generosity, particularly since generosity is very much a zero-sum game and uses highly finite resources such that one act of generosity precludes the possibility of other acts. People who question whether our communal generosity should be used in other ways are not less generous or ethical than you.

The moment we rely on personal judgement of whether a suffering human being deserves our intervention, we become detached from the suffering aspect of their reality. Compassionate societies do not dwell on whether suffering fellow human beings deserve our generosity.

Yes they do, because contrary to your naive fantasyland there is a finite limit to public resources that can be used to help the suffering and every choice to help someone is a defacto choice not to help some others.

My "naive and fantasyland" would be my country of origin and citizenship, France, with a single payer system since 1945 and where the more medically needy, the more access and that without dwelling on whether our medically needy French caused their predicament via "indulgences". Would be "naive" the 19000 American health care professionals who are members of pnhp :

http://www.pnhp.org/
and support a single payer system delivering health care to all medically needy persons without undergoing a mental and emotional process which dwells on "indulgences" versus "misfortunes". Because they are health care professionals, their approach is exactly what Togo brought up :

Medical attention should be based on clinical need, not perceived merit.

Would be "naive" MSF physicians and nurses who volunteer their skills in Sub Sahara Africa ,treating over 300.000 HIV sero positive individuals. Individuals who got contaminated due to the prevalent vector of unprotected and multiple partners sex.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/our-work/medical-issues/hiv-aids



Those volunteers are health care professionals who do not undergo a mental and emotional process of dwelling on " they caused their predicament by their indulgence". Their approach is exactly what Togo brought up :

Medical attention should be based on clinical need, not perceived merit

Thus, your are choosing who gets help and who doesn't whether you want to be honest enough to acknowledge that or not.

No, I do not. When I visit on my own a time a home bound needy person who is unable to do their own perineal care, I do not give a rat's behind about "indulgences" or "misfortunes".

Providing universal healthcare does not help all those in need. Their are those in need of help outside of healthcare issues, and the amount of help they get will be less the more public resources go into healthcare. It may not be practical to be able to determine the source of health issues or to make choices of who to help based upon that, but it certainly is compassionate in principle.

You are communicating with a citizen of a nation who has had UHC since 1945. Try to remember that. The French health care system is designed to cover medically needy persons and meet their medical needs. And it does. Further, you appear to not be well informed about the welfare safety net in France, for " those in need outside of health care issues".

Rational and compassionate adults willing to accept reality acknowledge this, so rather than have on the choice be random and arbitrary, they are inclined to help those most the victims of misfortune or harm by others before those who willfully put themselves at risk. Blindly ignoring the reality that we make implicit choices and where to direct finite assistance is a selfish act in which one is not being more compassionate but merely trying to maintain a self-serving self-image of being more compassionate than those willing to accept the reality. A guy in a bar starts a fight with another, and the other guy defends himself resulting in both guys being equally seriously hurt and bleeding out. You cant help both at the same time? Who do help first? Does your naive worldview make you view the bystander who first helps the victim risking the death of the aggressor a "detaches" and "uncompassionate" person?

To echo Togo's reply :

Medical attention should be based on clinical need, not perceived merit

 

[barbos]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

I am a health care worker and somehow I have managed to never make any distinctions between medically needy persons based on whether they caused their condition. They are medically needy, that's it. The need is there and has to be met. Medical needs will be better met in a nation with a single payer system where financially based discrimination has been eliminated. The more medically needy, the more access.

Yeah, you are paid to treat people, regardless of whether their problem is misfortune or self-inflicted via indulgence. So, I would hope you would do your paid job and treat them all. If you also want to be the one who pays for that treatment, no matter how needlessly reckless a person was in causing their own problems, then you are quite free to be so generous. I am just pointing out that your pithy quote is objectively wrong in claiming that healthcare treats only "misfortunes" which implies random bad luck, and that no health problems are the result of chosen and highly avoidable indulgences. By any sane definition, paying for these self-inflicted indulgent consequences is an act of generosity. It is quite rational, ethical, and even generous for other people to question the rightness of such generosity, particularly since generosity is very much a zero-sum game and uses highly finite resources such that one act of generosity precludes the possibility of other acts. People who question whether our communal generosity should be used in other ways are not less generous or ethical than you.

Yeah, they say lung cancer is pretty much all due to smoking. All that money which go to treatment of smokers could have gone into research for other non-stupidity caused diseases like MS and other cancers.
Of course smokers say we pay huge tax and die younger, but that's poor excuse, their action still create and direct the whole industry of growing and manufacturing that crap.

 

[barbos]

Aneurin Bevan (UK Minister for Health between 1945 and 1951) summed the whole debate up nicely when he said:

Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community.

It really is that simple.

But this is an argument against your point.
In US poor people smoke and want rich to pay

It's that simple for many illnesses and injuries. However, clearly many illnesses and injuries are the result of "indulgences", meaning willful choices to act or fail to act in a manner known to cause such negative outcomes but done anyway out of short-term hedonistic motives. This includes eating poorly despite having the means to do otherwise, smoking, and "accidents" caused by reckless risk taking. Although, the people who can afford their own good health insurance are those most like to be able to afford the activities that contribute to such self-inflicted illness and injury.

Ah. That explains why smoking and obesity are so much more common amongst the wealthy.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

But compared to France US smoking is much lower. In my experience with a bunch of foreigners in US. if somebody smokes it is usually american poor, but if it is not poor then french would be a good guess.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is clear what the problem is with the US's health care system, too much of it has been turned into a for profit business. The explosion of costs since 1970 has paralleled the slow conversion of the health care system from a non-profit one into a for profit one. The lowest cost systems in other countries are completely non-profit like the NHS in the UK. Not to mention the lowest cost, best results system in the US, the VA medical system.

There is no reason to turn the health care system into a for profit business. There are no gains from turning it into a for profit business except to the people who are making the profits.

It is the profit motive that fuels many of the problems with the US system, excessive testing, massive administrative costs struggling with many for profit insurance companies trying to avoid coverage, for profit drug companies who spend more on advertising and promotion then on research, the massive amount of regulation required to try to tame the excesses of the for profit companies, the massive expense of using the emergency rooms for sub-critical care because of people who can't afford the high costs of insurance, etc.

It is the denial of this simple fact by so many who are vested in the dubious belief that the for profit model is the best way to approach everything in our society that fuels these tired and worn arguments.

"The poor are less healthy because they are fat." No, the poor are less healthy because they are poor in a country where health care costs are high. The only choices then are, to reduce the costs of health care reducing the profits, to reduce the poverty or to subsidize the for profit model with government aid. Is it any surprise which one was picked for the ACA? Preserve the profits and subsidize.

"The costs are high but we have the best health care in the world." No, we don't, we have average to below average health care only for those who can afford it.

"Excessive regulations cause the high costs." No, the excessive regulations are required because the natural path to higher profits doesn't produce the best health outcomes, only needless costs

"The high costs are driven by excessive ligation and high jury awards." A grain of truth explaining a few percentage points of our excessive costs. And no, if excessive testing to fend off lawsuits didn't result in extra profit do you believe that the system would be so quick to resort to them?

And many, many more ...​

Sorry for the interruption, you can go back to your well worn cycle of arguing about everything but the real problem.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By barbos :Yeah, they say lung cancer is pretty much all due to smoking. All that money which go to treatment of smokers could have gone into research for other non-stupidity caused diseases like MS and other cancers.

Let me point you to the implications of your wishful thinking and also considering that tobacco use is certainly not the only unhealthy lifestyle related cause for emergent ailments :

1) Non treatment of patients identified in the category of "unhealthy lifestyle cause".

2) Such patients left untreated reaching a terminal prognosis and also being left out of access to palliative/pain management care. If not dealing with a terminal prognosis, worsening of their condition leading to disability.

Meanwhile, you do not seem to be concerned about the 31% overhead cost of the US health care system. Consistency obliged, I would expect you be concerned about "all that money" which "could have gone into research". To eliminate such high cost, the answer is single payer :

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#bureaucracy

The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.

The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.

It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually.

 

[barbos]

Let me point you to the implications of your wishful thinking and also considering that tobacco use is certainly not the only unhealthy lifestyle related cause for emergent ailments :

I have said no such thing.
I gave only one example where certain medical problem almost exclusively due to rather ridiculous type of unhealthy lifestyle.

1) Non treatment of patients identified in the category of "unhealthy lifestyle cause".

2) Such patients left untreated reaching a terminal prognosis and also being left out of access to palliative/pain management care. If not dealing with a terminal prognosis, worsening of their condition leading to disability.

Meanwhile, you do not seem to be concerned about the 31% overhead cost of the US health care system. Consistency obliged, I would expect you be concerned about "all that money" which "could have gone into research". To eliminate such high cost, the answer is single payer :

That's not true either. I have complained about overhead many times over the years, but since the post I was commenting was not about it I did not think it would be appropriate.

The point was about resources which are limited no matter what. Imagine slowly dying from MS while money go into lung cancer research.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I have said no such thing.
I gave only one example where certain medical problem almost exclusively due to rather ridiculous type of unhealthy lifestyle.

Do you understand what the term "implication" means? Here is what your statement was :

"All that money which go to treatment of smokers could have gone into research for other non-stupidity caused diseases like MS and other cancers" You used the term "treatment", did you not? "All that money" going to "treatment of smokers". Do you not understand what the term "treatment" means when we are talking about medical care/health care? Followed by your wishful thinking of " could have gone into research for other non-stupidity caused diseases like MS and other cancers". The implication being that in order for "all that money" to "could have gone into research", "treatment of smokers" would have been affected.

1) Non treatment of patients identified in the category of "unhealthy lifestyle cause".

2) Such patients left untreated reaching a terminal prognosis and also being left out of access to palliative/pain management care. If not dealing with a terminal prognosis, worsening of their condition leading to disability.

Meanwhile, you do not seem to be concerned about the 31% overhead cost of the US health care system. Consistency obliged, I would expect you be concerned about "all that money" which "could have gone into research". To eliminate such high cost, the answer is single payer :

That's not true either. I have complained about overhead many times over the years, but since the post I was commenting was not about it I did not think it would be appropriate.

Well, it is quite true that as you launched into remarks specifically focusing on cost, "treatment of smokers" in direct relation to lung cancer versus "research", you polarized on one single cost factor related to health care. Meanwhile, you appear to think that expenditures related to medical treatments deplete funds dedicated to medical research. You will then need to explain to me how France can pursue target research on gene mutation and testing and with great success considering such research facilitates personalized cancer care, yet will still meet the needs of our medically needy population without having to redirect funds from "treatments" towards supporting such costly target research.

The point was about resources which are limited no matter what. Imagine slowly dying from MS while money go into lung cancer research.

I am not aware of anyone "dying slowly of MS" in my single payer system country due to any alleged depletion of resources to treat MS diagnosed patients caused by "money" going " into lung cancer research".

I am also not aware in the US that the research on lymphoma and other blood cancers faces depleted funding due to either "treatments of smokers" in direct relation to lung cancer or "research on lung cancer". Of course I would be quite informed about whether target research on lymphoma and other blood cancers is affected by the cost of "treatments of smokers" or the cost of "research on lung cancer" since I am a lymphoma patient. To my knowledge, the research on the use of monoclonal therapy with the first FDA approved monoclonal in 1997 was certainly not impaired by "treatments of smokers" in direct relation to lung cancer or "research on lung cancer". Nor was impaired the pursued development of even more effective monoclonal therapies available in 2014.

As you mentioned people "slowly dying of MS", from the Mayo Clinic :

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/multiple-sclerosis/basics/symptoms/con-20026689

Just to point that MS diagnosed patients usually do not meet a terminal prognosis.

 

[barbos]

Yes, if there were no smokers to treat there would be more money for other uses including research into MS.
that's a simple mathematical fact. I was not advocating not-treating smokers.
And yes, MS has no cure and patients are (very) slowly dying.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Yes, if there were no smokers to treat there would be more money for other uses including research into MS.
that's a simple mathematical fact. I was not advocating not-treating smokers.
And yes, MS has no cure and patients are (very) slowly dying.

There is no cure to my type of lymphoma yet I am not "slowly dying". Because it can be treated and current treatments provide the result of extended remission every single time it reoccurs or resurges. None of that was ever compromised by "treating smokers" and target research on lung cancers.

I see that you have NOT addressed this :

You will then need to explain to me how France can pursue target research on gene mutation and testing and with great success considering such research facilitates personalized cancer care, yet will still meet the needs of our medically needy population without having to redirect funds from "treatments" towards supporting such costly target research.

Should I expect a continuous *sound of crickets*?

 

[Underseer]

I have used the NHS several times and I am glad it exists.

Its not socialism and I am not a socialist, its just being smart about health care.

Paying tax is the price you pay to have a civilised society and the NHS is just part of that, just like highways, schools, policing etc, etc.

Of course you would say that. You're obviously a communist who hates us for our freedom, so naturally you would insist that communism is not communism! Everyone knows that the USA has the best healthcare in the world, which is why we enjoy the freedom of a shorter average lifespan! Why do you love the terrorists? [/conservolibertarian]