Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree6Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 21st, 2016, 04:35 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
Compared with the disgraceful waste that is American capitalist 'healthcare' the NHS, even under the tories, is unbelievably practical and efficient. Why do these right-wing nutters insist on holding forth out of the bottomless depth of their ignorance?
NHS is efficient? Care to back that bold claim up with actual evidence?

Fun Fact of the Day: In 2014-2015, the number and proportion of NHS hospital patients in England waiting more than 18 weeks to begin treatment rose to their highest levels in almost seven years!

Waiting 18-weeks to receive treatment is not what I would call efficient...

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...-data-2014-15/
BordenMilk is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 05:27 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 1,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by BordenMilk View Post
NHS is efficient? Care to back that bold claim up with actual evidence?

Fun Fact of the Day: In 2014-2015, the number and proportion of NHS hospital patients in England waiting more than 18 weeks to begin treatment rose to their highest levels in almost seven years!

Waiting 18-weeks to receive treatment is not what I would call efficient...

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...-data-2014-15/
It costs you twice as much as we pay for good treatment to do the poor out of healthcare, as you know. Yes, your tory quislings are cutting the money spent on the NHS, as you know. Anyone who has treatment from the NHS praises it, and is not rendered penniless by the crooks, like you mugs. Grow up!
iolo is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 06:35 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Are you going to source that or continue to pretend like you wrote it?
Are you going to dispute any of it, or deflect away from it with anything and everything like you always do?
skews13 is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 08:22 AM   #14
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by BordenMilk View Post
NHS is efficient? Care to back that bold claim up with actual evidence?

Fun Fact of the Day: In 2014-2015, the number and proportion of NHS hospital patients in England waiting more than 18 weeks to begin treatment rose to their highest levels in almost seven years!

Waiting 18-weeks to receive treatment is not what I would call efficient...

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...-data-2014-15/
I can't comment on the situation in the UK, but the same criticism is often applied to the Canadian system. Elective and other non-emergency services can have wait times. One example is knee replacement wait times are about 12 weeks.

But anything with any short term repercussions are handled promptly. I recently had a lung infection and had to wait half an hour for a CT scan.

About 10 years ago MRIs were in short supply in Canada but that too has been fixed.

And almost no one goes bankrupt due to medical costs here. Should I post the stats on US citizens WITH INSURANCE that go bankrupt due to medical costs again?
Thanks from skews13
RNG is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 11:42 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
Compared with the disgraceful waste that is American capitalist 'healthcare' the NHS, even under the tories, is unbelievably practical and efficient. Why do these right-wing nutters insist on holding forth out of the bottomless depth of their ignorance?

Let's watch as the GOP and D.J. "repeal and replace ACA".......not. After all the shrieking, yammering, objecting, and obstructing, the Party of WECARESODEEPLY will hammer out some similar healthcare program. Not only are they conceding that conjuring up a replacement for the ACA will take much longer than they promised — I think we're up to 3 years — but they’re also talking about reinstating provisions of the law that they undermined during their six-year campaign to crush it. They’re forced to acknowledge that America’s pre-ACA system of health insurance for individuals was so awful that they can’t justify returning to it. In the END they will declare VICTORY OVER socialized medicine and pretend to be geniuses. Meanwhile back at the W.H. Trump will stammer and stutter--tweet and twitter---about HOW AWESOME it's going to be, forgetting that little bitty promise about repealing and replacing ACA ON HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE.
Here's the reality for all the Trumpets:
1) There aren't that many alternatives to ACA.
2) Repeal-and-delay will drive insurers out of the system, raising prices.
3) Past GOP actions undermining ACA will come home to roost.
4) The neediest Americans will suffer the most, but OH WELL.

On Obamacare repeal, GOP ideology is colliding with reality - LA Times
Thanks from iolo
Clara007 is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 12:44 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I can't comment on the situation in the UK, but the same criticism is often applied to the Canadian system. Elective and other non-emergency services can have wait times. One example is knee replacement wait times are about 12 weeks.

But anything with any short term repercussions are handled promptly. I recently had a lung infection and had to wait half an hour for a CT scan.

About 10 years ago MRIs were in short supply in Canada but that too has been fixed.

And almost no one goes bankrupt due to medical costs here. Should I post the stats on US citizens WITH INSURANCE that go bankrupt due to medical costs again?

A couple of years ago a coworker fell and broke his leg. He was out of town on business in Atlanta. Having lived there previously he knew the hospitals tended to be busy so he started calling around to see what the wait times were. The shortest wait time, IF he had been sitting in the waiting room, was 4 hours !!! After the people he was working with loaded his car, he just drove the 4 hours home and went to his local hospital. He figured if he was going to wait he'd just as soon be at home.

Point being, urban hospitals are urban hospitals. There are never enough of them, they are almost always busy. Even with insurance, if you aren't literally at deaths door when you arrive you can wait hours to be seen.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 02:47 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by BordenMilk View Post
NHS is efficient? Care to back that bold claim up with actual evidence?

Fun Fact of the Day: In 2014-2015, the number and proportion of NHS hospital patients in England waiting more than 18 weeks to begin treatment rose to their highest levels in almost seven years!

Waiting 18-weeks to receive treatment is not what I would call efficient...

Source: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...-data-2014-15/
Efficiency isn't measured by waiting times.
Efficiency is unit of service over cost.
The NHS is about 2 and a half times as efficient as the US system.
The Canadian system, which used to be about as efficient as the US system, before they went single payer is now close to twice as efficient as the US system.

Some people would rather save over half the cost of lifetime medical care, which is a six figure savings per person, even if it means waiting a couple of weeks more for a procedure, every now and then.
goober is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 02:56 PM   #18
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
I knew I had read a thread some where today that told me you would be showing up.


Before the Affordable Care Act became law, one of the fundamental problems with the debate over health care was that Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree on the nature of the problem to be solved. Dems saw a system in which too many Americans paid too much and received too little, while the GOP saw a system in which Americans’ health coverage was too good and families enjoyed too many benefits.

Several years later, that argument has returned with a vengeance. TPM had this eye-opening report yesterday.
A Republican congressman outlined the way he would like to see the health care system operate if Obamacare is repealed, as GOP lawmakers are promising. It is a brave new world in which parents would wait and think about it before bringing in their sick or injured kids for costly treatments.

The example Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) gave in an interview with MLive.com was from his own experience when he waited until the morning after to take his youngest son to the doctor with an injured arm, because he did not want to waste money on an expensive emergency room visit. The arm, it turned out, was broken.
The Republican congressman explained to the Michigan outlet that he and his wife thought about taking their son to the emergency room, but they decided instead to wait and gauge his injuries the next day, to see if the child’s arm improved. (It didn’t.) Huizenga sees this anecdote as a model for how the process should work on a more systemic level.

“If you don’t have a cost difference, you’ll make different decisions,” the congressman said, adding that financial burdens should be shifted to consumers because the current system “continue[s] to squeeze providers.”

Huizenga went on to say, “Way too often, people pull out their insurance card and they say ‘I don’t know the difference or cost between an X-ray or an MRI or CT Scan.’ I might make a little different decision if I did know [what] some of those costs were and those costs came back to me.”

This is not a new argument. Among Republicans, it’s not even unusual. It is, however, kind of terrifying.

I first started writing about this about seven years ago, right around the time former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) summarized the Republican position in just 17 words: “The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too over-insured.” Two Republican congressman had a Wall Street Journal op-ed around this time making the same case: “When was the last time you asked your doctor how much it would cost for a necessary test or procedure?”

It wasn’t a rhetorical question. For most of us, if we have an ailment, we see a doctor and follow his or her recommendations. If physicians recommend tests they consider medically worthwhile, we naturally agree, knowing insurers will cover most of the costs.

And for Republicans, therein lies the problem. If the system shifted the cost burden away from insurers and employers and onto individuals and their families, the result would be amazing savings – because consumers would seek and receive less health care.

The GOP idea, in other words, is to create a medical environment in which Americans are acutely aware of costs, to the point that we turn down recommended treatments. Our kid may have a broken arm, but can we really afford an emergency-room visit? My doctor says I need a CT scan, but can I really afford such an exam? My friend has a lump and an unsettling family history, but can he really afford to have it removed and sent to pathology? His spouse was prescribed medication by her doctor, but does she really have to take it or can she save some money by going without?

In the Republican model – by GOP officials’ own admission – these are the kinds of questions Americans should be asking themselves. Having excellent health coverage, Republicans argue, is a problem in need of a resolution. As the aforementioned Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) put it, “If you don’t have a cost difference, you’ll make different decisions.”

As Republicans move forward with repealing “Obamacare” and looking for some kind of alternative blueprint, keep this simple fact in mind: much of the GOP is convinced your insurance is too good, and they intend to help improve the system by making your coverage worse.
Oh, so is that why the Democrats want to tax my insurance plan as income?
coke is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 03:00 PM   #19
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
A couple of years ago a coworker fell and broke his leg. He was out of town on business in Atlanta. Having lived there previously he knew the hospitals tended to be busy so he started calling around to see what the wait times were. The shortest wait time, IF he had been sitting in the waiting room, was 4 hours !!! After the people he was working with loaded his car, he just drove the 4 hours home and went to his local hospital. He figured if he was going to wait he'd just as soon be at home.

Point being, urban hospitals are urban hospitals. There are never enough of them, they are almost always busy. Even with insurance, if you aren't literally at deaths door when you arrive you can wait hours to be seen.
A lot of that is because the ER are filled up with single moms and snotty nosed bastards. Since the single mom is now a government occupation which includes free health care, every time the little bastard farts cross wise or sneezes its off to the ER. Working people, who have insurance, and deductibles do not take their children to the ER all the goddamn time.
coke is offline  
Old December 21st, 2016, 03:08 PM   #20
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
A lot of that is because the ER are filled up with single moms and snotty nosed bastards. Since the single mom is now a government occupation which includes free health care, every time the little bastard farts cross wise or sneezes its off to the ER. Working people, who have insurance, and deductibles do not take their children to the ER all the goddamn time.
So suggest a remedy.
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
answer, care, health, socialist



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Health Care for No One! roastpork Healthcare 57 January 25th, 2013 07:45 PM
'Romney care' touted in health care reform debate CNN Current Events 1 August 20th, 2009 12:13 PM
Health Care Nightrider Opinion Polls 4 June 17th, 2008 12:22 PM
Giuliani: Democratic health plans 'socialist' CNN Current Events 45 August 20th, 2007 02:19 PM
health care musica Healthcare 4 June 24th, 2007 08:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.