not NICE
-
What age cutoff do you suggest? Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
Are you totally ignorant ? Have you thought to research the systems you are attacking ? I have full control over my health care. I can get any treatment I want. All that happens is that the degree to which the cost of treatment is covered by medicare, varies. The only differences I can think of, is that I don't have to have a job to be able to get health care, and drug companies are not allowed to try to sell me things I don't need, and that would in all probability do me harm. The US health system is fundamentally broken in many ways. No health system is perfect, but out of the UK, USA and Australia, the US is the place I'd least like to get any sort of treatment, and not just because it is so expensive. A simple doctors visit for a simple flu in the US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
In Britain, the media, charities and other support groups regularly criticize NICE because of some decision they have taken. Sometimes the criticism is justified, other times not so. Presumably the same is true in America where the FDA have made a decision that has not universal approval.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Presumably the same is true in America where the FDA have made a decision that has not universal approval.
It is true, but the FDA does not decide who gets treated or not based on government monetary considerations.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
Christian Graus wrote:
You're an idiot
I have noticed that you people that have socialist health care plans get very upset when it is criticized as if you are insulting your country itself, which is not the case.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionI'm sorry, I'm not upset, I'm just astounded at the lack of any sort of common sense or reason in anything you have to say. I find that talking to people in the US who oppose any sort of health care that doesn't let the poor die, tend to live in a fantasy land with regards to the health system that I live under, and refuse to accept anything I say from personal experience as having equal or better weight to your various fantasies. Just like your owning a gun has bugger all to do with the likelyhood of your government becoming more corrupt or not.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision. As your country slides into the abyss, I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government, good luck on influencing that outcome as it relates to you and your family.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision.
you think an overworked, underpaid doctor and an insurance company whose sole goal is to deny you treatment and keep your money, are the ones who should do in depth research as to how effective a treatment is, and then decide if you can have it or not ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision. As your country slides into the abyss, I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government, good luck on influencing that outcome as it relates to you and your family.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government
This is something that all have to consider irrespective if it is socialized healthcare or private healthcare paid by an insurance company. Much better for those who are qualified to make such recommendations as to which treatments/drugs are safe than to rely upon the "garbage" that drug manufacturers spit out from their marketing and sales departments. Yet, I suppose your the sort of bloke that swallows lock, stock & barrel all the spiel that Microsoft's marketing machinery churns out, and how often has that been somewhat wrong.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision.
you think an overworked, underpaid doctor and an insurance company whose sole goal is to deny you treatment and keep your money, are the ones who should do in depth research as to how effective a treatment is, and then decide if you can have it or not ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
I feel pretty lucky that my doctor actually sits down and talks with me during my checkups. She recently scolded me pretty severely about not taking my prescribed vitamins (high dosage niacin). But, she also tends to fall into the trap that all of the doctors I've visited do: offhandedly prescribing medication.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government
This is something that all have to consider irrespective if it is socialized healthcare or private healthcare paid by an insurance company. Much better for those who are qualified to make such recommendations as to which treatments/drugs are safe than to rely upon the "garbage" that drug manufacturers spit out from their marketing and sales departments. Yet, I suppose your the sort of bloke that swallows lock, stock & barrel all the spiel that Microsoft's marketing machinery churns out, and how often has that been somewhat wrong.
I am torn on the whole thing. But, I do share MrPlankton's concern that if cost increase you could see a net decrease in available benefits. Has this been your experience? Does it look like it's something that could happen with your system if your country sees a discrepancy the number of people paying into the system vs the number of people making use of it? I am curious since I am trying to form a real opinion on this (rather than an emotional response) and what is best for my family.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
What age cutoff do you suggest? Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
What age cutoff do you suggest? Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
Because I can identify a problem, does not mean that I can provide a good solution. In the immediate case of Medicare, it would seem logical that accepting it would mean that one was accepting the right to have it rationed on a cost/benefit basis, and maybe that's all that's needed. I can tell you that I have signed a living will stating that I do not wish to have heroic measures used to prolong my life unless there is every reason to expect that I can be restored to full health within a reasonable length of time. My sister, who has my power of attorney, knows and understands and has sworn to follow my wishes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I feel pretty lucky that my doctor actually sits down and talks with me during my checkups. She recently scolded me pretty severely about not taking my prescribed vitamins (high dosage niacin). But, she also tends to fall into the trap that all of the doctors I've visited do: offhandedly prescribing medication.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
offhandedly prescribing medication.
I am very happy with my doctor precisely because he'll explain to me why antibiotics won't help this infection, and I usually leave without a prescription. when he gives me one, I take it b/c I know I need it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I am torn on the whole thing. But, I do share MrPlankton's concern that if cost increase you could see a net decrease in available benefits. Has this been your experience? Does it look like it's something that could happen with your system if your country sees a discrepancy the number of people paying into the system vs the number of people making use of it? I am curious since I am trying to form a real opinion on this (rather than an emotional response) and what is best for my family.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
I believe the UK is fully socialised ( no cost ever ) and I have no idea how that works. Here in Australia, for example, a doctors visit is subsidised at $35. However, my doctor charges $50, and is free to do so. It's well known that you can go to a bulk billed doctor who charges the medicare fee, but if you pay a gap, you'll get to spend longer and probably get better care. So, I have every choice in the world, and the difference between the cost of care and the amount collected in taxes, is paid by me, if I choose to go that way. It works well, in my book.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
Are you totally ignorant ? Have you thought to research the systems you are attacking ? I have full control over my health care. I can get any treatment I want. All that happens is that the degree to which the cost of treatment is covered by medicare, varies. The only differences I can think of, is that I don't have to have a job to be able to get health care, and drug companies are not allowed to try to sell me things I don't need, and that would in all probability do me harm. The US health system is fundamentally broken in many ways. No health system is perfect, but out of the UK, USA and Australia, the US is the place I'd least like to get any sort of treatment, and not just because it is so expensive. A simple doctors visit for a simple flu in the US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you thought to research the systems you are attacking
I am asking questions, you are interpreting it as an attack, and are taking it personally, which is not my intent.
Christian Graus wrote:
have full control over my health care. I can get any treatment I want. All that happens is that the degree to which the cost of treatment is covered by medicare, varies.
How so? Private insurance? How does this work?
Christian Graus wrote:
drug companies are not allowed to try to sell me things I don't need, and that would in all probability do me harm
It is the US drug companies who are making innovations into new drugs, I am not aware of any socialist health care systems that are innovating like the US is.
Christian Graus wrote:
he US health system is fundamentally broken in many ways
I deny it.
Christian Graus wrote:
the US is the place I'd least like to get any sort of treatment
Ok. Not an issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow
I'm not aware of your personnel experience. But docs score in school on the bell curve just like programmers, some are not so good, some are average, some are exceptional. Does socialized medicine fix this?
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
MrPlankton wrote:
What age cutoff do you suggest? Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
Because I can identify a problem, does not mean that I can provide a good solution. In the immediate case of Medicare, it would seem logical that accepting it would mean that one was accepting the right to have it rationed on a cost/benefit basis, and maybe that's all that's needed. I can tell you that I have signed a living will stating that I do not wish to have heroic measures used to prolong my life unless there is every reason to expect that I can be restored to full health within a reasonable length of time. My sister, who has my power of attorney, knows and understands and has sworn to follow my wishes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Medicare, it would seem logical that accepting it would mean that one was accepting the right to have it rationed on a cost/benefit basis, and maybe that's all that's needed.
If you are aware that this is the case, many are not. I would like an option to opt out of medicare or have private insurance supplement. Which I think is the case right now.
Oakman wrote:
I can tell you that I have signed a living will stating that I do not wish to have heroic measures used to prolong my life unless there is every reason to expect that I can be restored to full health within a reasonable length of time. My sister, who has my power of attorney, knows and understands and has sworn to follow my wishes.
You are in control, you know your options, can't argue with that. My point is that YOU ARE IN CONTROL not a government official.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
Christian Graus wrote:
Have you thought to research the systems you are attacking
I am asking questions, you are interpreting it as an attack, and are taking it personally, which is not my intent.
Christian Graus wrote:
have full control over my health care. I can get any treatment I want. All that happens is that the degree to which the cost of treatment is covered by medicare, varies.
How so? Private insurance? How does this work?
Christian Graus wrote:
drug companies are not allowed to try to sell me things I don't need, and that would in all probability do me harm
It is the US drug companies who are making innovations into new drugs, I am not aware of any socialist health care systems that are innovating like the US is.
Christian Graus wrote:
he US health system is fundamentally broken in many ways
I deny it.
Christian Graus wrote:
the US is the place I'd least like to get any sort of treatment
Ok. Not an issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow
I'm not aware of your personnel experience. But docs score in school on the bell curve just like programmers, some are not so good, some are average, some are exceptional. Does socialized medicine fix this?
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
I am asking questions, you are interpreting it as an attack, and are taking it personally, which is not my intent.
I'm sorry, but that is not true. You're not asking questions, you're making false assumptions.
MrPlankton wrote:
How so? Private insurance? How does this work?
There are private hospitals and there is private insurance. Also, when I go to a doctor, I can choose to go to one that charges the medicare fee, or choose a doctor who charges more and I pay the gap. I go to a GP based solely on his being a good doctor, he does not live near me, and it costs me $20 odd every time I go, the rest is covered. The sort of care I paid $500 for in the US is a few steps below the sort of care I'd expect at a free doctor locally.
MrPlankton wrote:
It is the US drug companies who are making innovations into new drugs, I am not aware of any socialist health care systems that are innovating like the US is.
Well, most of this is BS. For every innovation there's 20 slight changes that doesn't make a drug more effective, to extend a patent and keep prices high. However, the dichotomy you present is an ignorant one. Where do you think the drugs come from that are used by British patients ? Oh, right - drug companies. Drug companies position is not changed in any way by a 'socialist' health system.
MrPlankton wrote:
I deny it.
Then you must be blind. $500 for a flu, and a missed diagnosis at that ? Drugs advertised on TV ? The system is geared to fleece people, not make them well.
MrPlankton wrote:
Ok. Not an issue.
I've at least had health care in two of the countries being discussed. Have you ?
MrPlankton wrote:
But docs score in school on the bell curve just like programmers, some are not so good, some are average, some are exceptional.
No doubt. However, the core issue in my mind was that I got a minute or two with a doctor, I spent an hour in there, and about 12 minutes of contact in that time, most of it with different nurses.
MrPlankton wrote:
Does socialized medicine fix this?
It fixes the bit where crappy care cost me $500. It doesn't take away m
-
Oakman wrote:
Medicare, it would seem logical that accepting it would mean that one was accepting the right to have it rationed on a cost/benefit basis, and maybe that's all that's needed.
If you are aware that this is the case, many are not. I would like an option to opt out of medicare or have private insurance supplement. Which I think is the case right now.
Oakman wrote:
I can tell you that I have signed a living will stating that I do not wish to have heroic measures used to prolong my life unless there is every reason to expect that I can be restored to full health within a reasonable length of time. My sister, who has my power of attorney, knows and understands and has sworn to follow my wishes.
You are in control, you know your options, can't argue with that. My point is that YOU ARE IN CONTROL not a government official.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
You are in control, you know your options, can't argue with that. My point is that YOU ARE IN CONTROL not a government official.
No government official is in any way in control of my health care. This is your greatest area of misunderstanding here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision.
you think an overworked, underpaid doctor and an insurance company whose sole goal is to deny you treatment and keep your money, are the ones who should do in depth research as to how effective a treatment is, and then decide if you can have it or not ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Do you think and underpaid bureaucrat part of a government union is a suitable replacement? My doc makes lots of money (much more than I do, and good for him), he is trying start up a concierge practice. My insurance company may deny me treatment, but my doc will still tell me all of my options with out reading a treatment script by NICE. I may have to work out a deal, worst case with my insurance company where I will have to pay out of pocket exceptional treatment but at least I will know all of my options. My doc is closer to my problems then the bureaucrat will ever be.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
Do you think and underpaid bureaucrat part of a government union is a suitable replacement? My doc makes lots of money (much more than I do, and good for him), he is trying start up a concierge practice. My insurance company may deny me treatment, but my doc will still tell me all of my options with out reading a treatment script by NICE. I may have to work out a deal, worst case with my insurance company where I will have to pay out of pocket exceptional treatment but at least I will know all of my options. My doc is closer to my problems then the bureaucrat will ever be.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
Do you think and underpaid bureaucrat part of a government union is a suitable replacement?
This is a straw man. No, I don't, and I never said I did, nor did anyone else. You're making this stuff up to suit your viewpoint, it's got no relation to anything that anyone is saying on this thread.
MrPlankton wrote:
My doc is closer to my problems then the bureaucrat will ever be.
The bureaucrat is your sick fantasy. He has no bearing on reality. As I keep saying, I can get any treatment I want. All that changes is what things are subsidized and to what level, and what my insurance covers. Of course, the UK may be different, I don't know, and wouldn't pretend to. My main point is, having some system for providing a way for poor people to get medical help if they don't have $500 spare, does not guarentee that the state will tell you what doctor you can see, or deny you treatment. If the state does decide such things, it would be DOCTORS who make those recommendations. Why does a doctor become a soulless bureaucrat just because he's paid by the state ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
offhandedly prescribing medication.
I am very happy with my doctor precisely because he'll explain to me why antibiotics won't help this infection, and I usually leave without a prescription. when he gives me one, I take it b/c I know I need it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
In the doctor's defense I think they are under a lot of pressure from their clients to be medicated. The advertising of prescription drugs has to have had a positive affect on the drug producers bottom line otherwise they wouldn't continue doing it. She, my doctor, is pretty good about staying away from the dangerous drugs but does offer them as an alternative. A few years ago just days before the mess with Vioxx went public she refused to prescribe them to me for my aching wrists and insisted on using exercises and sleeping with splints.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I am asking questions, you are interpreting it as an attack, and are taking it personally, which is not my intent.
I'm sorry, but that is not true. You're not asking questions, you're making false assumptions.
MrPlankton wrote:
How so? Private insurance? How does this work?
There are private hospitals and there is private insurance. Also, when I go to a doctor, I can choose to go to one that charges the medicare fee, or choose a doctor who charges more and I pay the gap. I go to a GP based solely on his being a good doctor, he does not live near me, and it costs me $20 odd every time I go, the rest is covered. The sort of care I paid $500 for in the US is a few steps below the sort of care I'd expect at a free doctor locally.
MrPlankton wrote:
It is the US drug companies who are making innovations into new drugs, I am not aware of any socialist health care systems that are innovating like the US is.
Well, most of this is BS. For every innovation there's 20 slight changes that doesn't make a drug more effective, to extend a patent and keep prices high. However, the dichotomy you present is an ignorant one. Where do you think the drugs come from that are used by British patients ? Oh, right - drug companies. Drug companies position is not changed in any way by a 'socialist' health system.
MrPlankton wrote:
I deny it.
Then you must be blind. $500 for a flu, and a missed diagnosis at that ? Drugs advertised on TV ? The system is geared to fleece people, not make them well.
MrPlankton wrote:
Ok. Not an issue.
I've at least had health care in two of the countries being discussed. Have you ?
MrPlankton wrote:
But docs score in school on the bell curve just like programmers, some are not so good, some are average, some are exceptional.
No doubt. However, the core issue in my mind was that I got a minute or two with a doctor, I spent an hour in there, and about 12 minutes of contact in that time, most of it with different nurses.
MrPlankton wrote:
Does socialized medicine fix this?
It fixes the bit where crappy care cost me $500. It doesn't take away m
Not to split hairs but the poor here in many cases have access to free (tax payer subsidized) healthcare. But, I think there are issues with getting preventive care in just as many cases. I speak from experience since after my parents separated we were near destitute. Whenever were ill, we were able to go see a doctor and get taken care of. But, there was little if any preventive care that I can remember.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
Are you totally ignorant ? Have you thought to research the systems you are attacking ? I have full control over my health care. I can get any treatment I want. All that happens is that the degree to which the cost of treatment is covered by medicare, varies. The only differences I can think of, is that I don't have to have a job to be able to get health care, and drug companies are not allowed to try to sell me things I don't need, and that would in all probability do me harm. The US health system is fundamentally broken in many ways. No health system is perfect, but out of the UK, USA and Australia, the US is the place I'd least like to get any sort of treatment, and not just because it is so expensive. A simple doctors visit for a simple flu in the US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
A simple doctors visit for a simple flu in the US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow.
Surely you are not passing judgement on the entire health system based on one bad doctors visit, are you? FWIW, that hasn't been my experience. Sure, there have been times when the doctor and I haven't communicated properly, but that isn't a system issue. With my insurance, I pay $20 for an office visit.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Not to split hairs but the poor here in many cases have access to free (tax payer subsidized) healthcare. But, I think there are issues with getting preventive care in just as many cases. I speak from experience since after my parents separated we were near destitute. Whenever were ill, we were able to go see a doctor and get taken care of. But, there was little if any preventive care that I can remember.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
But, I think there are issues with getting preventive care in just as many cases
Well, yeah, that is an issue. But a bigger issue, IMO, is people who have a job, and who can't get free care, but can't actually afford to go.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.