not NICE
-
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.
-
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
Sure, my core points were 1 - I got the impression I had not gone to the cream of the US medical profession ( I didn't mean to imply that all US doctors suck ) 2 - despite getting almost no time with a doctor, it cost me $500, which is far more than it would ever cost to see a doctor here, under any circumstance 3 - therefore, to get elementary care in the US, from the worst possible doctor ( one who barely even spends time with you ), if you don't have insurance, is out of the reach of a lot of people.
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. --?
In the UK, healthcare is free at the point of delivery. This delivery point could be your local GP, your local hospital or a clinic. If you have children, unlike in the United States where everything has to be paid, there is no costs at all including dental, prescription drugs and eye care, the same is true if you are in receipt of some means tested benefit such as Old Age Pension or Jobseekers' Allowance (that's Unemployment Pay). If you are working, you are entitled to prescription drugs at a set price per drug irrespective of the actual cost of the drug and your dental and eye care requirements are part-subsidised. So although free at the point of delivery, this is paid for by general taxation. Everybody makes a small contribution that benefits the whole. Doctors and hospitals do have catchment areas but you have the right to pick and choose where the delivery point is. And in socialized healthcare systems sometimes there could be waiting lists in order to get a particular treatment such as hip replacement operations. Your local hospital could indeed have a waiting list for that particular operation, but with an internal market, you could demand that treatment at another hospital where waiting times are not as great as local. You even have the right to have this treatment in a European hospital such as that operates in France. Because of the way that UK healthcare functions, NICE have statutory duties to report recommendations in respect of treatments and drugs. But they do not hold the purse strings. That means local hospitals are free to choose what treatments they specialize in and thus free to choose what financial costs are appropriate for them for the provision of treatment. This does not mean that local hospitals have a bottomless pit of money. Quite the reverse. There is a budget they need to keep to but how they spend that budget is their business. Aside from above, have a look at some back issues of Microsoft's Architecture Journal for articles to do with the provision of healthcare - some as quite interesting.
-
Sure, my core points were 1 - I got the impression I had not gone to the cream of the US medical profession ( I didn't mean to imply that all US doctors suck ) 2 - despite getting almost no time with a doctor, it cost me $500, which is far more than it would ever cost to see a doctor here, under any circumstance 3 - therefore, to get elementary care in the US, from the worst possible doctor ( one who barely even spends time with you ), if you don't have insurance, is out of the reach of a lot of people.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
which is far more than it would ever cost to see a doctor here, under any circumstance
Christian Graus wrote:
if you don't have insurance, is out of the reach of a lot of people.
Those who couldn't afford to pay that much wouldn't have made the choice you made. But that raises another issue for you as a foreigner. What if something had happened to you while you were here that required you to undergo major medical care for an extended period, running up a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Assuming you couln't pay that, would you expect the US taxpayer to cover your bill? Assuming you have never payed taxes in the US. How is medical care handled when you travel to a foreign country. The reason I ask is that I am traveling to Argentina and Chile in April and you got me thinking.
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
-
Christian Graus wrote:
which is far more than it would ever cost to see a doctor here, under any circumstance
Christian Graus wrote:
if you don't have insurance, is out of the reach of a lot of people.
Those who couldn't afford to pay that much wouldn't have made the choice you made. But that raises another issue for you as a foreigner. What if something had happened to you while you were here that required you to undergo major medical care for an extended period, running up a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Assuming you couln't pay that, would you expect the US taxpayer to cover your bill? Assuming you have never payed taxes in the US. How is medical care handled when you travel to a foreign country. The reason I ask is that I am traveling to Argentina and Chile in April and you got me thinking.
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
There is no arrangements between UK and USA in terms of free care. Thus there is a need for medical insurance. That is true in both directions. If an overseas person visiting UK, this is relevant http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Entitlementsandcharges/OverseasVisitors/Browsable/DH_074373[^] However, if you were a UK citizen, you could apply for a EHIC card which gives "If you are a UK resident, you are entitled to medical treatment that becomes necessary, at reduced cost or sometimes free, when temporarily visiting a European Union (EU) country, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland. Only treatment provided under the state scheme is covered." But for non EU area countries, different rules apply. Two example for you, [quote] New Zealand Essential documents - UK passport What's free - Dental treatment for people aged under 16 and public hospital inpatient treatment. What you'll need to pay for (1) outpatient hospital treatment, (2) treatment at a doctor's surgery, (3) prescribed medicines and (4) dental treatment More information - Ask the hospital or doctor if a refund is possible. If not, claim at the local health office. [/quote] and [quote] Barbados Essential documents - UK passport or NHS medical card if you are not a UK national. What's free - hospital treatment, treatment at polyclinics, ambulance travel and prescribed medicines for children and the elderly What you'll need to pay for - Dental treatment and prescribed medicines [/quote]
-
There is no arrangements between UK and USA in terms of free care. Thus there is a need for medical insurance. That is true in both directions. If an overseas person visiting UK, this is relevant http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Entitlementsandcharges/OverseasVisitors/Browsable/DH_074373[^] However, if you were a UK citizen, you could apply for a EHIC card which gives "If you are a UK resident, you are entitled to medical treatment that becomes necessary, at reduced cost or sometimes free, when temporarily visiting a European Union (EU) country, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland. Only treatment provided under the state scheme is covered." But for non EU area countries, different rules apply. Two example for you, [quote] New Zealand Essential documents - UK passport What's free - Dental treatment for people aged under 16 and public hospital inpatient treatment. What you'll need to pay for (1) outpatient hospital treatment, (2) treatment at a doctor's surgery, (3) prescribed medicines and (4) dental treatment More information - Ask the hospital or doctor if a refund is possible. If not, claim at the local health office. [/quote] and [quote] Barbados Essential documents - UK passport or NHS medical card if you are not a UK national. What's free - hospital treatment, treatment at polyclinics, ambulance travel and prescribed medicines for children and the elderly What you'll need to pay for - Dental treatment and prescribed medicines [/quote]
Thanks for the info.
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
-
In the UK, healthcare is free at the point of delivery. This delivery point could be your local GP, your local hospital or a clinic. If you have children, unlike in the United States where everything has to be paid, there is no costs at all including dental, prescription drugs and eye care, the same is true if you are in receipt of some means tested benefit such as Old Age Pension or Jobseekers' Allowance (that's Unemployment Pay). If you are working, you are entitled to prescription drugs at a set price per drug irrespective of the actual cost of the drug and your dental and eye care requirements are part-subsidised. So although free at the point of delivery, this is paid for by general taxation. Everybody makes a small contribution that benefits the whole. Doctors and hospitals do have catchment areas but you have the right to pick and choose where the delivery point is. And in socialized healthcare systems sometimes there could be waiting lists in order to get a particular treatment such as hip replacement operations. Your local hospital could indeed have a waiting list for that particular operation, but with an internal market, you could demand that treatment at another hospital where waiting times are not as great as local. You even have the right to have this treatment in a European hospital such as that operates in France. Because of the way that UK healthcare functions, NICE have statutory duties to report recommendations in respect of treatments and drugs. But they do not hold the purse strings. That means local hospitals are free to choose what treatments they specialize in and thus free to choose what financial costs are appropriate for them for the provision of treatment. This does not mean that local hospitals have a bottomless pit of money. Quite the reverse. There is a budget they need to keep to but how they spend that budget is their business. Aside from above, have a look at some back issues of Microsoft's Architecture Journal for articles to do with the provision of healthcare - some as quite interesting.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
your dental and eye care requirements are part-subsidised.
Ever tried finding an NHS dentist who will take you on recently?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
your dental and eye care requirements are part-subsidised.
Ever tried finding an NHS dentist who will take you on recently?
Actually, yes! And successfully done too, without any problems whatsoever. I acknowledge that NHS Dental services are something of a joke. But if you are in need of an NHS Emergency Dentist, call 0845 6003246 and you will be advised of local facilities.
Last modified: 4mins after originally posted --
-
Actually, yes! And successfully done too, without any problems whatsoever. I acknowledge that NHS Dental services are something of a joke. But if you are in need of an NHS Emergency Dentist, call 0845 6003246 and you will be advised of local facilities.
Last modified: 4mins after originally posted --
Well done! I gave up and now pay through the nose for every check-up. Spending half an hour with the rather nice hygienist almost makes it worthwhile. Almost.
-
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 ConstitutionOnly with the health insurance approval. Unless you are paying cash for your treatment you are still NOT IN CONTROL. Its either for profit insurance, or bureaucratic rationing. But, unless you pay cash in full, you are NEVER in control.
This statement is false