RomneyRyan 2012!

You uh don't seem to get the joke there

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9309100/Pictures/Graph%201.gif

How is it not difficult to get care on nights, weekends, or holidays? I've only come across one clinic in the UK that worked on Saturdays...

I hope your body shut down those things :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

They already have death panels in the UK; google for BBC articles where people aren't given access to existing treatments just because the government decided that their chance of survival isn't great (i.e. 10%, not 0.1%).

---

I'd love specific examples because the ones i can find based on that description don't match your claims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

How is it not difficult to get care on nights, weekends, or holidays? I've only come across one clinic in the UK that worked on Saturdays...

---

Just walk into a hospital? We're not the US, we don't have towns cities spread between vast tracts of fuck all. I live in what could only be describe as the fucking boonies, and there's one hospital less than an hour away, and one about 20 minutes away.

http://www.google.com/search?q=nhs+c...fund+nice&btnG

cool initiative

Maybe it's different where you are, Loki, but I've only had one doctor's office that has Saturday morning hours. My daughter's pediatrician does Saturday morning hours, too. But no Sundays. There are urgent care centers that are open in our area, limited hours on weekends though. But other than that, ER is the only option late night/weekends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Just walk into a hospital? We're not the US, we don't have towns cities spread between vast tracts of fuck all. I live in what could only be describe as the fucking boonies, and there's one hospital less than an hour away, and one about 20 minutes away.

---

Hang on there Hoss, you're not gonna get "world care treatment", you might get poisoned or bludgeoned though

Nice try, Socialist Sally!

One of these days I'm gonna crop that image to only show the row that's actually relevant to the point I'm trying to make - the third one about unmet needs due to cost. Somehow Loki always managed to pick one of the the other ones to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I'd love specific examples because the ones i can find based on that description don't match your claims

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...teel-deaf.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-phone-in.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-buy-drug.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-save-her.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/94...ths-by-25.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catgrrl

Maybe it's different where you are, Loki, but I've only had one doctor's office that has Saturday morning hours. My daughter's pediatrician does Saturday morning hours, too. But no Sundays. There are urgent care centers that are open in our area, limited hours on weekends though. But other than that, ER is the only option late night/weekends.

---

My point was that the situation in England is the same, so I fail to see how 78% of the people there haven't had problems with receiving treatment on nights or weekends.

There's a list of stories like that from America as long as your arm, Loki. Just replace "NHS" or "Government" with "Insurance Company". There's little point in focusing on horror stories, because every country has them and they are by definition the exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

There's a list of stories like that from America as long as your arm, Loki. Just replace "NHS" or "Government" with "Insurance Company". There's little point in focusing on horror stories, because every country has them and they are by definition the exception.

---

These aren't mistakes; these are deliberate decisions by your government-run institution. I could have easily pointed to the many more stories of NHS incompetence.

And again, I could very easily go out and find a dozen news articles about some photogenic little white girl with cancer being denied life saving treatment by an insurance company because they found some loophole in their coverage and decided they aren't going to pay for whatever she needs. Also not a mistake. But what would that prove? The very fact that these incidents make the newspapers tells you that they are outside the norm. You get a far clearer picture of what's actually going on by looking at what the statistics rather than whatever sob stories the Daily Fail has decided to publish (and embellish/distort, as is their wont) and the stats say that you are far more likely to go without some needed piece of treatment in America than in the UK - and it's more likely to be some mundane need that the person is going without over there, rather than the pioneering new treatment

The difference being that there is competition between different insurance companies. There is no choice of NHSes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...teel-deaf.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-phone-in.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-buy-drug.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-save-her.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/94...ths-by-25.html

---

Okay that's not from the BBC and I get the impression you haven't read the articles, in part because they mention both the Cancer Drugs Fund for drugs that haven't yet been approved by NICE as well as the possibility to appeal decisions by local PCTs. Moreover they clearly point out that there are many regions in the UK that DO offer various contested treatments, so one can't help but wonder if geographical disparities are unique to the UK (they aren't).

Quote:

---

The difference being that there is competition between different insurance companies. There is no choice of NHSes.

---

The competition between insurance companies would force them to behave if we existed in some kind of platonic ideal of capitalism. Unfortunately, we don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The difference being that there is competition between different insurance companies. There is no choice of NHSes.

---

I'd like to see how many insurance companies would take on a person who's just been denied coverage by another insurance company for the treatment of something like terminal cancer. Do you have any links to stories about people who successfully shop around for insurance while fighting disease?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The competition between insurance companies would force them to behave if we existed in some kind of platonic ideal of capitalism. Unfortunately, we don't.

---

So the goal in the US should be to improve the level of competition between insurance companies. Not quite sure how you can ever resolve the rationing problem the NHS faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I'd like to see how many insurance companies would take on a person who's just been denied coverage by another insurance company for the treatment of something like terminal cancer. Do you have any links to stories about people who successfully shop around for insurance while fighting disease?

---

The question isn't over who'd get covered; it's over what happens when covered. Regardless, many states now have high risk pools which make this kind of a problem obsolete.

Uh yes and I'm referring to your response to Steely's remark about those who get their claims rejected under their current plan. For those people competition between insurance companies is not a remedy. Competition between insurance companies can only hope to address these problems before they occur. And I only go so far as to say "hope".

As for the rest:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay that's not from the BBC and I get the impression you haven't read the articles, in part because they mention both the Cancer Drugs Fund for drugs that haven't yet been approved by NICE as well as the possibility to appeal decisions by local PCTs. Moreover they clearly point out that there are many regions in the UK that DO offer various contested treatments, so one can't help but wonder if geographical disparities are unique to the UK (they aren't).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you not realize the massive selection bias you're dealing with? The only people you see are the ones getting treatment. You don't see the people who need treatment but don't get it. :bored:



They didn't even want to give pain relievers. :bored: She's also had a different problem recur in the US and UK. In the US, the medical office did a quick test ($300 that was waived) and figured out the problem (and dealt with it); in the UK, they refused to do any tests and told her to go home on multiple occasions.

I know for a fact that X-Rays are given only in hospitals/large A&Es in England, and getting one could take anywhere from weeks to months (unless it's a very clearly broken leg or something).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

How is it not difficult to get care on nights, weekends, or holidays? I've only come across one clinic in the UK that worked on Saturdays...

---

I know you're ignoring my posts here, but stop comparing just to the UK.. Our system is closer to what you guys get with Obamacare.

And like I said, I got my x-ray for a very, very not urgent thing within an hour or so. And yes, we can easily get care on nights, weekends, and holidays, no problem whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

We have not agreed to disagree, although you may have unilaterally agreed with yourself to pretend that these particular facts are matters of opinion.

Some may say that socialised healthcare systems have unfair advantages that let them be more efficient and get more bang for the buck, and some may highlight aspects that they see as unjust or otherwise terrible. But the matters of efficiency and efficacy have been thoroughly examined by many, many researchers and it is no longer a matter of opinion among people in the know that even wasteful socialised healthcare systems use their money more efficiently than the US as a whole (including the socialised portions of the American healthcare system) and usually at least as effectively.

There is considerable disagreement about the hows and whys and the solutions (eg. who should pay, or if that even matters), but wrt the first two questions there is a fair amount of consensus too. We may agree to disagree on realistic solutions to these American problems, but its ridiculous for you pretend that the problem itself doesn't look the way it really does.

---

I note that we've disagreed on this several times and we have differences of opinion, and your response is to whine and insist that your opinions are "no longer a matter of opinion"? :haha: Come on, grow up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Largely irrelevant in terms of the upcoming election, but for your digestion:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...d_23102012.gif

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...ed23102012.gif


France is the most strongly pro-'Bama.

Pakistan is the only country that would prefer to see Romney win.

---

I am willing to vote the opposite way of the populations of Spain and France on pretty much anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I like that Kenya is the most pro Romney out of all the foreigners.

---

Yeah, I found that weird too. I suspect it's because Obama's family in Kenya is part of the Luo tribe and the respondents may have been answering in a "fuck 'em Luo" way.

Btw I strongly recommend you find out what US insurance companies have had to say about Cyberknife treatment of this particular kind of acoustic neuroma :-o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I note that we've disagreed on this several times and we have differences of opinion, and your response is to whine and insist that your opinions are "no longer a matter of opinion"? :haha: Come on, grow up.

---

Come on you whiny brat just accept that you've now entered a phase in your life where your imagination and inner spin-drive don't trump reality and learn the facts. I have clarified which parts we can legitimately disagree on. On the other matters you're mostly wrong. Just learn to deal with it, you're not on the debate-team anymore so it's okay if you fail to make your fantasies persuasive. Even darth loko focuses on efficacy rather than on efficiency and he'd hold the NHS responsible for Darfur if he could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So the goal in the US should be to improve the level of competition between insurance companies. Not quite sure how you can ever resolve the rationing problem the NHS faces.

---

We all face rationing problems, Loki. They're only going to get worse as populations get older and health-care becomes more expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Yeah, I found that weird too. I suspect it's because Obama's family in Kenya is part of the Luo tribe and the respondents may have been answering in a "fuck 'em Luo" way.

---

Interesting. I thought it might be some kind of "well, he's done fuck all for Kenya" backlash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

We all face rationing problems, Loki. They're only going to get worse as populations get older and health-care becomes more expensive.

---

In a private insurance system, it's up to individuals to decide how much coverage they want. People who have more money or who value their health more can get better health insurance, which maximizes the quality of outcomes. In England, the government decides how much treatment to offer. The government is also not competing against someone, and therefore has virtually no incentive to improve the efficiency or the quality of its service. And outcomes aside, British doctors and nurses have been far ruder than American equivalents, because the latter want your money.

Are you seriously falling back to that "people don't have health insurance in the US because they don't want it" horseshit?

:confused: No, I'm saying that our system allows people to get the level of coverage they want. It is a problem that some people can't afford any coverage at all, but it's a problem that's fixable. Your system is inflexible and unresponsive, with little prospect for positive change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

In a private insurance system, it's up to individuals to decide how much coverage they want. People who have more money or who value their health more can get better health insurance, which maximizes the quality of outcomes. In England, the government decides how much treatment to offer. The government is also not competing against someone, and therefore has virtually no incentive to improve the efficiency or the quality of its service. And outcomes aside, British doctors and nurses have been far ruder than American equivalents, because the latter want your money.

---

Which is, as you keep ignoring, why over here we have private insurance for basic coverage, what everyone should have, but you're free to purchase more coverage if you want. Problem is that without the basic coverage, people without insurance still end up getting treatment, going bankrupt, and effectively do get socialized medicine because they don't pay. Which is why the mandate is necessary, and seems to work okay here.