AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 amSo a case you can't recall in a state level universal healthcare system which never existed. Sure.
If billy the infant needed a heart transplant over here, cost wouldn't be a relevant factor. The doctors get their salaries and the patient gets no bill. Simples. Decisions about cost benefit analysis for whether a treatment should be offered in the NHS as a whole are made by an independent agency called NICE. Their published decisions are subject to judicial review. If a treatment is approved, like heart transplants are, then it's a decision for the patient's doctor who has no interest in how much it's going to cost the NHS or how much the patient has already cost the NHS. Compare that to rationing in the US system with insurers making the decisions about what is covered in private, judicial review replaced by suing them, lifetime spending caps, and a decision making body with an interest in the cost of an individual patient and trying to maximise their profit.
Yes. I lied. I made the whole thing up because you’re that important to me.
You lied or you got it wrong, no state has had universal healthcare. Seems like a simple point for you to dispute if you think you are correct no? But no, you'll bitch and moan about what a meanie I am because that's just how you argue when you're wrong. Pathetic. Naturally you'll ignore the rest of what I said, doesn't fit your starting conclusion so you cannot process it.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 amSo a case you can't recall in a state level universal healthcare system which never existed. Sure.
If billy the infant needed a heart transplant over here, cost wouldn't be a relevant factor. The doctors get their salaries and the patient gets no bill. Simples. Decisions about cost benefit analysis for whether a treatment should be offered in the NHS as a whole are made by an independent agency called NICE. Their published decisions are subject to judicial review. If a treatment is approved, like heart transplants are, then it's a decision for the patient's doctor who has no interest in how much it's going to cost the NHS or how much the patient has already cost the NHS. Compare that to rationing in the US system with insurers making the decisions about what is covered in private, judicial review replaced by suing them, lifetime spending caps, and a decision making body with an interest in the cost of an individual patient and trying to maximise their profit.
Yes. I lied. I made the whole thing up because you’re that important to me.
It's all part of hammy-Schtick. Years ago we were discussing paid protestors and I remarked that when I worked in a shop in the ghetto I used to see flyers posted on telephone poles that wanted "community activists" to carry picket signs, walk and chant slogans etc. The payment, I believe, was $12 an hour. Since I was unwilling to take a long drive into the Detroit ghetto to take a pic of flyers that may or may not even still be there, I was, of course, making it all up.
He can't seem to have a civil conversation. And the anti-American shit gets tedious.
Anti american because I point out the flaws in your healthcare system? Grow the fuck up you old fart.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 amSo a case you can't recall in a state level universal healthcare system which never existed. Sure.
If billy the infant needed a heart transplant over here, cost wouldn't be a relevant factor. The doctors get their salaries and the patient gets no bill. Simples. Decisions about cost benefit analysis for whether a treatment should be offered in the NHS as a whole are made by an independent agency called NICE. Their published decisions are subject to judicial review. If a treatment is approved, like heart transplants are, then it's a decision for the patient's doctor who has no interest in how much it's going to cost the NHS or how much the patient has already cost the NHS. Compare that to rationing in the US system with insurers making the decisions about what is covered in private, judicial review replaced by suing them, lifetime spending caps, and a decision making body with an interest in the cost of an individual patient and trying to maximise their profit.
Yes. I lied. I made the whole thing up because you’re that important to me.
You lied or you got it wrong, no state has had universal healthcare. Seems like a simple point for you to dispute if you think you are correct no? But no, you'll bitch and moan about what a meanie I am because that's just how you argue when you're wrong. Pathetic. Naturally you'll ignore the rest of what I said, doesn't fit your starting conclusion so you cannot process it.
I did look it up, and, if I have the right one, the year was 1987, the system was Medicaid, the state was Oregon, and it was a 7 year old child denied a bone marrow transplant. I’m on an iPad right now, that should be enough for you to investigate.
The point of the example was, in America, people will use other methods when denied services because of rationing and decisions that must be made.
So there it is. I can’t imagine what is wrong with you that you must converse the way you do?
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 amSo a case you can't recall in a state level universal healthcare system which never existed. Sure.
If billy the infant needed a heart transplant over here, cost wouldn't be a relevant factor. The doctors get their salaries and the patient gets no bill. Simples. Decisions about cost benefit analysis for whether a treatment should be offered in the NHS as a whole are made by an independent agency called NICE. Their published decisions are subject to judicial review. If a treatment is approved, like heart transplants are, then it's a decision for the patient's doctor who has no interest in how much it's going to cost the NHS or how much the patient has already cost the NHS. Compare that to rationing in the US system with insurers making the decisions about what is covered in private, judicial review replaced by suing them, lifetime spending caps, and a decision making body with an interest in the cost of an individual patient and trying to maximise their profit.
Yes. I lied. I made the whole thing up because you’re that important to me.
You lied or you got it wrong, no state has had universal healthcare. Seems like a simple point for you to dispute if you think you are correct no? But no, you'll bitch and moan about what a meanie I am because that's just how you argue when you're wrong. Pathetic. Naturally you'll ignore the rest of what I said, doesn't fit your starting conclusion so you cannot process it.
I did look it up, and, if I have the right one, the year was 1987, the system was Medicaid, the state was Oregon, and it was a 7 year old child denied a bone marrow transplant. I’m on an iPad right now, that should be enough for you to investigate.
The point of the example was, in America, people will use other methods when denied services because of rationing and decisions that must be made.
So not universal healthcare then, just another example of the broken system in the US where the kid had no insurance. Like every other insurer medicaid had a list of things it would and wouldn't pay for, in that case randomly truncated by the legislature. If he'd had private insurance that refused to cover the only difference would be that you'd never have heard about it. You seem to have somehow picked up the false idea that rationing is something that can't happen with private insurance. Read what I wrote before you went off on your usually whinefest.
So there it is. I can’t imagine what is wrong with you that you must converse the way you do?
It is in response to you conversing like you do, it's very tedious. You ignore most of what is said to you and incessantly whine about tone. I guess you're just anti-british huh?
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 amSo a case you can't recall in a state level universal healthcare system which never existed. Sure.
If billy the infant needed a heart transplant over here, cost wouldn't be a relevant factor. The doctors get their salaries and the patient gets no bill. Simples. Decisions about cost benefit analysis for whether a treatment should be offered in the NHS as a whole are made by an independent agency called NICE. Their published decisions are subject to judicial review. If a treatment is approved, like heart transplants are, then it's a decision for the patient's doctor who has no interest in how much it's going to cost the NHS or how much the patient has already cost the NHS. Compare that to rationing in the US system with insurers making the decisions about what is covered in private, judicial review replaced by suing them, lifetime spending caps, and a decision making body with an interest in the cost of an individual patient and trying to maximise their profit.
Yes. I lied. I made the whole thing up because you’re that important to me.
You lied or you got it wrong, no state has had universal healthcare. Seems like a simple point for you to dispute if you think you are correct no? But no, you'll bitch and moan about what a meanie I am because that's just how you argue when you're wrong. Pathetic. Naturally you'll ignore the rest of what I said, doesn't fit your starting conclusion so you cannot process it.
I did look it up, and, if I have the right one, the year was 1987, the system was Medicaid, the state was Oregon, and it was a 7 year old child denied a bone marrow transplant. I’m on an iPad right now, that should be enough for you to investigate.
The point of the example was, in America, people will use other methods when denied services because of rationing and decisions that must be made.
So not universal healthcare then, just another example of the broken system in the US where the kid had no insurance. Like every other insurer medicaid had a list of things it would and wouldn't pay for, in that case randomly truncated by the legislature. If he'd had private insurance that refused to cover the only difference would be that you'd never have heard about it. You seem to have somehow picked up the false idea that rationing is something that can't happen with private insurance. Read what I wrote before you went off on your usually whinefest.
So there it is. I can’t imagine what is wrong with you that you must converse the way you do?
It is in response to you conversing like you do, it's very tedious. You ignore most of what is said to you and incessantly whine about tone. I guess you're just anti-british huh?
Your behavior is yours. It's not limited to me, and it's not because of me, or others. You don't beat your wife because of what she does, you beat her because that's what you do.
No, I know rationing will happen in all systems. The original point, lost way up the page, was that Americans are apt to use legal and PR means to combat it. And I don't believe our government will have the fortitude to withstand such an onslaught. Not to mention corruption of political officials and a massive insurance lobby.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:00 amSo a case you can't recall in a state level universal healthcare system which never existed. Sure.
If billy the infant needed a heart transplant over here, cost wouldn't be a relevant factor. The doctors get their salaries and the patient gets no bill. Simples. Decisions about cost benefit analysis for whether a treatment should be offered in the NHS as a whole are made by an independent agency called NICE. Their published decisions are subject to judicial review. If a treatment is approved, like heart transplants are, then it's a decision for the patient's doctor who has no interest in how much it's going to cost the NHS or how much the patient has already cost the NHS. Compare that to rationing in the US system with insurers making the decisions about what is covered in private, judicial review replaced by suing them, lifetime spending caps, and a decision making body with an interest in the cost of an individual patient and trying to maximise their profit.
Yes. I lied. I made the whole thing up because you’re that important to me.
You lied or you got it wrong, no state has had universal healthcare. Seems like a simple point for you to dispute if you think you are correct no? But no, you'll bitch and moan about what a meanie I am because that's just how you argue when you're wrong. Pathetic. Naturally you'll ignore the rest of what I said, doesn't fit your starting conclusion so you cannot process it.
I did look it up, and, if I have the right one, the year was 1987, the system was Medicaid, the state was Oregon, and it was a 7 year old child denied a bone marrow transplant. I’m on an iPad right now, that should be enough for you to investigate.
The point of the example was, in America, people will use other methods when denied services because of rationing and decisions that must be made.
So not universal healthcare then, just another example of the broken system in the US where the kid had no insurance. Like every other insurer medicaid had a list of things it would and wouldn't pay for, in that case randomly truncated by the legislature. If he'd had private insurance that refused to cover the only difference would be that you'd never have heard about it. You seem to have somehow picked up the false idea that rationing is something that can't happen with private insurance. Read what I wrote before you went off on your usually whinefest.
So there it is. I can’t imagine what is wrong with you that you must converse the way you do?
It is in response to you conversing like you do, it's very tedious. You ignore most of what is said to you and incessantly whine about tone. I guess you're just anti-british huh?
Your behavior is yours. It's not limited to me, and it's not because of me, or others. You don't beat your wife because of what she does, you beat her because that's what you do.
No, I know rationing will happen in all systems. The original point, lost way up the page, was that Americans are apt to use legal and PR means to combat it. And I don't believe our government will have the fortitude to withstand such an onslaught. Not to mention corruption of political officials and a massive insurance lobby.
I ask you the same question when you avoid a question. That's you. Calling you on your whiny schtick, also you.
You keep trying to draw some imaginary distinctions between how americans and everyone else behave. Challenging coverage decisions and going to the press about being denied some obscure experimental treatment are regular occurrences. You've just cited a case where the oregon government withstood a pr onslaught and let a little kid die to save money, so kind of hard to see what point you think you're making. Politicians are no more qualified to decide what treatments are necessary than insurance executives, that's why countries that do this right have something like NICE and totally remove it from the patient level decisions.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 8:47 pm
by VinceBordenIII
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 12:14 am
by AnalHamster
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 12:56 am
by Cassandros
To say lobbies are part of the problem --> is an understatement.
Corporatism is alive and well. We have people who run the HHS, FDA, and CDC (etc, it doesn't stop there) who are directly profiting from the very Big Businesses they are supposed to be watching over; and far too often, when their conflicts of interest finally get noticed by enough people they get a new job with said big business.
Double think is alive and well when it comes to the healthcare industrial complex.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 1:08 am
by AnalHamster
Private plans get charged double or triple what medicare does by the same hospitals.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 1:45 am
by VinceBordenIII
Cassandros wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 12:56 am
To say lobbies are part of the problem --> is an understatement.
Corporatism is alive and well. We have people who run the HHS, FDA, and CDC (etc, it doesn't stop there) who are directly profiting from the very Big Businesses they are supposed to be watching over; and far too often, when their conflicts of interest finally get noticed by enough people they get a new job with said big business.
Double think is alive and well when it comes to the healthcare industrial complex.
It’s a revolving door. For example, senior military officers deal with government contractors, who in turn hire retiring senior military officers. Government authorities move back and forth from private industry to administration jobs. A hard nut to crack.
Re: Looks like Canada is going to have to build a wall.
Cassandros wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 12:56 am
To say lobbies are part of the problem --> is an understatement.
Corporatism is alive and well. We have people who run the HHS, FDA, and CDC (etc, it doesn't stop there) who are directly profiting from the very Big Businesses they are supposed to be watching over; and far too often, when their conflicts of interest finally get noticed by enough people they get a new job with said big business.
Double think is alive and well when it comes to the healthcare industrial complex.
It’s a revolving door. For example, senior military officers deal with government contractors, who in turn hire retiring senior military officers. Government authorities move back and forth from private industry to administration jobs. A hard nut to crack.
Spot on assessment.
I wish there was an easy answer for the fix too, but there isn't one. To just pull the plug on any industrial complex is to drastically affect the lives of thousands, if not millions of people.
No one in power is going to pull that trigger- even if, in the long run, hundreds of millions of people would be better off for it.
