Nhs

[oggbashan]

NICE fights the drug companies in the interests of the patients.

They push for clear demonstrations that expensive drugs have proven benefits that justify the cost. They set criteria for prescribing that have an evidential basis.

Patients sometimes think "It costs more, therefore it must be better". For basic over the counter painkillers that isn't necessarily true. A standard BP (British Pharmacopeia) painkiller such as soluble aspirin is usually as effective as a expensively advertised and brightly packaged branded aspirin.

As with all organisations, NICE sometimes gets it wrong. This time the internal dispute has gone public.

The point of NICE is to deliver the best, most cost-effective care to the whole population. Some of its decisions cause heartache because they deny, or make difficult, the prescribing of expensive drugs that have very limited value except for a particular stage of a specific condition when the public have been told (by the drug companies, of course) are the new wonder drug that will cure everything with no side-effects or contra-indications.

Prescribing drugs is not a win/win situation. Many powerful drugs have unpleasant side-effects and if prescribed for a condition that is not really appropriate, can cause more harm than good.

NICE isn't thought of as nice - but as a tool to manage the use of drugs in the UK it does its job reasonably. When it gets it wrong, the medical establishment are not reticent about challenging NICE through the media.

Og

 

[Xelebes]

I wasn't looking for an argument, Auntie. I'm sure the NHS works just fine for y'all. I'm not sure recreating it over here will be as satisfactory given what most of the people here are accustomed to, but I guess we'll see.

So it's just change that is the issue?

 

[neonlyte]

Thank you R.Richard....Thas why I love the free press, a democracy and in specific, this forum.

Aside from the evidence, supported by your piece, that socialized medicine does not work, my opposition has always been ideolgical; I advocate a free market, not a controlled one.

Unfortunately, as I read DC, there will be some watered down form of socialized medicine passed into law and the administration will claim a victory and move on to other areas to infect with government madness and management.

Keep up the good fight, right will win out; you have to know that.


Amicus






edited to add: http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Fuck me, Ami! It's August. Dead Month. No News. It's when Newspapers have to make their own news.

The Telegraph - Right Wing Newspaper just a step short of Atilla The Hun Daily, but not as extreme as the Daily Male or The Bun (names changed to protect the innocent). Most UK newspapers report the sham of welfare claimants, back-pain being an unprovable cause of CLINICAL suffering used by many claimants to avoid working. Actual physical condition indicating the POTENTIAL for back-pain is thousands of degrees below the threshold of those claiming incapacity through 'back-pain'. You should be applauding such action by NICE - but you completely missed the point in a wild attempt to align yourself with other so called Right Wing Reactionaries skating on thin ice.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box - where does the patient go if the patient gets their insurance from the corporation they work for but they're not happy with it? Oh, that's right, they either suck it up and take whatever the corporation decides to offer, or they quit their job.

What about self-employed people with pre-existing conditions? Where do they go when no one will sell them health insurance?

No system is perfect, but the system we're used to in the USA has got to be one of the worst in the industrialized world. If you want to dress up a pig and call it pretty, I suppose that's your right as an American, but it doesn't say much about your comprehension of the real world the other half of us live in.

On the issue of competition, the rich will always spur competition, regardless of what the fear mongers from the right wing spin machine tell you. Really Box, there's nothing to be afraid of. Just let go of the propaganda and embrace knowledge for a change

It has been my experience that large employers offer their employees a choice of insurance plans. If an employee chooses Plan A and that HMO starts displaying signs of assholery, a shift to Plan B is possible. If Plan A gets to bad, the employer can drop them as an option. An HMO that grets too nasty eventually goes out of business. The same cannot be said of a socialized system, because they have no competition, therefore no incentiuve to be the best they can be.

Sefl employed persons with pre-existing conditions may have a big problem. As you say, no system is perfect.

I;m not sure what you mean by this: On the issue of competition, the rich will always spur competition, regardless of what the fear mongers from the right wing spin machine tell you Some people become rich through inheritance or being pro athletes or entertainers. Others make it by being so good at what they do that their services are in demand, and they know what competition is.

 

[freshface]

It has been my experience that large employers offer their employees a choice of insurance plans. If an employee chooses Plan A and that HMO starts displaying signs of assholery, a shift to Plan B is possible. If Plan A gets to bad, the employer can drop them as an option. An HMO that grets too nasty eventually goes out of business. The same cannot be said of a socialized system, because they have no competition, therefore no incentiuve to be the best they can be.

Sefl employed persons with pre-existing conditions may have a big problem. As you say, no system is perfect.

I;m not sure what you mean by this: On the issue of competition, the rich will always spur competition, regardless of what the fear mongers from the right wing spin machine tell you Some people become rich through inheritance or being pro athletes or entertainers. Others make it by being so good at what they do that their services are in demand, and they know what competition is.

The point, Box, is that rich people will be able to afford what they want no matter what system we have. Outlaw abortion? Nothing that a quick European vacation can't solve. Organ donor list too long? Indian hospitals will be happy to move you to the front of the line and help you buy your organ. Not a good candidate for a transplant? Doesn't matter if your credit is good. This isn't about health care for the rich. It's about health care for the rest of us.

And you're naive if you think that people really have a choice for health coverage. You take what your employer offers and are happy to get it. Plan A and Plan B are quite often the same plan from different companies. When you lose your job because your health expenses are too high, you start to see where the power really lies.

I've lived in Europe long enough to see that for the vast majority, their systems do work. The ones that I talk with are amazed at the inequalities of the American system.

 

[Liar]

I wasn't looking for an argument, Auntie. I'm sure the NHS works just fine for y'all. I'm not sure recreating it over here will be as satisfactory given what most of the people here are accustomed to, but I guess we'll see.

No you won't. Unless you, like, move to Britain. What's on the table and battling it's way through the US legislative branch right now is oh so far from recreating an NHS system.

It is and it will not be a single provider system. It won't even be a single payer system.

So fear not, brave bastion of Freedom and Apple Pie, the soul crushing communist menace of socialized medicine is nowhere near your precious gates.

 

[R. Richard]

Box - where does the patient go if the patient gets their insurance from the corporation they work for but they're not happy with it? Oh, that's right, they either suck it up and take whatever the corporation decides to offer, or they quit their job.

What about self-employed people with pre-existing conditions? Where do they go when no one will sell them health insurance?

I havbe worked for a couple of corporations where the employees were very dissatisfied with the health insurance plan. In one case,thecompany changed health insurance plans because of the employee complaints. In the other,the corporation went under.

 

[Liar]

I havbe worked for a couple of corporations where the employees were very dissatisfied with the health insurance plan. In one case,thecompany changed health insurance plans because of the employee complaints. In the other,the corporation went under.

Ah, but could one empolyee change his plan, if the others didn't want to? Can an employee say "I don't want that insurance plan. Add what you pay for that to my wage instead, and let me shop around for one that works for me"?

That's one part of the problem right now, it seems. Not enough consumer opportunity to put pressure on the insurers. Without that, there's no free market.

 

[R. Richard]

Ah, but could one empolyee change his plan, if the others didn't want to? Can an employee say "I don't want that insurance plan. Add what you pay for that to my wage instead, and let me shop around for one that works for me"?

That's one part of the problem right now, it seems. Not enough consumer opportunity to put pressure on the insurers. Without that, there's no free market.

An individual consumer would pay far more for the same coverage as a member of a group plan. Thus the basic idea you set forth isn't workable. More to the point, if an idividual left the group plan and either didn't get other insurance or wasn't really covered, the USA courts system would require the company to cover the wanderer.

 

[Handley_Page]

RR:

I don't like smokers, for two main reasons. I don't like being forced to inhale tobacco smoke when a smoker lights up. I don't like to pay for hospital care for a smoker dying of emphysema or lung cancer. People come from all over the world for treatment in our USA hospitals. Very few USA citizens go to foreign countries for hospital care.



I don't know about the 'States, but the Tax on cigarettes in the UK is enough to build a couple of seizable hospitals each year.
There is, IMO, a case to argue that the smoker has already contributed twice towards his medical treatment.

 

[R. Richard]

RR:

I don't like smokers, for two main reasons. I don't like being forced to inhale tobacco smoke when a smoker lights up. I don't like to pay for hospital care for a smoker dying of emphysema or lung cancer. People come from all over the world for treatment in our USA hospitals. Very few USA citizens go to foreign countries for hospital care.



I don't know about the 'States, but the Tax on cigarettes in the UK is enough to build a couple of seizable hospitals each year.
There is, IMO, a case to argue that the smoker has already contributed twice towards his medical treatment.

What about the contribution to those who suffer because of inhaling second hand smoke?

 

[trysail]

What about the contribution to those who suffer because of inhaling second hand smoke?

The risk and cost attendant to inhalation of second hand smoke has been vastly exaggerated.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html

 

[amicus]

]Fuck me, Ami! It's August. Dead Month. No News. It's when Newspapers have to make their own news.

The Telegraph - Right Wing Newspaper just a step short of Atilla The Hun Daily, but not as extreme as the Daily Male or The Bun (names changed to protect the innocent). Most UK newspapers report the sham of welfare claimants, back-pain being an unprovable cause of CLINICAL suffering used by many claimants to avoid working. Actual physical condition indicating the POTENTIAL for back-pain is thousands of degrees below the threshold of those claiming incapacity through 'back-pain'. You should be applauding such action by NICE - but you completely missed the point in a wild attempt to align yourself with other so called Right Wing Reactionaries skating on thin ice.[/

[/I]QUOTE]

~~~~

Usually, Neonlyte, you would have a valid point about the 'dog-days' of August, but not so this year as the new President and his programs are coming under intense disagreement, even within his own Party.

Regardless of the source, there is 'rationing' of medical procedures in all forms of government run health plans; almost by definition as the demand for all services increases when the cost is zero, and the service viewed as a 'right.'

Logically and practically speaking, when resources are limited, why give an elderly man or woman a hip replacement procedure when the resources could be directed towards younger, more productive citizens?

Someone else carped about the wealthy always getting better service, oh, duh, really? They drive Beamers too and you don't. What, ya wanna totally equalize income so that everyone drives a Yugo, or better yet from the 'green' perspective, pedals a bike?

I am happy to state and do so often on this forum, my philosophical foundation of respecting individual rights and liberties; which dictates a small government with small influence and a small budget.

The differing opinion on socialized medicine arise from different philosophies. You, and most here, it appears to me, are quite willing to sacrifice individual rights, liberties and preferences for a form of protected and guaranteed comfort.

Although I doubt you, or many on this forum who really are Socialists and want an entirely controlled society, will actually come out and say so, but that is your philosophical base. There is no compromise between free and slave, none and I think you count on people believing they can sacrifice just a little freedom for a little slavery and all will remain well.

It won't.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Richard
I havbe worked for a couple of corporations where the employees were very dissatisfied with the health insurance plan. In one case,thecompany changed health insurance plans because of the employee complaints. In the other,the corporation went under.

Ah, but could one empolyee change his plan, if the others didn't want to? Can an employee say "I don't want that insurance plan. Add what you pay for that to my wage instead, and let me shop around for one that works for me"?

That's one part of the problem right now, it seems. Not enough consumer opportunity to put pressure on the insurers. Without that, there's no free market.

Some people can do what you describe. When I worked for the State of CA, all employees were offered their choice of about five different insurance plans. When I got married, my wife had a better plan than any that were being offered to me, so I got on her plan. As a result of this, and as long as I could prove I was actually covered, the state started paying me an additional $140 per month because they were saving that much by not paying for my coverage.

In all honesty, I'm sure that not all employers offer that good a deal, but I believe some do.

 

[amicus]

No you won't. Unless you, like, move to Britain. What's on the table and battling it's way through the US legislative branch right now is oh so far from recreating an NHS system.

It is and it will not be a single provider system. It won't even be a single payer system.

So fear not, brave bastion of Freedom and Apple Pie, the soul crushing communist menace of socialized medicine is nowhere near your precious gates.[/

QUOTE]

~~~

Liar, you mock and demean that which most American's hold dear: Why?

You also disparage the difference between freedom and slavery, between individual rights and mass oppression. Why?

I, and many, hold that the Thirteen Colonies embarked up the most remarkable journey in human history; that of guaranteed rights and liberties as defined by our founding documents.

I have often wondered why America is so unique in all of past and present history and I suppose DeToqueville touched upon it early on.

We were and are separated by oceans from ancient Europe and Asia. It was an unique opportunity to forge a new way of life for man, sans Kings and Gods and Mafia(family) oppression.

American Patriotism or Nationalism, is far different then European or Asian varieties; we actually have a philosophical and economic system of which we have true pride and reverence.

Only about a quarter of the Colonists wanted Independence and were willing to fight for it...I suggest the same percentage holds true yet today and those self same freedom seekers will rise again, if necessary, to throw off the bonds of an oppressive government.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Usually, Neonlyte, you would have a valid point about the 'dog-days' of August, but not so this year as the new President and his programs are coming under intense disagreement, even within his own Party.

Well, the report was in a UK magazine. As far as I can see, there's pretty much northing going on there at the moment except swine flu.

Although I doubt you, or many on this forum who really are Socialists and want an entirely controlled society, will actually come out and say so, but that is your philosophical base. There is no compromise between free and slave, none and I think you count on people believing they can sacrifice just a little freedom for a little slavery and all will remain well.

This is the line you consistently tout, and the main philosophical principle is sound. But where I seem to always run into a brick wall and be disregarded as one of those "socialist" you see lurking in every shadow, is when I try to explain to you the self-stalling mechanisms of an unregulated market. The best product does not nessecarily get the biggest market share and the biggest business success. The best strategy does, and what resources a company can devote to said strategy. Intelligent regulation and good market inteferrence is there to ensure that consumers are not deprived of the better mouse trap. That's what you see in most European Social Democracies today. It's not a control economy, it's an enhanced competition economy ,designed so that powerful companies can't consolidate too much of the market.

(And a little bit of welfare on top, I'm not denying that. But in general, it seems to do the market place good. Serves it with a healthy and educated work force, and an efficient infrastructure at a reasonable price. Financially reasonable, if not philosophically.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

The risk and cost attendant to inhalation of second hand smoke has been vastly exaggerated.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html

It probably is exaggerated, but it does exist. Did you know that the organization for which this doctor speaks is largrely funded by tobacco companies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

That does not make them liars, but it does make them suspect. Especially when you consider what tobacco smoke can do to an athsmatic, or person with a similar problem.

 

[Liar]

Liar, you mock and demean that which most American's hold dear: Why?

No, I mock your exaggerated fear that your country is about to become a new Soviet state. You are far, far from any actual socialism over there, my friend.

You also disparage the difference between freedom and slavery, between individual rights and mass oppression. Why?

No. You try to smear me with claims that I do, instead of actually trying to understand what I say. There's a difference.

(What do I say? Among other things, that unregulated markets does not nessecarily serve the purpose of increasing the individual's freedom. There is indeed a big risk that it lessens the consumer's options and ability to control their choices.)

I could just as well say: Amicus, you ignore the inherit goodness of man and our natural behaviour as a social animal. Why?

It wouldn't be true. But I can say it. And be just as disingenous.

 

[Liar]

Some people can do what you describe. When I worked for the State of CA, all employees were offered their choice of about five different insurance plans. When I got married, my wife had a better plan than any that were being offered to me, so I got on her plan. As a result of this, and as long as I could prove I was actually covered, the state started paying me an additional $140 per month because they were saving that much by not paying for my coverage.

In all honesty, I'm sure that not all employers offer that good a deal, but I believe some do.

Psst box, you better not mention too loud that you got all that freedom of choice from a GOVERNMENT employer. Some might fall off a high horse and break something. Who knows if they're insured.

 

[TE999]

No you won't. Unless you, like, move to Britain. What's on the table and battling it's way through the US legislative branch right now is oh so far from recreating an NHS system.

It is and it will not be a single provider system. It won't even be a single payer system.

So fear not, brave bastion of Freedom and Apple Pie, the soul crushing communist menace of socialized medicine is nowhere near your precious gates.

Works for me.

 

[trysail]

It probably is exaggerated, but it does exist. Did you know that the organization for which this doctor speaks is largrely funded by tobacco companies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute ...

I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source for that kind of information for the simple reason that its collaborative authorship easily permits the insertion of politically-motivated and occasional ill-informed opinions. As Wikipedia's own evaluation of its accuracy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_Wikipedia ) states, it should be considered a "tertiary source." In my experience, there are far too many false or unproven assertions made that are based on doubtful facts, poorly reseached or non-existant funding sources or relationships. In the absence of detailed knowledge of the source and extent of an organization's revenue, it is next-to-impossible for external laymen to construct truly informed opinions. Beyond that, my experience is that many of the external critics who make these charges are unqualified as financial analysts and have an axe to grind.

In short, I am willing to entertain Wikpedia as a potential source of information ( subject to fact-checking and the application of common sense ) but I do not consider all of its content authoritative.

 

[amicus]

Well, the report was in a UK magazine. As far as I can see, there's pretty much northing going on there at the moment except swine flu.

This is the line you consistently tout, and the main philosophical principle is sound. But where I seem to always run into a brick wall and be disregarded as one of those "socialist" you see lurking in every shadow, is when I try to explain to you the self-stalling mechanisms of an unregulated market. The best product does not nessecarily get the biggest market share and the biggest business success. The best strategy does, and what resources a company can devote to said strategy. Intelligent regulation and good market inteferrence is there to ensure that consumers are not deprived of the better mouse trap. That's what you see in most European Social Democracies today. It's not a control economy, it's an enhanced competition economy ,designed so that powerful companies can't consolidate too much of the market.

(And a little bit of welfare on top, I'm not denying that. But in general, it seems to do the market place good. Serves it with a healthy and educated work force, and an efficient infrastructure at a reasonable price. Financially reasonable, if not philosophically.)[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar...if I may address your commentary and not you personally as I neither know nor care from whence your ideas sprout.

"...is when I try to explain to you the self-stalling mechanisms of an unregulated market..."

I am unfamiliar with the 'self stalling mechanisms' you refer to and since Economics was one of my degrees, I do not say this lightly. I also prefer to use the terminology, 'free market" as your term is pejorative, somewhat like 'pro abortion' rather than 'pro choice'.

There are, however, both business and market cycles that occur naturally as inventory and supply do not always match demand and consumption.

The best strategy does, and what resources a company can devote to said strategy. Intelligent regulation and good market inteferrence is there to ensure that consumers are not deprived of the better mouse trap.

If people had the slightest real world experience with economics on a grand scale, say that of the United States, they would realize that only a free market can truly meet the demand when the Orange crop in Florida is frosted out or the Herring stop running in the Pacific off Los Angeles.

By the time the bureaucracy even knows there is a problem it is too late for 'intelligent regulation' or 'market interference', as cause and effect in the marketplace has far too many variables for even a super computer to calculate.

Advocating human individual freedom is not 'touting' any system of politics, economics or philosophy, it is the recognition that human individual freedom is the quintessential foundation for all that follows.

All attempts to control, manage, regulate, restrict the actions of human individuals causes suffering and loss and benefits only those parasites that live off the productive ability of others.

Ensuring that individual humans can express their choice as to how they live their lives is synonymous with the life of a company or a nation. The only legitimate function of government is to protect those rights from foreign and domestic enemies that would violate those rights.

Tinkering with the life of an individual is akin to tinkering with the economic system of a nation, it will bring about only disaster and rebellion.

Keynsian economics is like modern global warming; based on models and speculation without any real knowledge of the variables that pertain.

As I said, I prefer to address the subject of your post and not you, but I am curious and have been for some time, that inability of most on this forum to take a firm, absolute stand on anything.

I have come to attribute that characteristic as a symptom of a generation and their offspring, that, following world war two, wanted never to permit an 'absolute' dictator, like Hitler or Stalin, arise again; thus, no absolutes. On a metaphysical level, I see the loss of faith in a deity as the key factor in the lack of moral absolutes and the inability of those who claim relativism, to define the reality of the terms, good and evil.

Well, such as it is...



Amicus

 

[R. Richard]

I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source for that kind of information for the simple reason that its collaborative authorship easily permits the insertion of politically-motivated and occasional ill-informed opinions. As Wikipedia's own evaluation of its accuracy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_Wikipedia ) states, it should be considered a "tertiary source." In my experience, there are far too many false or unproven assertions made that are based on doubtful facts, poorly reseached or non-existant funding sources or relationships. In the absence of detailed knowledge of the source and extent of an organization's revenue, it is next-to-impossible for external laymen to construct truly informed opinions. Beyond that, my experience is that many of the external critics who make these charges are unqualified as financial analysts and have an axe to grind.

In short, I am willing to entertain Wikpedia as a potential source of information ( subject to fact-checking and the application of common sense ) but I do not consider all of its content authoritative.

OK, how about the American Medical Association?

AMA Secondhand Smoke Initiative
Download Free Podcasts

Secondhand smoke is a major contributor to respiratory and heart disease. Even low levels of exposure have a negative health effect. It is particularly harmful to children, especially those with asthma or an existing respiratory problem. Despite the fact that secondhand smoke exacerbates or results in disease, physicians do not regularly address it in office visits. Inner city medical practices are especially challenged to find the time and resources to counsel parents and families.

The American Medical Association (AMA), with cooperative agreements from the Environmental Protection Agency, is implementing an initiative to increase physician counseling on secondhand smoke to reduce children’s exposure. The initiative focuses on providing physicians and other health care providers with the tools they need to overcome practice-based barriers and offer families advise on how to protect their children and themselves from secondhand smoke exposure.

As part of this initiative, the AMA has produced five informational podcasts to offer a brief overview about secondhand smoke and advice on how to address it with parents in the clinic setting. If you have any questions about the secondhand smoke initiative, contact Janet Williams at (312) 464-5073. Once you have listened to the podcast, we ask that you fill out the brief evaluation form. Your feedback is extremely valuable to us.

 

[amicus]

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/secondhand-smoke-air-quality-test.html

Secondhand smoke air quality test results measuring nicotine cited by the British Medical Journal.....proves secondhand smoke is not a health hazard

Gee, I like that so much I may adopt it!



Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Although the writer of that article is described as an MD, I am unsure how much medicine he practices. You can google his name, and it will connect you with this organization that is financed largely by tobacco companies.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute#Funding

I don't know how reliable this source is, but I also don't know how reliable Jerome Arnett, MD is.