One Question on Healthcare

[Mare Tranquillity]

Supply and Demand, these set prices in a Free Market. Are you under the impression that there is an unlimited supply of Health Care?

We have an unlimited supply of war, we could have an ulimited (or at least adequate) supply of health care because it's just a matter of what we spend our money on.

A single payer system would have less paperwork than the 50 different States and (how many?) insurance companies all operating independently to make a bunch of money off the public.

Post after post you denigrate other people's ideas, but as yet you have only said we should not have people being "forced" to share or donate or whatever. Why don't you tell us how you think this can be accomplished?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Glad to hear it wasn't just me. I was beginning to think that most people thought it was just the greedy insurance compnaies, big oil, and the banks.

It is all those people too, in fact the greed philsophy is practiced in its most extreme form by them.

 

[GenSeneca]

We have an unlimited supply of war

Are you trying to be a comedian or are you trying to have a serious discussion and just failing miserably?

A single payer system would have less paperwork than the 50 different States and (how many?) insurance companies all operating independently to make a bunch of money off the public.

You must have missed Scotty's comments on his countries single payer system. Actually, it's more likely you just completely ignored his comments because it's not what you want to hear.

Why don't you tell us how you think this can be accomplished?

I really cannot tell if you're intentionally trying to irritate me or if you actually have such a horrible memory that you forget every single statement I make on every subject.

I have said, repeatedly and in great detail, how the health care system can be greatly improved through the free markets but it's not what you want to hear, so you just claim over and over that I've never discussed solutions.

Now how about you try to focus on the topic. You can start by explaining how single payers system will reduce the cost of providing health care. If you think Single Payer can reduce paperwork, you should try to explain how that is possible in the real world and why that would reduce the cost of providing care.

 

[rationalist]

Go and read a book called the Spirit Level.

It proves that even Greece gives better healthcare the the US even though it spends a fraction per capita of what the US spends.

 

[The Scotsman]

Similarly, in Britain they had such an overflow of patients that they had to pass a law requiring that no one could wait for more then three hours in an emergeancy room to get service, so now they make them wait in ambulances till there is room in the emergeancy room. Thus their wait for emergeancy service could be as long as 6 hours whereas it is 45 minutes in the US.

There are things wrong in every single healthcare system that you can point to and criticise. What should be looked at (and what fails in the UK) is the effective and efficient organisation and planning for the WHOLE system. In the UK for example we tend to look at things along the lines of that wee dutch kid sticking various parts of his body in the dam hoping that he can stop the flood - Governments cannot and should not have a say in running critical systems!

 

[rationalist]

What, you mean like the utilitiies that used to be owned by everyone in the UK and dispensed essential products at prices everyone could afford.

Now they are owned by foreign companies and charge 10 x as much for the same product.

Only governments should provide esential services

 

[The Scotsman]

What, you mean like the utilitiies that used to be owned by everyone in the UK and dispensed essential products at prices everyone could afford.

Where do you get this concept of "ownership" from? I just pay for them through my taxes that does'nt constitute ownership, if I owned them then I would'nt have to pay for them! In effect I'm paying twice for the same thing!

All you got from public ownership utilities is Public Services being run by self-interested mandarines in labyrinthine style mega-administrations that only show inertia during times of imminent invasion from intergalactic scrap merchants!


Now back to Gensen's theme..........here's a doozy for you.........the NHS National Programme for IT

The NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT) is an initiative by the Department of Health in England to move the National Health Service (NHS) in England towards a single, centrally-mandated electronic care record for patients and to connect 30,000 General practitioners to 300 hospitals, providing secure and audited access to these records by authorised health professionals.

Originally expected to cost £2.3 billion (bn) over three years, in June 2006 the total cost was estimated by the National Audit Office to be £12.4bn over 10 years, and the NAO also noted that "...it was not demonstrated that the financial value of the benefits exceeds the cost of the Programme". Similarly, the British Computer Society (2006) concluded that "...the central costs incurred by NHS are such that, so far, the value for money from services deployed is poor". Officials involved in the programme have been quoted in the media estimating the final cost to be as high as £20bn, indicating a cost overrun of 440% to 770%

I guess I own this piece of junk then huh!!??

 

[rationalist]

I expected better from you.

The utilities are now owned by shareholders who demand dividends.

They were owned by the UK people and there was no need for big profits which now make the gas etc much more expensive but no better.

How is that better for old people living on a pension?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are things wrong in every single healthcare system that you can point to and criticise. What should be looked at (and what fails in the UK) is the effective and efficient organisation and planning for the WHOLE system. In the UK for example we tend to look at things along the lines of that wee dutch kid sticking various parts of his body in the dam hoping that he can stop the flood - Governments cannot and should not have a say in running critical systems!

Can anyone point to a health care system that isn't run by the government that provides health care to everyone? It sure isn't the US.

 

[The Scotsman]

They were owned by the UK people and there was no need for big profits...........

I'm not to sure how familiar you are with the history of the UK's Nationalised Industries so the best I can do here is assure you that there was no concept at any level of words like "profit", "value for money" or "customer". The UK was an industrial basket case - have you heard of British Leyland?

This concept and culture has to be translated to the NHS. Look, health care in the UK is.......well its adequate okay it offers you reasonable service if you live in the right part of the country. However, one has to ask the question whether government intervention is benefial in terms of the quality of the service provided - does the GBP54billion spent on actual front line heath services represent value for money considering the Department of Health's total budget is GBP119Billion?

 

[rationalist]

Leyland made cars

They are not essential.

Gas is

try answering the point

 

[The Scotsman]

Leyland made cars

.....you wouldn't have thought that if you bought one...

try answering the point

....interesting turn of phrase, okay I'll play for a moment.

The point my friend is contained in my previous posts along the lines that Governments are not the best perveyors of goods or services nor are they best at strategic planning which is what you need when running and funding a complex machine like a public health service.

Oh yeah and as for Gas - the best thing that the British Government ever did was sell British Gas - look up Centrica.

 

[rationalist]

And EDF (French) and nPower (German).

I know how the UK utility market works and the population now pays roughly 10 x as much for the same commodity which has a huge benefit to the rich.

And the gas industry did not suffer from any of the Leyland type issues and nor did water.

But now more people are in fuel poverty than ever before but a few businessmen from France, Germany and Thatcher's tory party are a lot fatter.

You are disingenuous

 

[The Scotsman]

I know how the UK utility market works and the population now pays roughly 10 x as much for the same commodity which has a huge benefit to the rich.

.......actually its about 3 times but then again most things here now cost at least three times as much as they did in 1986!

Anyway what's your point about how this refers to healthcare provision?

 

[rationalist]

My point is that certain essential services should be provided by the government to ensure they are available to all affordably.

People's health should not be something that is left to those seeking to maximise profits.

If you can't run a bank this way you certainly shouldn't be doing it in health