Privatise the NHS

[Meenzer 15716]

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you're the one with the nickname for me. Crap as it is.

Eff why pee

[manc-mag 1]

 

true enough like.

[Fop 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=544117

What a hypocrite.

 

He is, I agree.

Ah, the inevitable 'I know he is, but what am I?' Which is basically something you'd expect to hear in the first school playground. Not unexpected from you though following on from this:

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542499

Which is essentially 'I made you look, I made you stare, I made you lose your underwear'.

As Manc-Foplite is to me, I am to you.

 

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you're the one with the nickname for me. Flattering as it is.

I give names to all my padawans and/or stalkers. Only way to keep things organised, as you may eventually learn.

[Park Life 71]

Maybe Fop is the master.

[manc-mag 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=544117

What a hypocrite.

 

He is, I agree.

Ah, the inevitable 'I know he is, but what am I?' Which is basically something you'd expect to hear in the first school playground. Not unexpected from you though following on from this:

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542499

Which is essentially 'I made you look, I made you stare, I made you lose your underwear'.

As Manc-Foplite is to me, I am to you.

 

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you're the one with the nickname for me. Flattering as it is.

I give names to all my padawans and/or stalkers. Only way to keep things organised, as you may eventually learn.

 

No worries. Obviously doesnt scan very convincingly, but nowt new there eh.

[Fop 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

I do, but people don't like it (including yourself when you disagree).

 

 

But I agree with you here (I think). I stilll think you're vague on the main issue, fixated on small points that derail the deiscussion, sarky, unable to expand on a 'point' you feel you've made, unable to even clarify what you feel you might have already stated and generally argumentative. As you are in all threads you get involved with.

 

I enjoyed having a back and forth with Chez in this thread, he clearly believes in his opinion which I can respect even though it differs with mine, because he's willing to explain where he's coming from, doesn't dodge a question that's put to him and takes on board a well made opposing view.

 

Once it got down to tit for tat between you and Rents I pretty much lost interest.

But only because you disagreed with him.

 

 

Perfect example

 

Only what?

 

Disagreed with who?

 

See chance to start an argument with me and you're all over it no matter how tit for tat and utterly boring. (anyway amuse yourself for a few hours now )

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=544117

What a hypocrite.

 

He is, I agree.

Ah, the inevitable 'I know he is, but what am I?' Which is basically something you'd expect to hear in the first school playground. Not unexpected from you though following on from this:

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=542499

Which is essentially 'I made you look, I made you stare, I made you lose your underwear'.

As Manc-Foplite is to me, I am to you.

 

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you're the one with the nickname for me. Flattering as it is.

I give names to all my padawans and/or stalkers. Only way to keep things organised, as you may eventually learn.

 

No worries. Obviously doesnt scan very convincingly, but nowt new there eh.

 

 

See you are learning.

 

 

 

Well apart from the obvious.[/alex]

[Rob W 0]

This thread is an absolute gem btw.

 

Are you sure the old clique type aura doesn't spoil it?

 

 

Oh God - he'll be on about the Freemason's & the jews shortly...........

 

 

someone once asked me if I'd like to join the former but I've never had an offer to become "a rootless cosmopolitan"

[Happy Face 29]

US President Barack Obama is due to outline his controversial healthcare reform plans to a meeting of doctors in a bid to secure their support.

 

At the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA), he is expected to set out his argument for a public insurance programme.

 

Doctors, along with other groups, are divided over Mr Obama's proposals.

 

Health reform was one of Mr Obama's key election promises. Nearly 50 million people are without medical insurance.

 

Mr Obama is proposing a 10-year reform programme, estimated to cost about $1 trillion, that would make healthcare available to all Americans.

 

While many accept the need for some healthcare reforms, debate is raging over the details.

 

Proposed savings

 

In his speech to the AMA, President Obama will make his case for "a health insurance exchange where private plans compete with a public option that drives down costs and expands choice," a senior administration official was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

 

But many groups - including the AMA - have expressed concern that a public plan would have competitive advantages that would ultimately drive private insurers out of the market.

 

An AMA board member told a Senate panel hearing last week that the group "strongly opposes" a public, government-run insurance plan that pays physicians at the rates of the Medicare programme for the elderly.

 

Dr Samantha Rosman said the AMA is in favour "of a new option that is market-based and not run by the government".

 

President Obama on Sunday announced a further $313bn (£190bn) in proposed savings to help reform healthcare.

 

He said the savings - made by cutting waste in the Medicare programme and the Medicaid programme for poor people - would "rein in unnecessary spending and increase efficiency and the quality of care".

 

The money comes on top of the $635bn down payment on reform detailed in the budget proposal submitted to Congress this year.

 

The US spends more than $2 trillion a year on healthcare, although about 15% of the population have no medical cover.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8100605.stm

 

Completely bottled the economy and the "war of terror", let's see how he gets on with healthcare.

 

I'd have thought the money they've given to the insurance companies ALREADY would keep everyone covered, but it doesn't look like it.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Happy Face

[The Fish 10963]

Obama is just a poor mans Carcetti

[Guest alex]

Been done before Fish

[The Fish 10963]

Really? I thought I'd done well.

[Kid Dynamite 7169]

Nice to see the richest country on the planet is striving to get a healthcare system like ours.

 

Boils my piss when mongs whinge on that they had to wait 2 hours to be seen and reckon thats a sign that the NHS has gone down the can

[Fop 1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8100605.stm

 

Completely bottled the economy and the "war of terror", let's see how he gets on with healthcare.

 

I'd have thought the money they've given to the insurance companies ALREADY would keep everyone covered, but it doesn't look like it.

 

 

It keeps the insurance companies (and Chezzy ) covered. What more do you want?

[Park Life 71]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8100605.stm

 

Completely bottled the economy and the "war of terror", let's see how he gets on with healthcare.

 

I'd have thought the money they've given to the insurance companies ALREADY would keep everyone covered, but it doesn't look like it.

 

 

It keeps the insurance companies (and Chezzy ) covered. What more do you want?

 

You'd think a country like Ahmerica could afford FREE UNIVERSAL healthcare innit.

[ChezGiven 0]

I was at ASCO a couple of weeks ago and it was scary how political it was. The underlying theme for everything being discussed outside the science was healthcare reform from republican and democrat constituents. (very amusing to listen to an ex-Reagan administration aide defending the right of docs to make 600k a year and a democrat talking about the UK system as a beacon of rational healthcare ). One of the speakers said 'the reform is going through, its all being done in secret and once they have ironed out the details, it will happen and happen quickly'. Dont doubt Obama too much, this boy is taking on the medical and insurance industries face on.

 

I reckon one of my colleagues got it right when he tried to simplify the US system into one issue; all of the actors in the system are profit makers.

 

Taken by itself, it probably suggests that each one charges a lot of money to provide it's service but its more complicated than that. Its not the fact they make profit, its how they make profit that is the issue. Docs are paid on a fee for service basis, meaning that each time the doc says you need to have something, you agree with him and he gets paid from the insurance company. Therefore, they are incentivised to provide services with margins, rather than those that meet medical need. The example cited at ASCO was the use of expensive radiological imaging technology to track the development / progression of tumours. These imaging processes earn the docs thousands of pounds a year each, yet none have been shown to lead to better patient health. If they were incentivised to provide better patient outcomes, rather than being paid to perform activity as if it were some proxy for productivity, they'd be able to attain much more for much less.

 

Its the way you pay em, thats the trick.

 

To this threads orginal idea, public funding of healthcare is now even more fucked, we need to dredge up even more cash to offset the fiscal deficits in the pipeline. Of course at the same time ensuring that the costs dont runaway like in the US.

[Park Life 71]

I was at ASCO a couple of weeks ago and it was scary how political it was. The underlying theme for everything being discussed outside the science was healthcare reform from republican and democrat constituents. (very amusing to listen to an ex-Reagan administration aide defending the right of docs to make 600k a year and a democrat talking about the UK system as a beacon of rational healthcare ). One of the speakers said 'the reform is going through, its all being done in secret and once they have ironed out the details, it will happen and happen quickly'. Dont doubt Obama too much, this boy is taking on the medical and insurance industries face on.

 

I reckon one of my colleagues got it right when he tried to simplify the US system into one issue; all of the actors in the system are profit makers.

 

Taken by itself, it probably suggests that each one charges a lot of money to provide it's service but its more complicated than that. Its not the fact they make profit, its how they make profit that is the issue. Docs are paid on a fee for service basis, meaning that each time the doc says you need to have something, you agree with him and he gets paid from the insurance company. Therefore, they are incentivised to provide services with margins, rather than those that meet medical need. The example cited at ASCO was the use of expensive radiological imaging technology to track the development / progression of tumours. These imaging processes earn the docs thousands of pounds a year each, yet none have been shown to lead to better patient health. If they were incentivised to provide better patient outcomes, rather than being paid to perform activity as if it were some proxy for productivity, they'd be able to attain much more for much less.

 

Its the way you pay em, thats the trick.

 

To this threads orginal idea, public funding of healthcare is now even more fucked, we need to dredge up even more cash to offset the fiscal deficits in the pipeline. Of course at the same time ensuring that the costs dont runaway like in the US.

 

Good read.

[The Fish 10963]

See, why couldn't other things be explained like this to me? like Pakistan's internal politics or the Duckworth-Lewis method, or women.

[Fop 1]

I was at ASCO a couple of weeks ago and it was scary how political it was. The underlying theme for everything being discussed outside the science was healthcare reform from republican and democrat constituents. (very amusing to listen to an ex-Reagan administration aide defending the right of docs to make 600k a year and a democrat talking about the UK system as a beacon of rational healthcare ). One of the speakers said 'the reform is going through, its all being done in secret and once they have ironed out the details, it will happen and happen quickly'. Dont doubt Obama too much, this boy is taking on the medical and insurance industries face on.

 

I reckon one of my colleagues got it right when he tried to simplify the US system into one issue; all of the actors in the system are profit makers.

 

Taken by itself, it probably suggests that each one charges a lot of money to provide it's service but its more complicated than that. Its not the fact they make profit, its how they make profit that is the issue. Docs are paid on a fee for service basis, meaning that each time the doc says you need to have something, you agree with him and he gets paid from the insurance company. Therefore, they are incentivised to provide services with margins, rather than those that meet medical need. The example cited at ASCO was the use of expensive radiological imaging technology to track the development / progression of tumours. These imaging processes earn the docs thousands of pounds a year each, yet none have been shown to lead to better patient health. If they were incentivised to provide better patient outcomes, rather than being paid to perform activity as if it were some proxy for productivity, they'd be able to attain much more for much less.

 

Its the way you pay em, thats the trick.

 

To this threads orginal idea, public funding of healthcare is now even more fucked, we need to dredge up even more cash to offset the fiscal deficits in the pipeline. Of course at the same time ensuring that the costs dont runaway like in the US.

 

Good read.

 

The problem is the "nirvana" of private health care is no easier to get to than the "nirvana" of public health care..... in fact probably harder because you have to fight greed at every turn under a privatised system.

 

And "incentivising" (private or public) is easier said than done, if you're not careful you end up paying a lot more for a worse services (see dentists and GPs).

 

Any mass private health care systems would be a a load of crap within a decade, no matter how it was originally envisaged.

[Renton 22001]

I was at ASCO a couple of weeks ago and it was scary how political it was. The underlying theme for everything being discussed outside the science was healthcare reform from republican and democrat constituents. (very amusing to listen to an ex-Reagan administration aide defending the right of docs to make 600k a year and a democrat talking about the UK system as a beacon of rational healthcare ). One of the speakers said 'the reform is going through, its all being done in secret and once they have ironed out the details, it will happen and happen quickly'. Dont doubt Obama too much, this boy is taking on the medical and insurance industries face on.

 

I reckon one of my colleagues got it right when he tried to simplify the US system into one issue; all of the actors in the system are profit makers.

 

Taken by itself, it probably suggests that each one charges a lot of money to provide it's service but its more complicated than that. Its not the fact they make profit, its how they make profit that is the issue. Docs are paid on a fee for service basis, meaning that each time the doc says you need to have something, you agree with him and he gets paid from the insurance company. Therefore, they are incentivised to provide services with margins, rather than those that meet medical need. The example cited at ASCO was the use of expensive radiological imaging technology to track the development / progression of tumours. These imaging processes earn the docs thousands of pounds a year each, yet none have been shown to lead to better patient health. If they were incentivised to provide better patient outcomes, rather than being paid to perform activity as if it were some proxy for productivity, they'd be able to attain much more for much less.

 

Its the way you pay em, thats the trick.

 

To this threads orginal idea, public funding of healthcare is now even more fucked, we need to dredge up even more cash to offset the fiscal deficits in the pipeline. Of course at the same time ensuring that the costs dont runaway like in the US.

 

A major negative effect of the American health care system is over-medicalisation of benign conditions, as you allude to re: imaging. Americans tend to be very interventionist, preferring to treat conditions with a shit load of drugs when its not really warranted. It makes my job a lot harder as I have to interpret their guidelines and review papers with an extra large pinch of salt.

 

That's not to say their top end healthcare isn't excellent, because it is - if you can afford it.

[The Fish 10963]

Is it at all feasible for the Americans to shuffle closer to the "socialist" appearance of the NHS given a core of their voters read socialist and run for their rifle and ma's chewing t'baccy?

[Happy Face 29]

I was at ASCO a couple of weeks ago and it was scary how political it was. The underlying theme for everything being discussed outside the science was healthcare reform from republican and democrat constituents. (very amusing to listen to an ex-Reagan administration aide defending the right of docs to make 600k a year and a democrat talking about the UK system as a beacon of rational healthcare ). One of the speakers said 'the reform is going through, its all being done in secret and once they have ironed out the details, it will happen and happen quickly'. Dont doubt Obama too much, this boy is taking on the medical and insurance industries face on.

 

I reckon one of my colleagues got it right when he tried to simplify the US system into one issue; all of the actors in the system are profit makers.

 

Taken by itself, it probably suggests that each one charges a lot of money to provide it's service but its more complicated than that. Its not the fact they make profit, its how they make profit that is the issue. Docs are paid on a fee for service basis, meaning that each time the doc says you need to have something, you agree with him and he gets paid from the insurance company. Therefore, they are incentivised to provide services with margins, rather than those that meet medical need. The example cited at ASCO was the use of expensive radiological imaging technology to track the development / progression of tumours. These imaging processes earn the docs thousands of pounds a year each, yet none have been shown to lead to better patient health. If they were incentivised to provide better patient outcomes, rather than being paid to perform activity as if it were some proxy for productivity, they'd be able to attain much more for much less.

 

Its the way you pay em, thats the trick.

 

To this threads orginal idea, public funding of healthcare is now even more fucked, we need to dredge up even more cash to offset the fiscal deficits in the pipeline. Of course at the same time ensuring that the costs dont runaway like in the US.

 

A major negative effect of the American health care system is over-medicalisation of benign conditions, as you allude to re: imaging. Americans tend to be very interventionist, preferring to treat conditions with a shit load of drugs when its not really warranted. It makes my job a lot harder as I have to interpret their guidelines and review papers with an extra large pinch of salt.

 

That's not to say their top end healthcare isn't excellent, because it is - if you can afford it.

 

I've started seeing a worrying number of "ask your pharmacist if ..... is for you" adverts on UK tv. Most recently for weight loss pills.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Really? I thought I'd done well.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry541349

[The Fish 10963]

Great minds, plagiarism is the sincerest and so on and so forth.

[Renton 22001]

I was at ASCO a couple of weeks ago and it was scary how political it was. The underlying theme for everything being discussed outside the science was healthcare reform from republican and democrat constituents. (very amusing to listen to an ex-Reagan administration aide defending the right of docs to make 600k a year and a democrat talking about the UK system as a beacon of rational healthcare ). One of the speakers said 'the reform is going through, its all being done in secret and once they have ironed out the details, it will happen and happen quickly'. Dont doubt Obama too much, this boy is taking on the medical and insurance industries face on.

 

I reckon one of my colleagues got it right when he tried to simplify the US system into one issue; all of the actors in the system are profit makers.

 

Taken by itself, it probably suggests that each one charges a lot of money to provide it's service but its more complicated than that. Its not the fact they make profit, its how they make profit that is the issue. Docs are paid on a fee for service basis, meaning that each time the doc says you need to have something, you agree with him and he gets paid from the insurance company. Therefore, they are incentivised to provide services with margins, rather than those that meet medical need. The example cited at ASCO was the use of expensive radiological imaging technology to track the development / progression of tumours. These imaging processes earn the docs thousands of pounds a year each, yet none have been shown to lead to better patient health. If they were incentivised to provide better patient outcomes, rather than being paid to perform activity as if it were some proxy for productivity, they'd be able to attain much more for much less.

 

Its the way you pay em, thats the trick.

 

To this threads orginal idea, public funding of healthcare is now even more fucked, we need to dredge up even more cash to offset the fiscal deficits in the pipeline. Of course at the same time ensuring that the costs dont runaway like in the US.

 

A major negative effect of the American health care system is over-medicalisation of benign conditions, as you allude to re: imaging. Americans tend to be very interventionist, preferring to treat conditions with a shit load of drugs when its not really warranted. It makes my job a lot harder as I have to interpret their guidelines and review papers with an extra large pinch of salt.

 

That's not to say their top end healthcare isn't excellent, because it is - if you can afford it.

 

I've started seeing a worrying number of "ask your pharmacist if ..... is for you" adverts on UK tv. Most recently for weight loss pills.

 

Aye, it's an increasing trend and one that will be encouraged by the government if it gets people off their GP's back and forces them to pay for their drugs. I think the UK has one of the most open policies of letting drugs be sold over-the-counter. One a drug has been shown to be safe enough it tends to get it's OTC licence, but is usually marketed at an unproven or even subtherapeutic dose, which will do more harm through false reassurance than good imo (in the case of simvastatin for instance).

 

Orlistat (Alli) for weight loss is a funny one. It prevents absorption of fat, true, but also leads to horrible poos and frequently anal leakage. This is actually a good thing, as it really encourages users to adopt a low fat diet, which is probably accounts for most of its effect.

[Guest alex]

Not a patch on speed I bet.