[CO2emission]

Just to introduce another complexity. Doctors are currentlythe gate keepers of health care. Their conlicts of interests are far and wide. Can you create a "treatable" epidemic of erectile dysfunction and not be able to treat malaria. Do you think they want to let go of paying punters?
As an adjunct to our universal health care system in Oz, the government has recognised the expertise of nurses and that in many instances, it is beyond doctors. The government after wide consultation with nurses, is drawing up policies that will allow nurses and other health care professionals to be the first and if appropriate, intermediate and the last port of call for patients. This will free up the doctors to get on with their waiting lists and reduce the cost of health care.
Universal health care is great but the main obstacle for its success is those that wield the most power. God forbid that doctors are held accountable for ordering unnecessary investigations, over treating and overprescribing. Embedded in the meaning of the word universal is health care by key stake holders including the patients.
Think carefully about who you vote for in the coming months guys.

[kjetski]

Originally Posted by sharona97

great question K:

Those less fortunate already have their struggles within themselves, then the struggles to receive help through govertment-supported beauracratic mess halls.

My concern is if there are programs avaiable that you must qualify for to receive any govertment help, what happens to those who don't qualify? They become sicker or die.

I especially worry about the mentally disadvantaged, or the folks of addiction.

In corporate America it seems that when exposed by their internal problems, our govertment bails them out. Sure some go to prison. But in healthcare with these challenged sick people, many go to the grave.

Right.

In any healthcare system people will fall through the cracks. They always have and always will. Cash payments can be as simple as filing a tax return. It does not have to be complex.

[kjetski]

Originally Posted by sharrie

Not so sure I would agree, there has been a massive amount of healthcare reform in the UK in the past 7 years not all good but significant progress has been made in many area.

I think that in view of the fact that there is more up to date evidence out there you could at least give something other than outdated facts

• <LI class=first>Comments (-)
• Add to My Stories

Hospital waiting times are longer than under the Conservatives, despite £90billion being ploughed into the health service this year alone.
The average wait for treatment in hospital is now 49 days, up from 41 days in 1997, the year Labour took power with a promise to "save the NHS".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...nvestment.html

Click on the link for further dismal news.

[Ludlow]

Originally Posted by sharona97

great question K:

Those less fortunate already have their struggles within themselves, then the struggles to receive help through govertment-supported beauracratic mess halls.

My concern is if there are programs avaiable that you must qualify for to receive any govertment help, what happens to those who don't qualify? They become sicker or die.

I especially worry about the mentally disadvantaged, or the folks of addiction.

In corporate America it seems that when exposed by their internal problems, our govertment bails them out. Sure some go to prison. But in healthcare with these challenged sick people, many go to the grave.

You make a good point Sharon97 that when corporations need bailing out, like Bear Sterns and Indybank and many more to come, free market people are all for socialized solutions. Let the public bail them out. But when we say it's the right thing to do to provide health care for all in America they moan and complain.

[HM2Viking]

Education has been defined as a constitutional right by each of the states within their constitutions.

I think that there is a real movement afoot to define health care at the state level in much the same way.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by kjetski

There are also extensive waiting times for elective surgeries at public hospitals. Although waiting lists for the most urgent elective surgery for heart disease and cancer are almost nonexistent, there are long waiting lists for orthopedic surgery (median wait for total hip replacement is 88 days; 10% of patients waited over 345 days in 1999 to 2000), and cataract surgery (median is 73 days; 10% waited more than 316 days). One of the attractions of health insurance is the ability to bypass public hospital waiting lists.

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/h...Australia.html

Oz is comparable to other western nations as to the expenditure rate. I would have guessed 9% as that seems to be the norm for Western Europe, with some variance.

Qualitatively healthcare is healthcare. The doctors in the US, UK, Fr, West Germany, Oz, Bel, ect are all good. The key difference is spending. The US spends more and gets more.

In any event I advise anyone to read "Free to Choose".

The US spends more and gets less for its care. I have posted literally hundreds of links on other threads to reputable sources (Commonwealth fund etc.) that shows how we have worse care at higher cost.

Not much of a waiting period:



Funny how the NHS has better access to same day care than our system.

The NHS outperforms the US on overall quality.

...
People everywhere now understand what Friedman's kind of "freedom" means. America has been brutally coarsened by his success at popularizing this dictum--millions of innocents injured, mutual trust gravely weakened, society demoralized by the hardening terms of life. Most people know in their gut this is wrong but see no easy way to resist it. Friedman's utopia is also drenched in personal corruption. The proliferating scandals in business, finance and government flow directly from his teaching people to go for it and disregard moral qualms. When you tell people in power that their highest purpose in life is to maximize their own returns, there is no limit to how much "good" they will do for the rest of us. I don't recall hearing Friedman express any discomfort. Perhaps he regarded looting and stealing as natural features of capitalism that market forces would eventually correct.
This is what the memorials left out: the cruel quality of Friedman's obliviousness. Art Hilgart, a retired industrial economist, recalls hearing Friedman lecture in 1991 and recommend the destruction of Medicare, welfare, the postal system, Social Security and public education. The audience was dumbfounded.
Finally, a brave young woman asked what this would mean for poverty. "There is no poverty in America," Friedman instructed. A clear voice arose from the back of hall: "Bull!" The audience cheered wildly.

at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061211/greider

I think I'll take a social democracy over Friedman's world.

[ZippyGBR]

Originally Posted by kjetski

18 weeks for "electives" does that include stents? lol

'stents' for what?

there are many uses of stents in medicine and surgery?

the 18 week rule is not something which overrides clinical priority ... if you need a procedure as a matter of clinical urgency you will be in hospital within minutes to hours and have the procedure within days if not hours ...

you also have to remember that some of the 'waiting' patients are patients in general beds or on one tertiary speciality waiting for another ( e.g. a patient in a ortho or neuro bed waiting for a spinal injuries unit bed ... )

Inpatient waiting times

• The number of patients for whom English commissioners are responsible waiting over the 26 weeks standard for inpatient admission at the end of May 2008 was 42 (compared to the total of 535,000).

less than 1 person per english county / unitary authority...

• The number of patients for whom English commissioners are responsible waiting over 13 weeks at the end of May 2008 was 40,000, an increase of 2,800 (7.6%) from April 2008, but a fall of 72,500 (64.4%) from May 2007.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publications...tics/DH_085728

And that is straight from the NHS. 26 weeks!!!!

do we know what that is for ? no

26 weeks is 6 months ...

[ZippyGBR]

Originally Posted by sharrie

Are you really quoting data from 7 years ago to help strengthen your argument, of course nothing could have changed in the UK within the 7 years and government changes.

not how the OP didn't actually cite the paper and fails to appreciate that this was 4 years into the rule of zanuliarbour when the ecuses were all ready wearing thin ...

thorwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem especially if you increase the number of people taking a slice of the cake

[ZippyGBR]

Originally Posted by kjetski

• <LI class=first>Comments (-)
• Add to My Stories

Hospital waiting times are longer than under the Conservatives, despite £90billion being ploughed into the health service this year alone.
The average wait for treatment in hospital is now 49 days, up from 41 days in 1997, the year Labour took power with a promise to "save the NHS".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...nvestment.html

Click on the link for further dismal news.

the daily mail has a particular axe to grind , it views itself as a 'conservative ' newspaper but is veerring ever rightward and never lets the truth get i nthe way of a good story ...

[kjetski]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

The US spends more and gets less for its care. I have posted literally hundreds of links on other threads to reputable sources (Commonwealth fund etc.) that shows how we have worse care at higher cost.

Not much of a waiting period:



Funny how the NHS has better access to same day care than our system.

The NHS outperforms the US on overall quality.



at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061211/greider

I think I'll take a social democracy over Friedman's world.

Freidman is right of course. Destitute poverty has been largely erradicated through economic growth and a myriad of good programs.

Being poor in America means not having a 54 inch plasma tv. Being poor in Rawanda means choosing whether to eat worms, twigs, or locust.