Hurray for the British NHS: Patients are just *dying* to get on it!

[paulclifford]

>>>If you are a woman in the US you are more likely to die from heart disease than a man

That's true in the UK, too.

http://www.bhf.org.uk/research/stati...atalities.aspx

Case fatalities

Cardiovascular diseases are still a major cause of death in the UK.

In England around 11 per cent of men and 15 per cent of women who were admitted to hospital with a heart attack (myocardial infarction) in 2010 had died within 30 days.

In Scotland, case fatality rates were higher, with 12 per cent of men and 19 per cent of women admitted with a heart attack dying within 30 days.

And speaking "inequities", see:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...h-8281292.html

Heart disease deaths halve –but only if you live in the South

In one of the most dramatic improvements in the nation's health, deaths from heart disease have halved since the 1980s – but the gains have not been shared equally and the "health gap" between the wealthiest and poorest communities has widened among older people, researchers say.

A map charting the death rate from heart disease and stroke across England by electoral wards shows the stark difference between communities and between the healthy and wealthy South and the poor and sickly North.

Death rates are 20 per cent above average in the poorest wards and 20 per cent below average in the wealthiest wards, among men over 65. A similar disparity is seen for women over 65.

But how could that be? I thought the NHS was supposed to provide access that was both free and equal to everyone in the UK.

Or was that simply an example of the "good intentions" of NHS supporters with no basis in reality? Maybe things like "costs" are REAL and cannot be equalized among an entire population simply by declaring costs to be non-existent.

[Stavros]

But how could that be? I thought the NHS was supposed to provide access that was both free and equal to everyone in the UK.

Or was that simply an example of the "good intentions" of NHS supporters with no basis in reality? Maybe things like "costs" are REAL and cannot be equalized among an entire population simply by declaring costs to be non-existent.

And maybe it is just one of those things that a particular specialist in Cancer is working in Leeds rather than London, or that there is a world class cardiologist in Liverpool rather than Leeds; it happens that one cohort of nurses in say, Cardiff is more passionate about their work than another cohort in Swansea, that's the way it goes at times -'free and equal access' never meant that the quality would be the same everywhere all the time, the notion is absurd. There are reasons why the Scots have a diet which is considered more damaging to health than the English, the NHS is not responsible for that. If you were not so obsessed with utopian dreams, your arguments might be more cogent.

[Ben in LA]

What is the Republicans' alternative anyway? And why don't they vote on it instead of voting to repeal "Obamacare" 40 times, wasting millions in the process?

[paulclifford]

>>>'free and equal access' never meant that the quality would be the same everywhere all the time . . .

Ah! So in other words (and more honest words), those who can afford better quality health care, can access it; those who cannot afford it, cannot access it. Hmmm. Sounds a bit like the US system, except we don't lie to people by telling them that costs can be magically legislated out of existence. We also have significantly better medical outcomes for our patients than the UK does for theirs.

So, then, what precisely does "free and equal access" mean in the UK?

I'll tell you what I think it means. It means everyone has the same right to wait on line for months and years to get treated. And everyone has the same right to be denied cutting-edge drugs.

Fantastic! Who cares about actual medical outcomes! The important thing about the NHS is how a socialized system makes you feel when you tell a Yank, "Our government pays for healthcare and it's free whenever we need it. You have to pay for yours!"

[paulclifford]

>>>And why don't they vote on it instead of voting to repeal "Obamacare" 40 times, wasting millions in the process?

The main reason for repeal is that without it, Obamacare actually impedes any other kind of alternative.

In any case, I've already posted workable alternatives:

1. Repeal Obamacare (or, at least, defund it and stick it in a closet so it can't do any more harm).

2. Repeal the McCarren-Ferguson Act (which allows insurance providers to become monopolistic cartels within their own states, thus preventing competition from other providers out-of-state). Lack of competition always drives prices up; competition always drives prices down (as well as acting as a spur for innovation and improvements).

3. Abolish any federal and state regulations requiring insurance providers to "cross-subsidize" their policies. That means, YOU don't have to pay for MY chances of getting carpel-tunnel syndrome, and I don't have to pay for YOUR chances of getting HIV or lung cancer or bi-polar disorder.

4. Abolish all restrictions on increasing the number of medical schools in the country so that we can train more doctors.

5. Put a cap on malpractice suits. Part of increasing the number of doctors is to increase the attractiveness of the profession.

These are just a modest start, but they would do more in a year to provide more high-quality medical care to more people than forcing them to pay penalties, additional taxes, "mandates", etc.

This is old news, however, known to every economist who's studied the issue. Unfortunately, economic analysis and logic are no match for the argument, "I need, I want, I deserve, therefore my neighbor is obligated to give it to me." People don't turn down something they have been conditioned to believe is "free."

[Prospero]

Clifford - you spout total prejudiced lies regarding the NHS. I know of plenty of cases of people in the US who have been financially ruined because of the high cost of medical care there. And of plenty of cases in the Uk whose lives have been saved because of the NHS.

The pejorative us of Obamacare for affordable health care is a symptom - and your denigration of the ideas behind this when it is one small step on the road to a better system of health care in what should be one of the greatest nations in the world is disgraceful.

The energy you pour into your arguments is perplexing in this place. Which right wing think tank do you work for?

Your entire philosophy seems based on a hatred of provision by Government and you borrow from the most poisonous of sources to support your spurious arguments. Your labelling of Obama and those who aspire to create a better health care system in the US as marxist is simply childish and inane. Do you actually know anything about the true nature of socialism and Marxism. I think not.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=paulclifford;1376898]
>>>'free and equal access' never meant that the quality would be the same everywhere all the time . . .

Ah! So in other words (and more honest words), those who can afford better quality health care, can access it; those who cannot afford it, cannot access it. Hmmm. Sounds a bit like the US system, except we don't lie to people by telling them that costs can be magically legislated out of existence. We also have significantly better medical outcomes for our patients than the UK does for theirs.

-You seem to be struggling with the argument: people who can afford it, or work for companies who provide it, can get private health service treatment -the co-existence of a private health sector with a publicly-funded service was part of the deal the Attlee government made with the medical profession which insisted it retain its right to work privately. The fact is that most of today's medical professionals taking advantage of this right were trained in NHS teaching hospitals as part of a publicly-funded university system so the fundamental reality is that it is the NHS that has provided the foundations for health care in general in the UK. A solely privately funded health care system would not have provided the breadth of training or education that has emerged from the NHS.
-We do not make costs disappear as if by magic, you haven't been reading my posts with diligence.
So, then, what precisely does "free and equal access" mean in the UK?
-I didn't say it was 'free and equal' I said it was free at the time of need, which means that if someone gets knocked down by a bicycle and is taken to hospital to be patched up; or has a stroke and is treated in hospital, they are not presented with a bill for $X,000 after it. We pay for the NHS though contributions deducted from our salaries, while some people pay nothing at all -senior citizens, the unemployed, pregnant women, etc. It is not a difficult concept to understand.

The principle of equality is just that, and while it means there are cardiology, obstetrics and gynae units in every health district, the quality of care will be dependent on the staff, just as you might get better quality care for a heart attack in Seattle than in West Virginia.

We also have significantly better medical outcomes for our patients than the UK does for theirs.
Prove it.

I'll tell you what I think it means. It means everyone has the same right to wait on line for months and years to get treated. And everyone has the same right to be denied cutting-edge drugs.
--The NHS has never given patients access to all the latest surgical and medical procedures that come onto the market -in time it usually happens, perhaps your argument here should focus on the prices that the pharmaceutical companies charge for the latest drugs rather than scratching around for some other reason to knock the NHS. The cost is the same in the private sector.

Fantastic! Who cares about actual medical outcomes! The important thing about the NHS is how a socialized system makes you feel when you tell a Yank, "Our government pays for healthcare and it's free whenever we need it. You have to pay for yours!"
--Again, we pay for it, but we don't get charged per item; the costs are met from obligatory contributions along with income tax; and as far as outcomes are concerned, I pointed out that throughout my life the outcomes for me have been positive; the quality of my life would be poorer in every aspect. And yet again, you ignore completely the global linkages that outcomes of NHS research and practice has had with other medical sectors (an elementary aspect of science in the modern world), just as you ignore the fact that 'we, the people' want it, and believe it has made a profound -and profoundly positive contribution to life in this country.