It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

People who currently have their own private health care would not be effected. The plan in question would give care to those unable to afford it currently. It wouldnt effect the quality of care for who choose to buy their own. I don't think youve thought this out very well.


This has been debunked so many times that it is simply sad to see anyone still trying to use it as an argument.

The simple truth is that private health care would never be able to compete with a national government run healthcare system - due to devious design or pure economics - and would disappear. This would force everyone into the government run system.

And don't like the term "death panel"? Then please provide us all with a better label for a group of people (a panel?) that makes life or death decisions treatment decisions for people.

Waiting ...




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by gremlin2011
 


Extortionately priced medicine is entirely the fault of the greedy pharmaceutical companies who charge such outrageous prices. The NHS is great and the only people who are even mildy opposed to it are on the extreme fringe of British society. Healthcare is a right, it is a service NOT a business.
edit on 28-7-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)


so why cant we have goverment run pharma companies?

i wasnt slagging nhs off because they have been a help to me and my family and the docs work wonders

what im trying to say is that why shud somone suffer without medication because their local nhs helped some homosexual get his meat n two veg chopped off??

you want the op then pay for it yourself, why the hell they want it is beyond me



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Leading article: The wrong sort of NHS rationing Search the news archive for more stories * Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.


Seems reasonable.


* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work. *


Unfortunate, but hardly death. Still free to pay to see a private practitioner!


Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.


In other words, not for cosmetic reason on the taxpayer dime. Fiscal responsibility!


* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.


Again, entirely reasonable. Doctors often want to perform tonsillectomies and many other procedures) when not necessary. They make money that way.


* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.


Again, what is wrong with that, exactly?


* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.


Aren't we supposed to be seeking ways to ensure public institutions are not wasteful?

I think most of you didn;t even read past the headline.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds


And what about the UK people who paid their taxes and went along with the system there assuming it would be there for them if they ever needed it only to find out that now it isn't there for them?


Again, that is not how it works. I'm guessing you have never left the country, or your parents insurance?



Uh, the OP quite clearly is describing how it "works" - or doesn't as the case may be. Don't have to "leave the country" to read about it. Same as all of you that love to comment on what goes on in the U.S.



And since you were so quick to resort to personal insults instead of providing reasonable debate, we'll just take that as a measure of what you know about the subject.
edit on 7/28/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by gremlin2011
 


On that point I would agree with you, however my point was about the article you linked which looked at the reluctance of officials to buy overexpensive, borderline extortionately priced medications.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


And don't like the term "death panel"? Then please provide us all with a better label for a group of people (a panel?) that makes life or death decisions treatment decisions for people.


Oh, you are free to use the term. I merely find it humorous, considering it is a fiction. There is no one rationing life and death care. You are pointing out examples of cuts to things like cosmetic surgery and pretending it is the same as telling mom it's too costly to keep her alive. The IRONY being that CURRENTLY in America, people die because they cant AFFORD heath care. Which is ACTUAL 'rationing'.

Again, how long until you are off your parents insurance
edit on 28-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Its not the kind of illness/injury that the story is about, but it is the kind of illness that sucks the money out of the system that makes it necessary to ration hip replacements.

One of my best friends died of stage 4 brain cancer. When he was diagnosed and told he had an estimated 9 to 12 months to live. He was feeling fine at the time and would likely, per the doctors have about 6 months of pretty much a full life with managed pain. After that, he would decline rapidly. They then began to press him on treatments/surgerys and he finally relented and underwent 4 surgeys and a dozen of experimental drug treatments. Most of that time he was confined to a bed unable to care for himself at all. The doctor's claimed victory when after one of the procedures he would have a 3-4 week period of feeling better. Their sales pitch to have the treatments was nothing short if immoral and disgusting in my opinion.

He died 11 months later, exactly when he was told he would die. The estimated costs for the treatment he received during those 11 months? Just under $600K.

Thats why kids need to suffer through massively sore throats 7 times in a year before they get proper treatment.

Call it a death panel. Call it what you want. As folks are living longer and the treatments at end of life become more common and more investments are made by pharma to target those folks because of the growing size of the market, the worse it is going to get and some method of control needs to be implemented.

I'm not suggesting that the person not get the treatment should they want it. I'm suggesting that the general medical system should not be burdened by the cost. Does that mean that rich folks will get treatments that the poor won't? Yes. If rich folks want to put themselves through absolute hell, let them.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I don't think it is disgraceful in the least. If someone has a terminal disease, say stage 4 brain cancer and the best diagnostic analysis and prognosis determined by multiple doctors, ideally at multiple medical facilities anticipate the person to live between 9 and 18 months, why are we spending several hundred thousand dollars to prolong it to the full 18?

These folks (and I have personal experience here) do not spend the time with any enjoyment or pleasure. In and out of the hospital for surgery, or toxic treatments, lengthy recovery times with a few weeks of feeling decent only to have to go through it again. What happens? They die in 12 months, exactly when they anticipated he would die to begin with. Far better to make the person comfortable, manage their pain and let nature take its course.

The practice of throwing every known and experimental treatment at someone who has a terminal condition in some effort to prolong their life is not compassionate in the least. What it is is an experiment. An attempt to bolster the medical establishment's resume. If the medical establishment wants to use human beings as lab rats, putting them through hell, then they should pay for it and it should not burden the general insurance pools. Similiary if someone wants to subject themselves to that treatment they should pay out of pocket for the treatment.

Its not disgraceful in the least. Its humane


I hope there is a time when you realize how in-human you sound. When you are sick and dying and want another 18 months with your loved ones I hope they DON"T laugh in your face and pull the plug.

But the irony of that happening would be epic
edit on 28-7-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)


Just because the people you have encountered were not full of joy and pleasure does not mean it is the rule.

Wow, just freaking wow.
edit on 28-7-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I'm curious, what part of preventing people from having cosmetic or unnecessary surgery on the public dime is it that you disagree with?

It's funny how you try and criticize government spending as wasteful, and then point to cuts as something bad.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Being alive but sleeping most of the day, incontinent, unable to feed yourself is not being with your loved ones. Having several months with full facilities able to wind up your affairs and spend quality time with them is.

I won't have to go through the process. I have a very specific living will which stipulates that I am not to receive treatment of that sort.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Again, how long until you are off your parents insurance
edit on 28-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)


Since you are the one that is repeating the juvenile attempts at an insult, you first.


Got any (well) thought out opinions of your own, or still just repeating what your liberal teachers and talking heads have brainwashed you with? Hell, you were probably still in elementary school when I joined ATS.


FYI - my parent's health insurance paid for my mom's treatment right up until she died 16 years ago at the age 65. If you and the OP had their way, her death might have been 20 years ago, and have deprived us of her company for that intervening time. And I can assure you from being there that she was in no hurry to "get it over with" and would not have looked at one of your death panels as doing her a "favor" by withholding treatment.

1,000 X



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by centurion1211
 


It's funny how you try and criticize government spending as wasteful, and then point to cuts as something bad.


Please show us any government agency - no matter how well intentioned it was in the beginning - that has not become an inefficient monetary black hole, with employees that don't give a rats a$$ for the public they are supposed to be serving.

I'm saying that government is NOT the answer. That would cut both the spending and the waste.

You really think having a "nanny state" is the answer to all your problems? Go back and read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley ...



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan


I'm not suggesting that the person not get the treatment should they want it. I'm suggesting that the general medical system should not be burdened by the cost. Does that mean that rich folks will get treatments that the poor won't? Yes. If rich folks want to put themselves through absolute hell, let them.


The absolute fallacy of your arguments:

Except by "general medical system" you must mean government provided healthcare.

And many have already shown that a government healthcare system would drive private healthcare out of business.

And so it wouldn't matter how rich you were, because there would be no other source of healthcare besides the government's.

And aren't you straying from your own OP's subject - people losing routine healthcare procedures due to the government basically deciding the people weren't worth it? Maybe not "death panels" in this case, but I guess you could still call them "quality of life panels" ...

edit on 7/28/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


And aren't you straying from your own OP's subject - people losing routine healthcare procedures due to the government basically deciding the people weren't worth it? Maybe not "death panels" in this case, but I guess you could still call them "quality of life panels" ...


Did you even read the article? The only services being cut are unnecessary and cosmetic surgeries, which is fiscally conservative. You should be APPLAUDING these cuts that save the taxpayer money.

Your desperate attempt to conflate this with non-existent 'death panels' makes your claims comical.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by centurion1211
 


It's funny how you try and criticize government spending as wasteful, and then point to cuts as something bad.




You really think having a "nanny state" is the answer to all your problems? Go back and read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley ...


No, I am saying that your claims are bunk, and have offered numerous citations from the above article as proof. You are claiming that cuts to unnecessary procedures (like hip replacements for fat people, or cosmetic surgery) are comparable to 'death panels'.

You keep moving the goalposts of your initial claim because it is indefensible. Every subsequent claim you make is more absurd, and more removed from your initial attempt at a 'point' about non existent 'death panels'.

This article clearly outlines how these are very reasonable cuts made to wasteful procedures. If you read past the headline, setting aside your absurd, baseless fears, you would see that yourself.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
So here we have an example of fiscal responsibility-cuts to unnecessary services wasting taxpayer money, and you have so called 'conservatives' whining about it?

Tell me, who will die from not getting their cosmetic surgery?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by centurion1211


And aren't you straying from your own OP's subject - people losing routine healthcare procedures due to the government basically deciding the people weren't worth it? Maybe not "death panels" in this case, but I guess you could still call them "quality of life panels" ...


Did you even read the article? The only services being cut are unnecessary and cosmetic surgeries, which is fiscally conservative. You should be APPLAUDING these cuts that save the taxpayer money.

Your desperate attempt to conflate this with non-existent 'death panels' makes your claims comical.


More
's for you ...

Did you not understand the concept that if the government - any government - had not decided to insert itself into the healthcare business, having these kinds of procedures would be solely the choice of the individual and their responsibility to pay for.

No tax money or government decisions required.

We'll wait while you go ask someone in authority what to say next ...

Oh, and nice use of the word "conflate". Must have been on this week's vocabulary list.


edit on 7/28/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


By general medical system I include the private insurance market currently in place in the US where extensive amounts of resources are applied when the benefits are marginal. They are applied for a number of reasons, notably that the margins for providing them are far higher than routine procedures.

The reason premiums are so high and folks are denied insurance is because of the huge amount of resources spent, mostly at end of life.

Keeping folks alive when they have no quality of life is not humane nor economically reasonable. I have no problem with judgements being made by medical professionals and patient advocates regarding treatments. Whether or not you like it, with 10,000 people retiring a day and new treatments and drugs (with active patents) coming on line constantly the care will have to be rationalized at some point.

With the current model, whether or not the person has private insurance or medicaid or medicare, the cost of these treatments in no way comes close to the amount of premiums paid and the number of folks receiving those treatments is about to spike.
edit on 28-7-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The reason premiums are so high and folks are denied insurance is because of the huge amount of resources spent, mostly at end of life.



Again false.

The current high cost of healthcare is due mainly to over regulation and a "sue-happy" society driving up malpractice awards and therefore the insurance medical providers need to protect themselves.

source


Over the past decade, the average yearly contribution to even employer-sponsored plans has gone through the roof — up more than $1,800, as the table below shows. Why the upward spiral? We've outlined the top five reasons — and offer five expert-recommended ways to bring your costs back down.

1. Your doctor is freaked about getting sued
Experts call it defensive medicine. "Doctors often order unnecessary diagnostic tests, procedures, and therapies to cover their butts in case of a legal dispute," Caplan says. The more stuff your insurance company has to cover, the more it will pass those costs to you.

2. Your insurer pushes more paper than Dunder Mifflin
A third of U.S. health care expenditures goes toward administrative costs (Canada spends less than half that — about 16 percent). But that money goes to more than just reams of dead trees; it also pays the salaries of everyone from phone operators to top executives, as well as for claims processing and sales.

3. You're female
Research from the National Women's Law Center has found that when buying private health insurance, women have to cough up significantly more than men for identical policies. A 25-year-old woman, for instance, pays anywhere from 6 percent to 45 percent more. Insurance companies base the discrepancy on the fact that women are more likely to see their doctors. While that is true of women in their reproductive years, men catch up after age 50 — when they're the ones who become more likely to be hit with chronic problems such as heart disease.
But, as the government looks to overhaul the health care industry, we may see some positive change: In May, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts introduced a congressional bill that would prohibit insurers from charging women more just because they happen to be female.

4. Your insurer would rather pay to treat a disease than prevent one
Covering preventive care is low on most insurance companies' priority lists, even though doing so could help patients avoid serious illnesses and their complications — as well as their pricey treatments. "We pay for costly interventions like bypass surgery or chemotherapy to treat diseases at the back end instead of focusing on lifestyle changes to keep patients healthy on the front end," says Aaron Carroll, M.D., director of the Indiana University Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. Placing a priority on preventive care would also save billions: One recent report showed that investing just $10 per person per year in programs on exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation could save $16 billion per year in another five years.

5. Your doctor is paid for how much he does for you — not for how well he cares for you
Under the fee-for-service model that most health insurance plans use, physicians make more money with every office visit and procedure they do. That gives them a built-in financial incentive to push for more, though not necessarily better, health care, says award-winning journalist Shannon Brownlee, author of "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer."



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Funny how the same people who cry about non-existent so-called, 'death panels' have no apparent problem with people currently unable to receive ANY kind of health insurance, itself an actual, default 'death panel'.







 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join