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.
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.
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)
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.
* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work. *
Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.
* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.
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?
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.
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
Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Again, how long until you are off your parents insuranceedit on 28-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)
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.
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.
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" ...
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 ...
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.
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.
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."