Single Payer Health Care: Livin the Dream! :: Free Realms

#31 May 20 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1651450735431

Sage

10,246 posts

Nah, last Wed. & Thurs. were slow. Today I only have 15 or so posts.

#32 May 20 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1651450735431

Sage

10,246 posts

Elinda wrote:

MoebiusLord wrote:

Just add U.S. names & organizations and change the dates to 2013. Budget considerations will become ever so much more important when deciding who to treat and when.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/19/nhs-hospital-waiting-times-longer

I blame Nobby.

It's no wonder he doesn't come around more to defend himself.

#33 May 20 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

I just kinda had to laugh at this bit though:

Quote:

The British Medical Association said the longer waits and fewer treatments were inevitable: "Given the massive financial pressures on the NHS, it was always likely that hospital activity would decrease and waiting times would increase," said a spokesperson.

Huh! Inevitable you say?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#34 May 20 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good

Elinda

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

MoebiusLord wrote:

Elinda wrote:

MoebiusLord wrote:

Just add U.S. names & organizations and change the dates to 2013. Budget considerations will become ever so much more important when deciding who to treat and when.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/19/nhs-hospital-waiting-times-longer

I blame Nobby.

It's no wonder he doesn't come around more to defend himself.

inorite. The Brits are in this pickles because of the Asylum.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

#35 REDACTED, Posted: May 20 2011 at 2:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you live in the US and want to avoid obamacare all you have to do is move to Pelosi' district where everyone received an exemption.

#36 May 20 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Quote:

The British Medical Association said the longer waits and fewer treatments were inevitable: "Given the massive financial pressures on the NHS, it was always likely that hospital activity would decrease and waiting times would increase," said a spokesperson.

Huh! Inevitable you say?

I NO, RITE? Almost as though there's some sort of global recession thingie going on, squeezing all manner of things.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#37 May 20 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1620001621130

Sage

9,435 posts

Doesn't help that the UK economy is rather isolated.

And I do believe we'd see less cuts to public funding if Labour was still in government. ConDem indeed.

#38 May 20 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

I've had to wait around 20 hours with a friend in an emergency room before she could finally see a doctor at the ER for a broken leg (she was insured, if that's relevant). Fucking unpleasant, it was.

#39 gbaji, Posted: May 20 2011 at 2:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Which affects publicly funded health care waiting times and privately funded waiting times in exact opposite ways. Can you noodle out why?

#40 May 20 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Can you noodle out why?

Apparently you don't have an answer, hence the cute leading questions in lieu of a real response.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#41 gbaji, Posted: May 20 2011 at 3:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh I have an answer. You're saying you don't know why? I'll give you a hint: It starts with the assumption that wait times are going to be a function of the quantity of "health care service" available relative to the number of people who show up at the door to receive it.

#42 May 20 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1620001621130

Sage

9,435 posts

gbaji wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Can you noodle out why?

Apparently you don't have an answer, hence the cute leading questions in lieu of a real response.

Oh I have an answer. You're saying you don't know why? I'll give you a hint: It starts with the assumption that wait times are going to be a function of the quantity of "health care service" available relative to the number of people who show up at the door to receive it.

Edited, May 20th 2011 2:22pm by gbaji

You know there are countries with public health care that pays better wages than the NHS, right? There's actually a significant number of doctors in the UK only catering to private patients because NHS pay is lousy and I don't think you can do both here.

My ophtalmologist in Germany actually had a walk-in clinic for public and private patients alike, and five days a week, made a lot more money than many NHS doctors do that way, and that was fresh out of university.

That's why I say I like the NHS, but there are better public health care systems out there.

#43 May 20 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Oh I have an answer.

I don't think you do. Playing "Do YOU know...?" is your usual game when you're stumped and hope we'll just be too embarrassed to admit that we can't figure it out. It never works but then you've never been considered a creative person. when you actually think you do know an answer (right or wrong), you're the first person to word-vomit eighteen paragraphs of crap so your silence is always telling.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#44 gbaji, Posted: May 20 2011 at 3:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not about doctor wages. That's a separate issue. I'm not talking about the base ratio of those things, but how that ratio changes when there is an economic downturn.

#45 May 20 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1620001621130

Sage

9,435 posts

I don't really see what you're trying to say - people affected by economic hardship are more likely to opt for public health insurance?

If that's what you're saying, that's the whole idea behind it. It's there to provide for people who can't go for the better option, and provides a baseline. A shoddy baseline is better than none, and I would never go as far as calling the NHS "shoddy".

#46 May 20 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

gbaji wrote:

Think about how an economic downturn affects the ratio of available health care versus number of patients showing up at the door to receive/buy it.

We all get how that works, the problem is that the reason we support public healthcare is to ensure everyone has coverage. Your happy place that exists because of economic downturns leads to people being uncovered and sick. An unacceptable situation.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#47 May 20 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Kalivha wrote:

I don't really see what you're trying to say - people affected by economic hardship are more likely to opt for public health insurance?

I'm saying that the existence of public health care makes the demand for health care less flexible than it would otherwise be. In terms of wait time, we're talking about non-emergency care. If people have to pay for their own health care, they will take cost factors into consideration when determining if they *really* need that care. When it's "free", they don't. So they'll continue to show up for their 6 month checkup which statistically isn't going to show any change, and in general schedule appointments for things which they might not need as often or even at all.

Which affects the cost (and resulting waiting time when cost is a factor) for everyone.

Quote:

If that's what you're saying, that's the whole idea behind it. It's there to provide for people who can't go for the better option, and provides a baseline. A shoddy baseline is better than none, and I would never go as far as calling the NHS "shoddy".

For many of us, it's a freedom issue. I'd rather have the freedom to choose when/where to go see a doctor for something (and pay for it myself) than be forced into a system where it's all paid for, but I'm stuck dealing with the yahoos who figure that if something is "free" they'd better get their moneys worth.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#48 May 20 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

Kalivha wrote:

I don't really see what you're trying to say - people affected by economic hardship are more likely to opt for public health insurance?

I'm saying that the existence of public health care makes the demand for health care less flexible than it would otherwise be. In terms of wait time, we're talking about non-emergency care. If people have to pay for their own health care, they will take cost factors into consideration when determining if they *really* need that care. When it's "free", they don't. So they'll continue to show up for their 6 month checkup which statistically isn't going to show any change, and in general schedule appointments for things which they might not need as often or even at all.

The difference is that over here is that they'll show up at the ER with a scraped knee, which leads to ludicrous ER waiting times.

Of course anything is "free" if you don't plan to pay for it.

#49 May 20 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Kalivha wrote:

I don't really see what you're trying to say

He's not trying to say something, he's trying to avoid admitting that he can't say anything.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#50 gbaji, Posted: May 20 2011 at 4:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh huh. It's an ubiquitous problem with only one real solution: Make people responsible for their own well being.

#51 May 20 2011 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent

Allegory

Repressed Memories

21,027 posts

gbaji wrote:

Uh huh. It's an ubiquitous problem with only one real solution: Make people responsible for their own well being.

What happens when they fail that responsibility and their failure also costs you money?