Exposing the worlds great lie about socialized healthcare

finally someone expresses the crux of this issue:

One critical distinction generally lost amid the naïve but passionate backers of nationalized insurance is the difference between being insured and having access to care

How poor is access to care in socialized systems like the NHS? Access problems are so widespread that the government was compelled to issue England’s 2010 “NHS Constitution” in which it was declared that no patient should wait beyond 18 weeks for treatment.

At the end of June, the number of people waiting in England to start NHS treatment was 240,000 higher than the same time last year.

NHS England figures for July showed that 508,555 people in London alone were waiting for operations or other treatment to begin — the highest total for at least five years.

Almost 60,000 more patients were waiting for treatment at the capital’s 34 NHS hospitals than one year ago. According to NHS data released in August, hospital waiting lists soared to a five-year high, with almost 2.9 million patients with a known diagnosis in the queue for treatment.

In Wales, the number of patients waiting more than nine months for hospital treatment in November had more than doubled in six months. The Welsh government also reported their NHS is still failing to treat 8 to 13% of the most urgent cancer cases within 62 days – two full months after diagnosis.

Even given a laughably long leash of an 18 week standard

Though long proven by facts documented by the UK government and in scientific journals, these shocking waits for care, whether for specialist appointments, heart surgery, stroke treatment, diagnostic scans, or cancer care go virtually unreported by the U.S. media

All have better access to care and better treatment results in the U.S. than in the U.K., proven by studies in the world’s leading medical journals

And that cost still does not prevent a growing number of British taxpayers from looking elsewhere for medical care. About six million Brits now buy private health insurance, including almost two-thirds of Brits earning more than $78,700.

Finally, the system often heralded as the model for US health care reform, offers access and quality of care so poor that Britain is now experiencing a serious brain drain of their young doctors

The U.K. government is now considering sub-contracting operations to private firms from other countries.

Is anyone in the U.S. government watching this socialized medicine debacle unfold

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/03/exposing-world-great-lie-about-obamacare-and-socialized-medicine/

Not exactly on topic... but a tangent non the less. MEDICAID FOR ALL..!!

http://natmonitor.com/2014/01/05/medicaid-coverage-increases-emergency-room-visits-study-finds/

Please read your links:

A longer-term study in Massachusetts, which expanded coverage for its residents in 2006, found an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years.


What a silly thread. Medicare for all.......does that mean that people on medicare today are unhappy now? Why would any of the policy parameters change? It is simply a question of resources applied.

2seaoat wrote:Please read your links:

A longer-term study in Massachusetts, which expanded coverage for its residents in 2006, found an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years.


What a silly thread.  Medicare for all.......does that mean that people on medicare today are unhappy now?   Why would any of the policy parameters change?   It is simply a question of resources applied.

you simply do not understand what you talk about. no one can afford medicare for all. do you know that even private insurance companies don't pay medicare amounts?

it will be more like medicaid as pkr says, and the service will be like Medicaid service, slim.

sometimes I wish you were as smart as you think you are.   

Again, please tell me how miserable folks are on Medicare today, and how inferior their care is........it is not rocket science.

Seagoat isn't even making a relevant comparison. Romneycare only expanded medicaid for children... and er visits increased for several years after implementation then leveled off to static... blamed in most part by a lack of access which has been partially mitigated but remain an issue the last few years. Mass also reimburses for medicaid using a risk pool administered by the state... that has allowed more control and even cuts in those benefits and reimbursement.

The oregon medicaid expansion was done by lottery and allowed harvard the unique opportunity to conduct a double blind comparison with those not lucky enough to have won the lottery. But he knew that... there is no length he won't go to support and apologize for govt expansion.

2seaoat wrote:Again, please tell me how miserable folks are on Medicare today, and how inferior their care is........it is not rocket science.

I cant help people living in a unicorn world

You simply do not understand whats going on in healthcare today

I cant put it any more blunt than what im about to. You are a DUMB ASS sir

You wouldn't understand higher operations cost vs revenue = less care if it slapped you in the face like a limp dick on new years night. but you'll suck it. because the GOV told you too.

you so dumb LOL

Medicare for all will continue quality care and cut costs.....simple.

2seaoat wrote:Medicare for all will continue quality care and cut costs.....simple.

Lol... you must have rocks for brains. You can look at nearly every agency and program the govt runs for reasons why the govt should administer LESS not more of our lives. You aren't even bright enough to want full statistical disclosure/transparency of obamacare.

2seaoat wrote:Please read your links:

A longer-term study in Massachusetts, which expanded coverage for its residents in 2006, found an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years.


What a silly thread.  Medicare for all.......does that mean that people on medicare today are unhappy now?   Why would any of the policy parameters change?   It is simply a question of resources applied.

Where is the money coming from?

You ALWAYS seem to ignore that little triviality. Why is that? No, a Federal Sales Tax would not work, people know it would continue to climb just as the VAT taxes have in other countries.

If you want a "Fair Tax", fine. First repeal the income tax.

You aren't even bright enough to want full statistical disclosure/transparency of obamacare.

Yep......that is my problem.....not being bright enough to ask the score at the end of the first inning to determine who won the game......I can see your parents listening to you from the back seat........are we there yet......No little PK, we are taking you to that special school in California.......and we only have three days and 2000 miles to go........ten minutes later.......are we there yet.

a Federal Sales Tax would not work,

It would work in conjunction to slightly expanded medicare individual contributions about double the current rate. The sales tax would remain constant, but there would be four year rate changes in payroll deduction.....again this is not rocket science.

2seaoat wrote:You aren't even bright enough to want full statistical disclosure/transparency of obamacare.

Yep......that is my problem.....not being bright enough to ask the score at the end of the first inning to determine who won the game......I can see your parents listening to you from the back seat........are we there yet......No little PK, we are taking you to that special school in California.......and we only have three days and 2000 miles to go........ten minutes later.......are we there yet.

Your faith is strong comrade... an inspiration to all of the proletariat. Don't bother looking ahead... the road is clear.

What could go wrong?