This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Single payer on trial in Great Britain

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest
Whether you are for socialized medicine or not, this case will probably make you tear up if you have any conscience.  If Britain's decisions on stripping a parental right to make decisions about your child's healthcare are indicative of what a single payer medical system would be like in this nation, I don't want anything to do with it at all. The Brits even refused the offer to bring Charlie to the United States (via President Trump) to try and help his situation saying that pretty much he would not get better, regardless.  That irks me. It should be the decision of the parents to do what they want with their child and not the decision of the government. Again, this is p---poor governmental interference at best. Again, if this is the end game here for medicine, we are screwed royally.  Your worth will be determined on your viability in growing up or for old folks, your life worth will be determined on whether or not you should get end of life health care or the costs be shifted elsewhere if money can be saved. Single payer isn't about money saved either or it would not be a choice as it will be very costly. Anyhow, read about how the British death panels have sent Charlie to a hospice, refusing the parents even the right to take their child home, before he dies. Sad.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/charlie-gard-to-be-moved-to-hospice-to-die-british-judge-rules/ar-AAoOuld?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp


The baby will die. The parents are in anguish, and I feel their pain. Don't try to make this political.

View user profile
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

Obese people will be routinely refused operations across the NHS, health service bosses have warned, after one authority said it would limit procedures on an unprecedented scale.

Hospital leaders in North Yorkshire said that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above – as well as smokers – will be barred from most surgery for up to a year amid increasingly desperate measures to plug a funding black hole. The restrictions will apply to standard hip and knee operations.

The decision, described by the Royal College of Surgeons as the “most severe the modern NHS has ever seen”, led to warnings that other trusts will soon be forced to follow suit and rationing will become the norm if the current funding crisis continues.

Chris Hopson, the head of NHS Providers, which represents acute care, ambulance and community services, said: “I think we are going to see more and more decisions like this.

“It’s the only way providers are going to be able to balance their books, and in a way you have to applaud their honesty. You can see why they’re doing this – the service is bursting at the seams.”

The announcement is the latest in a series of setbacks for patients who are facing rolling strikes by junior doctors that threaten to cripple the health service as winter approaches.

View user profile
Triage. I was trained since I was 12 to prioritize a first aid event by the nature of injury. A judgment as to who needed treatment first and the amount of time expended. Hacksaw ridge is not on HBO which shows a new medic getting yelled at by the more experienced medics for trying to save everyone. It is a noble goal, but there was only so much plasma, so much morphine, and some people would simply not survive the night.

Any system of health care must prioritize. A society must prioritize compassion versus the limits of a budget. I am dying of cancer, and the end of life costs for people over 65 years of age is putting increasing pressure on our health care system as the population bubble of babyboomers become ill and die. I thought for sure I would be dead now, because I get two 30mg shots of sandostatin and social security a year ago was denying medicare patients the second shot. The shot is probably around 6k, but billed close to 10K per shot, and in December when I went on Medicare I was told that I approved for shots through July. I am currently waiting for my hormone test to determine if I will try a last ditch and expensive and mostly ineffective chemo embolization treatment on a monster tumor on my liver. My inclination is to simply not do the chemo because it only buys three more months if my hormone levels are really high. So my only hope is that those two shots are still slowing the cancer which is now consuming my body with bone mets becoming increasingly painful and impacting the quality of my life.

The truth is simple. At some point the treatments have to stop. The costs to society have to stop. The priorities have to be adhered to and even though compassion tells us there must be more we can do, like the kid with both his legs and arm blown off on Okinawa in 1945, the decision was made that he went to the back of the line because there simply was nothing more that could be done. Those decisions are difficult. Those decisions are being made every day across this world and in the United States, yet to think it is socialized medicine which is in crisis. A silly understanding of reality.

View user profile
The Republican plan is to triage based on net worth. Save the rich, screw the poor.

https://mythfighter.com/2017/07/12/simple-single-payer-facts-and-utter-nonsense/

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
MEDICAID FOR ALL..!!

View user profile
Medicare for all is not Medicaid for all. First, I was paying close to 1,200 a month under my wife's group medical policy. When I went on Medicare, my premium dropped by almost a $1,000. As we drop the age incrementally, it will be necessary to increase the premium of Medicare for those under 65. Five hundred a month based on income and asset levels will not break anybody who was paying over a thousand. As the old and sick drop out of the insurance pools the ACA subsidies for the young become less. This is not rocket science. It is simple actuarial tables which for about what we are about to spend on the proposed increases in Military spending we will be able to fill the gaps to cover expanded medicare coverage down to fifty. It just is not that hard.

View user profile
This case was not about single payer or death panels. The parents had amassed donations of 1.7 million to fund the treatment in the US. The hospital would not incur any more money one way or another. This was about medical life or death. The same thing happens in the US w/ our medical opinions. I think the courts were wrong to not allow the parents to do everything they could in a terminal child but it definitely was not about single payor.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Britain is socialized and single payer. It's what is coming here if we don't find another way. With these examples, who would want it?

With these examples, who would want it?

Where the F have you been. I saw a friend die because he had met the insurance company lifetime payout. He died three months later because they would not fund the lung drugs anymore. You must have been an Ostrich because people were dying by the thousands because insurance companies were not approving treatment, because of exceeding the limit, or arguing that a condition was a preexisting condition. It amazes me to see such ignorance or utter lies. That friend was a chain smoker, and the drugs were expensive and he knew he F'd up with his smoking, but the decision was not his, it was not his family, it was not the government, it was not his doctors, but it was the insurance company......you know the for profit folks who did such a good job before the ACA. splendid logic. Socialized medicine kills you and insurance companies who profit on not paying out are our savior....especially Ted the worm Cruz who wants worthless policies like Bob with no coverage and big premiums for nothing.....it killed Bob, but then again you do not pay attention.

View user profile
NPAatall wrote:Britain is socialized and single payer. It's what is coming here if we don't find another way. With these examples, who would want it?


Again, how was this about single payor?

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:With these examples, who would want it?

Where the F have you been.  I saw a friend die because he had met the insurance company lifetime payout.  He died three months later because they would not fund the lung drugs anymore.  You must have been an Ostrich because people were dying by the thousands because insurance companies were not approving treatment, because of exceeding the limit, or arguing that a condition was a preexisting condition.   It amazes me to see such ignorance or utter lies.  That friend was a chain smoker, and the drugs were expensive and he knew he F'd up with his smoking, but the decision was not his, it was not his family, it was not the government, it was not his doctors, but it was the insurance company......you know the for profit folks who did such a good job before the ACA.    splendid logic.  Socialized medicine kills you and insurance companies who profit on not paying out are our savior....especially Ted the worm Cruz who wants worthless policies like Bob with no coverage and big premiums for nothing.....it killed Bob, but then again you do not pay attention.

Bob did not die because of his insurance. Why are you saying that?

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Five hundred a month based on income and asset levels will not break anybody who was paying over a thousand.

SO easy for you to say. Someone going from a working life with earned income to retired with no salary, only SS and perhaps some investment income, will likely find $500 a lot more burdensome than the $1,000 paid during their working years.

And a person's accumulated assets should not be used as a measure of ability to pay.

View user profile
Bob did not die because of his insurance. Why are you saying that?


Because it is true. He needed coverage to get tests and treatment. He found out that the policy he had did not cover those tests and procedures. He delayed trying to figure out he could pay the doctor and the hospital. They reduced their fees and put him on a payment plan. When he died he was still paying on those delayed medical procedures, and it took away alternatives where if he had the ACA policy earlier he could have been far more aggressive with his two cancers.

I'm actually no longer even bothering to use the drug plan that comes with the health insurance policy I pay for. Unbelievably, even though I am paying the insurance company to subsidize the drug costs with that plan, the net cost of buying my medications is less when I completely ignore the plan and buy all my medications without any insurance involvement.


Go to Nov-December 2013 to read more of bobs own words about how he delayed and got screwed by his bs insurance company.

View user profile
Once again:

View user profile http://www.flickr.com/photos/btraven/
2seaoat wrote:Bob did not die because of his insurance. Why are you saying that?


Because it is true.  He needed coverage to get tests and treatment.  He found out that the policy he had did not cover those tests and procedures.  He delayed trying to figure out he could pay the doctor and the hospital.  They reduced their fees and put him on a payment plan.  When he died he was still paying on those delayed medical procedures, and it took away alternatives where if he had the ACA policy earlier he could have been far more aggressive with his two cancers.

I'm actually no longer even bothering to use the drug plan that comes with the health insurance policy I pay for. Unbelievably, even though I am paying the insurance company to subsidize the drug costs with that plan, the net cost of buying my medications is less when I completely ignore the plan and buy all my medications without any insurance involvement.


Go to Nov-December 2013 to read more of bobs own words about how he delayed and got screwed by his bs insurance company.

Yeah he got screwed by his insurance policy but Bob had a ton of money in the bank. He paid ten thousand flat out for those tests. He was not on a payment plan. He at one time said he had amassed a quarter of a million dollars over the years in the bank. He was cheap though.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
del.capslock wrote:Once again:


And at a cost of 3.2 trillion per year, who pays for it? Our entire budget in. This nation sits just under 4 trillion. Are you ready to hand 1/2 your pay check to the government ? I'm not and I am sure all those companies that make our economy great fromthe consumer goods we buy won't be too happy either as nobody will have money to purchase those items-talk about economic collapse.

It's ok... the fed can simply create a bazillion air dollars. Just ask del.cuck.

View user profile
I'm sad for baby Charlie for his condition. It's unfair that such a young kid gets so many strikes against him so young, and it's horrible that his parents are having to go through this. But if medical science could do anything for him, it would have. It's tragic, but because of nature, not because of politics or anything anyone could do. No person is cheating him of anything, and no policy would create any better outcome in this case. No other medical system would bring back someone in that condition. That's not "life." It's Terri Schiavo all over again.

View user profile
SO easy for you to say. Someone going from a working life with earned income to retired with no salary, only SS and perhaps some investment income, will likely find $500 a lot more burdensome than the $1,000 paid during their working years.

And a person's accumulated assets should not be used as a measure of ability to pay.


Once again the point has been entirely missed. We are talking about expanding medicare from retired people to working younger people. A person who is 58 may be paying $1,200 a month for health insurance, but if going on medicare for all the premium would be reduced by $700 a month and would be reduced to $200 when they become 65. Taking that sick person out of the pool will result in lower premiums for younger people, and less government subsidy which can be directed toward reducing the age of Medicare for all while cutting military budgets to apply those savings to taking care of Americans. PKs idea that health care costs would exceed our GDP is absurd because we are providing health care now, but we will simply be lowering individual contributions and setting us sound actuarial tables.

Now your privileged upbringing and your so called visits to nursing homes has you not even understanding how basic medicaid is used for folks who are in nursing care. An application is filed where EVERY asset is disclosed and the state will put a lien on those assets to cover medical and nursing care of older Americans. You evidently came from a family of silver spoons isolated from the reality of what poor and middle class Americans face every year. So of course assets are considered before benefits are paid, whether you think that is fair or not. Like Stormy living on PB who was immersed in privilege growing up, she did not think assets should be looked at either, and that the estate tax was wrong. Until you see a family home being taken away by the state by foreclosure of a medicaid lien, and fully understand what it is like to be poor in America, please do not expect like PKR in his ignorance that States who provide medicaid do not go after assets to apply to medical bills paid by the state.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum