^At first, I assumed we were talking about firms winning contracts to run hospitals. Not to pay for the treatment.
I haven't read through those articles yet, but I'm going to assume that a lot of them won't be life saving treatments, I'll skim through 'em now.
Also, I edited my post above.
| Kasz216 said:
I mean government run hosptials in the US used to be some of the worst in the country until they found a few corspes just sitting around of people who died because the care was so bad. |
Thats a bad comparison, you have to keep in mind that government funded hospitals customers (inner city like the one you just mentioned) are poor and private hospitals customers are more wealthy. All things else held even, the government hospital is going to be worse.
The government does do a good job though. People are effectively treated for (if anything too many colonoscopies) and there's no cutting corners (tyring not to provide care as you mentioned before). The only problem is the government has to provide proper funding (same goes for private) and it should be easier to fire people.
It seems like I was wrong when I said "a lot of them won't be about life-saving treatments", in fact, none of them were!
ManusJustus said:
Thats a bad comparison, you have to keep in mind that government funded hospitals customers (inner city like the one you just mentioned) are poor and private hospitals customers are more wealthy. All things else held even, the government hospital is going to be worse. The government does do a good job though. People are effectively treated for (if anything too many colonoscopies) and there's no cutting corners (tyring not to provide care as you mentioned before). The only problem is the government has to provide proper funding (same goes for private) and it should be easier to fire people. |
VA hospitals are the ones I was refering to actually. These are in all neighberhoods.
| SamuelRSmith said: ^Yes, because I have proof: The NHS.
EDIT: Actually, I'll just tell you a astory which proves my point: My great uncle had throat cancer a couple of years ago. He was a smoker. Some health insurance companies would reject to pay for his treatment because he was a smoker. The NHS didn't. They performed the operation, and he recevied radiotherapy afterwards. During this time the NHS also tried to assist him in quitting smoking. He did, for a while, give up smoking. However, after a few months he started smoking again - and he got throat cancer again. The hospital new that he had the cancer before, and they new that he had gone through anti-smoking stuff aswell. And yet did they refuse him treatment? No. They still operated on him, but it wasn't a success. They kept him in hospital for the last few weeks of his life - they offered him alternatives, but he rejected them, yet he was able to stay in the hospital - fed, rested and cleaned, until the day he died. And so, yes, I truely believe that a Government run program would be better at a firm at cost cutting. |
So, the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars treating someone where the long term prognosis (due to his choices) essentially gave it a 0% chance of long term success and (therefore) there was no benefit to society at large; and you wonder why people would be against a system like this?
| SamuelRSmith said: It seems like I was wrong when I said "a lot of them won't be about life-saving treatments", in fact, none of them were! |
I could come up with stories about those too if i really wanted too.
Old... but it shows it happens and took less then a second.
Previous mentioned though
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html
"About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt."
Actually, if I were to make a bet, it would be that most doctors would have a different view from me, as I'm guessing that there would be a certain streak of conservatism amongst doctors, simply because they're paid more.
However, the BMA (British Medical Association, the biggest pressure group for doctors in the UK) is for the NHS, and often fights for cheaper prescription charges (or the abolishment of said prescription charges), and things like removing the need for visitors to pay to park in hospital car parks.
EDIT: Fixing errors, I'm getting tired and making a lot of mistakes.
| SamuelRSmith said: Actually, if I were to make a bet, it would be that most doctors would have a different few from me, as I'm guessing that there would be a certain streak of conservatism amongst doctors, simply because they're paid more. However, the BMA (British Medical Association, the biggest pressure group for doctors in the UK) is for the NHS, and often fights for cheaper prescription charges (or the abolishment of said prescription charges), and things like removing the need for visitors to pay to park in hospital car parks. |
Sounds different from the US then. People who make more money are liberals.
Also as for someone who died due to being refused treatment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/02/nhs.health
Why are these people being denied these medicines? Seems like the exact case you complain about happening if done otherwise.
HappySqurriel said:
So, the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars treating someone where the long term prognosis (due to his choices) essentially gave it a 0% chance of long term success and (therefore) there was no benefit to society at large; and you wonder why people would be against a system like this? |
Actually, no, I don't wonder why people are against systems like this. I just happen to hold a different view.
Also another case of the UK denying "Expiermental new treatments"
http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslow-news/2008/09/03/support-pours-in-for-woman-denied-cancer-drugs-109642-21659284/
And another drugs withdrawn that work because they aren't cost effective.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Kidney-Cancer-Patients-Denied-Treatment/Article/200808115072376?f=rss
These are life threatening ones by the way.
The UK government money men are no different then the Insurance money men. Except it's easier for the government to go after a private company then it is there own. Would you like more articles?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
