PDA

View Full Version : UK eyes privatizing its health care


UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
02-19-2012, 12:27 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/as-obama-pushes-new-regulations-uk-eyes-privatizing-its-health-care/


Filmmaker Michael Moore glorified the United Kingdom’s National Health Service in his 2007 documentary ”Sicko,” making a cult film argument that socialized medicine works. But Prime Minister David Cameron, the Tory MP who heads a coalition government in England, is apparently not a Moore fan: He is working to partially privatize the NHS, beginning a massive outsourcing of medical services to private health care providers throughout the U.K.

Britain’s media, in particular the Washington Post–Huffington Post hybrid The Guardian, is publishing near-panic-attacks alerts daily about the conservative plan, which comes as the British government scales back on entitlement spending, hoping to avoid a Greek-style financial meltdown.

But in the United States, left-wing enthusiasts of socialized medicine don’t seem bothered at the loss of a role model. Many won’t even acknowledge it.

“I handle media and public relations for the Catholic Health Association,” Fred Caesar told The Daily Caller. “We will pass on commenting.” Caesar is special assistant to the president of the CHA, a vocal advocate of President Obama’s health care overhaul.

Major U.S. media are also ignoring the story. As Cameron’s own health reform bill gathers momentum and heads for a vote in Parliament, online searches show no coverage at all of Britain’s move in The Washington Post or The New York Times.

‘Taken out and shot’

Contrast this with U.K. media, which is pressuring Cameron to drop his plans. Major medical societies — including the Royal College of General Practitioners — and the rest of Britain’s medical establishment is shouting for Cameron to cease and desist.


The British public has a fear of privatization founded on the idea that doctors “might become dependent on advice from powerful private health companies,” and that the free-market competition laws could replace “public service principles” as the NHS’s central operating principle, The Guardian reported this week. (RELATED: Full coverage of the US Affordable Care Act)

Even the Times of London, a liberal broadsheet that is still normally restrained in its commentary, opined that Cameron’s health secretary Andrew Lansley should be “taken out and shot” for moving the bill through the House of Commons.

Sally Pipes, an American health policy expert who leads the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, told TheDC that President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will likely ignore any changes in U.K. health policy. Their allies in the U.S. media and public policy establishment, she said, would follow suit.

“They are ideologues,” Pipes said. “They don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.”

Pipes notes that the system of socialized medicine in the U.K., and a similar one in Canada, is viable only for routine visits to the doctor, but not for chronic illnesses like cancer or kidney disease. A few years ago in Canada, she said, her own mother could not get a simple colonoscopy scheduled for several months, despite searing abdominal pain.

When Pipes’ mother started bleeding, she was rushed to the emergency room and finally given the colonoscopy — which indicated that she had colorectal cancer. It was too late for treatment at that point, though, and she died shortly thereafter.

“They keep down costs by rationing medicine and medical services,” Pipes explained.

UK eyes privatizing its health care

chadta
02-19-2012, 04:13 AM
we are doing it here in canada too, but we dont call it privatizing becasue that would be bad, we call it delisting, and when a service gets delisted by the government it becomes fair game for the public clinics. eg. eye exams, chiropractic care and physiotherapy.

Why ?

becasue we are friggin going broke paying for it, when people can go to the hospital for a cough and face no out of pocket expense they consider it free, if its free it has no real value and therefore they arent wasting anything, except its not free and we have long wait times for services, and end up spnedning way to much money providing them.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Health+service+delisting+coming+Ontario+minister+s ays/6053073/story.html

16 billion has to come from somewhere

barryr
02-19-2012, 06:14 AM
“They are ideologues,” Pipes said. “They don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.”

Pipes notes that the system of socialized medicine in the U.K., and a similar one in Canada, is viable only for routine visits to the doctor, but not for chronic illnesses like cancer or kidney disease. A few years ago in Canada, she said, her own mother could not get a simple colonoscopy scheduled for several months, despite searing abdominal pain.

When Pipes’ mother started bleeding, she was rushed to the emergency room and finally given the colonoscopy — which indicated that she had colorectal cancer. It was too late for treatment at that point, though, and she died shortly thereafter.

“They keep down costs by rationing medicine and medical services,” Pipes explained.

Yep, it is the truth. Whether the system works or not is besides the point for those that think like Obama. It is the way it should be, damn the results. Like I have stated before, socialized medicine is only great if you never have anything seriously go wrong with you. Once you do, good luck, you will need it and in reality, you will need to go on your own and to the natural path way since you will die waiting for help that never comes. Great system there Obama.

That One Guy
02-19-2012, 10:49 AM
While it's good info, the OP could stand to find a less biased article on the topic.

And I think we just need to restructure the medical system. Why exactly does a man need to go to med school to diagnose a cold? Why does a person need to go to optometry school to do the "which one is clearer, lens 1 or lens 2?" test?

Make a more efficient system and it might be possible. Nobody wants to feel slighted by not having a Dr. come calling when you say you have the sniffles, though.

Rohirrim
02-19-2012, 11:31 AM
“They are ideologues,” Pipes said. “They don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.”

Pipes notes that the system of socialized medicine in the U.K., and a similar one in Canada, is viable only for routine visits to the doctor, but not for chronic illnesses like cancer or kidney disease. A few years ago in Canada, she said, her own mother could not get a simple colonoscopy scheduled for several months, despite searing abdominal pain.

When Pipes’ mother started bleeding, she was rushed to the emergency room and finally given the colonoscopy — which indicated that she had colorectal cancer. It was too late for treatment at that point, though, and she died shortly thereafter.

“They keep down costs by rationing medicine and medical services,” Pipes explained.

Yep, it is the truth. Whether the system works or not is besides the point for those that think like Obama. It is the way it should be, damn the results. Like I have stated before, socialized medicine is only great if you never have anything seriously go wrong with you. Once you do, good luck, you will need it and in reality, you will need to go on your own and to the natural path way since you will die waiting for help that never comes. Great system there Obama.

In case you haven't noticed, our results suck. We pay four times more than anybody else in the Western, industrialized world and we're consistently near the bottom in outcomes.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

That One Guy
02-19-2012, 11:34 AM
In case you haven't noticed, our results suck. We pay four times more than anybody else in the Western, industrialized world and we're consistently near the bottom in outcomes.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

And yet people are steering toward our methods and people from other countries routinely come to the US for treatment.

Completely unexplainable phenomenon, right?

Rohirrim
02-19-2012, 11:39 AM
And yet people are steering toward our methods and people from other countries routinely come to the US for treatment.

Completely unexplainable phenomenon, right?

Like everything else in America, your experience depends on your wealth. If you're in the top 1%, you enjoy a completely different level of health care. Same as it ever was.

That One Guy
02-19-2012, 07:18 PM
Like everything else in America, your experience depends on your wealth. If you're in the top 1%, you enjoy a completely different level of health care. Same as it ever was.

So our results don't "suck" then. Some people just can't afford different things.

And if some were paying for the uber expensive treatments, wouldn't that skew the per capita costs?

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
02-19-2012, 07:25 PM
Like everything else in America, your experience depends on your wealth. If you're in the top 1%, you enjoy a completely different level of health care. Same as it ever was.

More strawmen? Really? All you got is "This or nothing" is getting old like Obama.

pricejj
02-20-2012, 08:18 AM
Great OP.

The UK will need to reform their healthcare system in order to not turn into Greece. The reason why healthcare spending is so high in the U.S., is due to the unlimited federal spending structure of Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. Socialized medecine is not the answer, and this is more proof. The U.S. system is not far off, if the system can be made more efficient and competitive, while removing the spiralling price-setting effect that Medicare/Medicaid create.

Tombstone RJ
02-20-2012, 11:15 AM
I've said it before and I'll keep saying again over and over until I'm blue in the face: socialized medicine is not the answer. The answer is bringing down the cost of medicine so people (the middle class or the 99%) can afford it.

There are some very simple ways to do this. One would be allowing health insurance companies to operate across state lines thus putting more people into their programs and hence bringing down the overall cost of coverage. The way the health insurance market works in the USA today is much like a cartel. Break up the cartel, allowing the big health insurance companies to operate across state lines and see how that affects pricing.

The fed gov has to, and I'll say this again: HAS TO demand that companies in the health care industry don't take advantage of billing, or should I say "overbilling" the government thus inflating the cost of goods and services.

You'd think the fed gov would be anal about pricing. You'd think they'd tell pharmaceuticals to go **** themselves when these pharmaceuticals over charge for medicine (for example). Instead, they just pay the bill.

Its no wonder the health care industry loves the fed gov. They can charge exorbitant amounts for services and the fed gov will just pay up? There's no institutional control, there's no checks and balances with the fed gov.

This drives up the cost of health care for everyone!

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
02-21-2012, 03:29 PM
If you guys like this. Wait til tonight and see what I got for you guys.

ghwk
02-21-2012, 03:59 PM
Great OP.

The UK will need to reform their healthcare system in order to not turn into Greece. The reason why healthcare spending is so high in the U.S., is due to the unlimited federal spending structure of Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. Socialized medecine is not the answer, and this is more proof. The U.S. system is not far off, if the system can be made more efficient and competitive, while removing the spiralling price-setting effect that Medicare/Medicaid create.

God you are short sighted. Not everything is the governments fault as much as you would like it to be so. It is not due to the things you mention although they may play a part. There is NO competition in health care do you get that? Pricing has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with the actual cost of service. Example my ear infection costs $185 for a visit if I go as a private payee. If I go as an insured payee it's $325, but the rate the physician gets reimbused at is $145. So how much is it really?? 3 different rates for the same service.

Don't you get that it is a shell game perpetrated by the insurer's and medical groups?