Sometimes experience is the only teacher
Here is a snippet of what is at the other end of the ‘free healthcare for everybody’ rainbow.
Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
telegraph.co.uk
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA’s ethics committee, said it would be “outrageous” to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors’ views “disgraceful”.
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people’s “responsibilities” as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restrictions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for “social abortions” and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. “The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?” he said. Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state. (more…)
Not giving health care to elderly folks who are considered ‘too old’ and not expected to live long is creepy to me. Being that this is a government-controlled health care system, words have a way of stretching its meaning (for my science fiction fans out there over 33, think ‘Logan’s Run’). Other than that, if folks will not take care of themselves–cut ‘em!
Yet ask any one of them would they like to change to our system and watch how few hands go up. Every systems dealing with large amounts of people is going to have issues.. Fix it and move on.
Comment by Wizz | January 29, 2008
I seriously doubt it considering the fact that the US has been the number 1 spot for folks around the world to get medical treatment they are not able to get for some reason in their own country. Let’s not forget the fact about how a good portion of students in medical school come from other countries.
The fact that you are portraying the refusal of health care to certain individuals (specifically old people) as a run-in-the mill issue is quite telling–and downright scary!
Comment by Duane | January 29, 2008
If you have money of course you can go wherever you want to get healthcare. MOST people don’t have money like that though. Ask any regular, everyday person on street would they take our healthcare system over theirs and I’m willing to bet cash money they will say hell no to the U.S. system. And the fact that we train and have good doctors does not change the fact that many people can not afford them. That great doctor means squat to a person who can’t pay for him…
And I am not saying that old people not being treated is a run-of-the-mill issue. It is obvious from the story that this is not a government policy and never will be… It is some doctors saying that the system is broken. It needs to be fixed… I’m sure it will be fixed… Either way they are light years ahead of us as far as taking care of their citizens.
Comment by Wizz | January 29, 2008
Based on what you have told me here about your own situation, your assertions about what other people think are CLEARLY personalized. Your ‘bad’ experience doesn’t speak for millions out there who are getting good health care in our system. I am not suggesting that our system is perfect, but I would challenge you to look for any proposal out there regarding our healthcare system that has placed the rejection of certain citizens on the table.
You state that “If you have money of course you can go wherever you want to get healthcare” but you fail to address or answer the central question here: if free health care is the way to go, then why would folks be willing to still pay out of pocket for healthcare elsewhere?
It is obvious from the story that this is not a government policy and never will be
The fact that doctors are even suggesting this and not some crackpots floating the idea from behind the walls of some think tank suggests that at some point government will have to make some hard decisions in the future.
Either way they are light years ahead of us as far as taking care of their citizens.
I would strongly suggest that you take a much closer look at their health care system before you make that mis-informed leap.
Comment by Duane | January 29, 2008
Thanks for acknowledging my story but I’m fine… I’ve been an engineer for one of the top Tech companies in the world for almost a decade… So my insurance situation is fine. Other than dealing with rising premiums and co-pays I don’t really have a problem with insurance.
My feelings are based on where I came from… And based on family and friends that I empathize with. If I didn’t have the means that I do then I have no idea how I would handle the situation I was dealt (autistic kid for those who don’t know).
but I would challenge you to look for any proposal out there regarding our healthcare system that has placed the rejection of certain citizens on the table.
Come on man… People are denied coverage everyday under our current system… We just had the big story over the holidays about the girl who was denied a transplant and died. Stuff like this is happening everyday to a lot of people.
you fail to address or answer the central question here: if free health care is the way to go, then why would folks be willing to still pay out of pocket for healthcare elsewhere?
Because they can!… If I could afford a lamborghini I would get one. But I know that if I hit rock bottom I know I can hop on the bus too… That’s the difference.
I would strongly suggest that you take a much closer look at their health care system before you make that mis-informed leap.
Tell that to the ton of people who have to file bankruptcy every year because of healthcare expenses.
Comment by Wizz | January 29, 2008
Duane,
Honestly there anit too many folks out here in the world that would be willing to trade healthcare as a right for our twisted system of employer “sponsored” insurance company driven healthcare.
What rights do you have here?
As an example you can have a great job at a company thta has an excellent plan. Lets say your company is purchased by another, do they not have the right to switch your coverage from a PPO to an HMO at their discresion?
Even better yet what happens to the American that needs their insurance but wishes to change jobs? You do know their are many folks that are trapped in underpaying jobs because of their health insurance.
Here is my idea. Why dont we have a single payer system in the USA that our oh so generous employers can suppliment by offering up EXTRA coverage as a job perk or benefit.
Comment by Give it a rest | January 29, 2008
Do you think that quality would go up or down under a single-payer system?
Comment by Duane | January 29, 2008
Do you think that quality would go up or down under a single-payer system?
Both…
If you have health insurance and are used to getting to see your doctor right away for non-emergency care then you are probably going to say quality goes down. Because your doc may not have as much time to spend on just you or you may have to wait a couple more weeks to get in for non-emergency care.
If however you don’t have insurance or you have a chronic condition that is draining your pockets, then your quality of healthcare is going to WAY up…
Comment by Wizz | January 29, 2008
If however you don’t have insurance or you have a chronic condition that is draining your pockets, then your quality of healthcare is going to WAY up…
You are getting availability and quality mixed up here. Without the presence of a filter to take illegals out of the loop, those who are dependent on government healthcare will be pushed further to the bottom while you only feel minor effects as what you described. There are a few other countries that are using the single-payer model. I suggest you look at all of them.
Comment by Duane | January 29, 2008
Fix it and move on.
And your proposed “fix”(s) would be precisely what?
Socialized medicine’s universal fix for budgetary problems seems to be rationing and long waiting lists. If you’ve got some magic pixy dust you’ve been hiding from everyone, now is the time to cut it loose.
Comment by Purple Avenger | January 29, 2008
You are getting availability and quality mixed up here.
No I’m not. How can you have quality healthcare if it is not available to you.
And your proposed “fix”(s) would be precisely what?
I can not give you a “precise” answer. I am not familiar enough with the intricacies of their policy to give you a “precise” answer. I can give you some educated guesses based on common sense.
- Change what they have access to under the free system.
- Make people pay a co-pay for some non-emergency care.
- Don’t allow some elective procedures
- Don’t allow some non-essential medications
- Raise taxes
- etc… Any number of other adjustments that could be made.
I’m sure they have experts in their system that could give you more “precise” answers. I can guarantee that whatever the case they will not be changing to a system that looks anything like ours. I’m sure they will do something to fix whatever is broken and they won’t need any magic pixie dust to do it. That little boy in Maryland that died from a brain infection because his mother didn’t have any insurance to take him to the dentist is the one who could have used some of that magic pixie dust.
Comment by Wizz | January 29, 2008