NationStates Jolt Archive

London's Daily Telegraph reminds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml)us why the idea of government-controlled health care is a terrifying one:

People who are grossly overweight, who smoke heavily or drink excessively could be denied surgery or drugs following a decision by a Government agency yesterday.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) which advises on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments for the NHS, said that in some cases the "self-inflicted" nature of an illness should be taken into account.

If you aren't scared by the idea of Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg deeming you unworthy of medical care because of your bad habits, imagine how the "religious right" would treat AIDS patients if they gained power under such a regime.

And yes, it has actually happened. People have been denied surgery because of "self-inflicted" conditions.

One group of primary care trusts is ahead of Nice. Last month three PCTs in east Suffolk decided that obese people would not be entitled to have hip or knee replacements unless they lost weight.


Great system, huh?

That's not very socalistic of them!

Heard about this on the radio this morning. Said 'doctors may refuse patients on the grounds that their lifestyles would make treatment ineffective' or something like that.

Heard about this on the radio this morning. Said 'doctors may refuse patients on the grounds that their lifestyles would make treatment ineffective' or something like that.
Good thing Larry Hagman didn't have to depend on the NHS for his liver transplant.

This will never come to pass in the US. Why not? Why would doctors refuse to receive money? The government doesn't have to pay shit except for government employees, they don't care. The government, or the people themselves, don't need to pay for pointless surgeries.

London's Daily Telegraph reminds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml)us why the idea of government-controlled health care is a terrifying one:

If you aren't scared by the idea of Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg deeming you unworthy of medical care because of your bad habits, imagine how the "religious right" would treat AIDS patients if they gained power under such a regime.

And yes, it has actually happened. People have been denied surgery because of "self-inflicted" conditions.


Great system, huh?

...In america the corporations decide if you get healthcare or not. How is that less scary? It is understood if your health costs get too expensive no matter the reason they will cap your healthcare. It happens to old people with cancer all the time. Happened to both my grandparents who paid premiums their whole lives. There is no way around it. Medicine is expensive and if it starts to approach anywhere near what you paid over your lifetime they cap it won't give you all the money. I hope this isn't news to anyone.

It's a damn good thing at least one country's doing this. No point in wasting tax payer money on medical procedures that have an unnecessarily low rate of success (due to no fault except the patient's own, at least). Yes, it's cold and heartless, but it's also realistic.

I find the possibility of that really stupid; in fact its purely retarded. On those grounds why dont we stop treating those with self inflicted accidents?


If we did stuff like that any wound could be looked at as self inflicted, and thus doctors have the final say in who gets treated. The results would be massive death.

*shudders* God I hope this doesn't pass just because of christian rite groups.

I like the way a couple of quotes (taken out of context and sourced from a newspaper that's even further to the right than Ayn Rand and notorious for peddling government bashing scare stories with no basis in reality, it should be noted) can be cited as proof that socialised medicine doesn't work as well as paying an arm and a leg for medical insurance.
Just so we're clear: no patient has as yet been denied treatment for weighing more than their car, chainsmoking or drinking like a fish, and it's unlikely that anybody will be. (In fact, lardarses frequently get their stomach stapled on the NHS.)
here's a puzzler for the Americans: who provided George Best with his liver transplant, the NHS or BUPA?

This is what happens when you combine a socialist policy with a populace that doesn't really support socialism. America takes a half assed position with socialism, where they feel guilty for the disadvantaged, but at the same time has a serious distrust for them.

My favorite policy is the reducing jobs by creating a minimum wage, and then restricting the time frame for recieving welfare without employment.

It's a damn good thing at least one country's doing this. No point in wasting tax payer money on medical procedures that have an unnecessarily low rate of success (due to no fault except the patient's own, at least). Yes, it's cold and heartless, but it's also realistic.
But isn't this a system where it's illegal for the citizenry to go to private doctors? That's the problem, the government makes it impossible to see anyone else by them for care, then denies the care.

It's no different than the people that I talk to all day that are denied medical insurance through insurance companies for pre-existing medical conditions. I don't know if they've got anything for being overweight yet, but you can bet people with drinking and smoking problems are definately denied certain medical coverage if it directly relates to the vice.

This will never come to pass in the US. Why not? Why would doctors refuse to receive money? The government doesn't have to pay shit except for government employees, they don't care. The government, or the people themselves, don't need to pay for pointless surgeries.

This would never come to pass in the US because
a) the majority of Americans are overweight.
b) the U.S. government doesn't pay for health care anyways.

This would only be a debate for socialistic countries with some "universal health care" issues.

...In america the corporations decide if you get healthcare or not. How is that less scary? It is understood if your health costs get too expensive no matter the reason they will cap your healthcare. It happens to old people with cancer all the time. Happened to both my grandparents who paid premiums their whole lives. There is no way around it. Medicine is expensive and if it starts to approach anywhere near what you paid over your lifetime they cap it won't give you all the money. I hope this isn't news to anyone.

Maybe americans should do something about that?

Don't worry, it's just a temporary system until New Labour privatizes healthcare.

But isn't this a system where it's illegal for the citizenry to go to private doctors?
No.

This is what happens when you combine a socialist policy with a populace that doesn't really support socialism. America takes a half assed position with socialism, where they feel guilty for the disadvantaged, but at the same time has a serious distrust for them.

My favorite policy is the reducing jobs by creating a minimum wage, and then restricting the time frame for recieving welfare without employment.
This isn't something that's happened though: the Telegraph are merely reporting the findings of a Quango (which in all likelihood won't be acted upon) in order to encourage their readers to vote Tory in the next election.

Mymidonisia: no, it isn't. Lots of people have private healthcare plans, and the current government are gearing up to privatise parts of the NHS,

Don't worry, it's just a temporary system until New Labour privatizes healthcare.

But isn't this a system where it's illegal for the citizenry to go to private doctors?
No.
Good enough. There is an alternative for the Brits. But remember when Quebec had it's single payer system thrown out? That was a case where the government had a monopoly on care. Just what if a little and you can see where government monopolies can lead.

the current government are gearing up to privatise parts of the NHSGearing up?

I kinda like this. It's natural selection people.

In a way, I can see where the government is going with this one. We all know smoking is bad for you, for example. Why should the adverage non-smoker pay a bunch more money in medical taxes to help someone with smoke-related illness? They chose to smoke, and knew it would probably kill them. Right? Same thing with obesity and alchoholism... it isn't healthy, and if you choose to do it, you're on your own... that's fair.

This isn't something that's happened though: the Telegraph are merely reporting the findings of a Quango (which in all likelihood won't be acted upon) in order to encourage their readers to vote Tory in the next election.

Could you not see this happening in America though?

Could you not see this happening in America though?

This would never come to pass in the US because
a) the majority of Americans are overweight.
b) the U.S. government doesn't pay for health care anyways.

This would only be a debate for socialistic countries with some "universal health care" issues.

I kinda like this. It's natural selection people.

Yeah I kind of agree.

Gearing up?
The NHS is split up into hospital trusts for various areas. They're trying to establish precedents for farming areas of a few of the London hospital trust's workload out to private contractors. They haven't succeeded as yet, but this is probably the thin end of a fat wedge. Hopefully Blair will get lost and the labour party will start heading back to the left before too much damage is done like this.

Vittos: given that you don't have socialised medicine there, no. I'd imagine the various medical insurance companies tend to ignore possible long term problems of futility if there's sufficient money in somebody's plan to pay for a liver transplant or a hip replacement.

This would never come to pass in the US because
a) the majority of Americans are overweight.
b) the U.S. government doesn't pay for health care anyways.

This would only be a debate for socialistic countries with some "universal health care" issues.

I wouldn't rule out universal health care in America, and very obese people are looked down in general in America.

Good enough. There is an alternative for the Brits. But remember when Quebec had it's single payer system thrown out? That was a case where the government had a monopoly on care. Just what if a little and you can see where government monopolies can lead.
I see where something leads...

"What if"s and unhealthy doses of believing private corporations give two shits about you lead to bullshit statements.

I wouldn't rule out universal health care in America, and very obese people are looked down in general in America.
In the event of some future Democrat GOP usuring in sweeping Federal health reforms, I'd imagine most of the clinically obese would end up on the socialised healthcare because there's no way employer based health plans are going anywhere near them...

In a way, I can see where the government is going with this one. We all know smoking is bad for you, for example. Why should the adverage non-smoker pay a bunch more money in medical taxes to help someone with smoke-related illness?

Because in case you haven't noticed, tobacco (& alcohol) have a shit load of tax put on them. Non-smokers aren't paying for smokers to get treatement. If anything, the opposite is true. If smokers stopped smoking the government would lose a significant amount of revenue.

Smokers have already paid for the treatment they need through duty tax.

Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister explains it quite nicely:

Jim Hacker: "Humphrey, we are talking about 100,000 deaths a year."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but cigarette taxes pay for a third of the cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntary lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors."

There's also the thing about smokers dying younger so don't put such a strain on the pensions as well.

They chose to smoke, and knew it would probably kill them. Right? Same thing with obesity and alchoholism... it isn't healthy, and if you choose to do it, you're on your own... that's fair.

So it is fair for non-smokers to reap the benefits of the smoking population, but exclude smokers from recieving state help.

Yep, sounds fair to me :rolleyes:

Obesity is a different ball game though.

London's Daily Telegraph reminds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/09/nice09.xml)us why the idea of government-controlled health care is a terrifying one:

If you aren't scared by the idea of Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg deeming you unworthy of medical care because of your bad habits, imagine how the "religious right" would treat AIDS patients if they gained power under such a regime.

And yes, it has actually happened. People have been denied surgery because of "self-inflicted" conditions.

Great system, huh?

Well the goverment cant' do much about smoking since the goverment had all those subsides for tabacco.

Won't happen here. I don't know of too many people liking the idea of a "tribunal" deciding who gets medical care? Oh wait doesn't insurence already decide that?

Damn.......

This would never come to pass in the US because

b) the U.S. government doesn't pay for health care anyways.


Hah. The US goverment pays more per capita than most European goverments.