Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[no name 1]

Some stats from a 2005/6 study by The Healthcare Commission. It is the independent inspection body for both the NHS and independent healthcare. Hardly the dismal picture trying to be painted here.

In 2005/2006, 40% of trusts were given a score of 'excellent' or 'good' for quality of services and 15% scored 'excellent' or 'good' for use of resources. These trusts deserve real praise for doing well in the first year of a more comprehensive and tougher assessment. A majority of trusts were 'fair', which means that they need to improve in some areas. There were broad areas of concern among those that scored weak.

---

For many core standards, over 90% of trusts reported compliance.

----

Overall, 4% of 570 NHS trusts got the highest rating of ‘excellent’ for quality of services in the first year of the Healthcare Commission’s annual health check. A further 36% were rated ‘good’, while 51% were rated ‘fair’ and 9% were rated ‘weak’.

The score for quality of services covers a range of areas that matter to patients, including safety, cleanliness and effectiveness. In particular, it reflects:

- whether a trust is meeting basic standards of care

- how a trust is performing in relation to targets set by Government

- the results of our reviews of specific services or topics, such as tobacco control, community mental health, management of admissions & diagnostic services

Acute and specialist trusts performed best for quality of services, with more than half (54%) scoring ‘excellent’ or ‘good’.

-----

results

Edited October 7, 2007 by devilette

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Your scare stories are simply not born out by either reality, or statistics. You must have been reading too much Daily Mail.

Nah, it's gotta be the Sun. Free boobies on page 3!

and you know this why?

[britty 1]

Devillette and Purple Hibiscus - you like to portray a "caring" attitude, arguing for healthcare rights for all, yet you have no problem in making unwarranted personal comments here about me. It's a little bitchy and two-faced to be frank and I for one don't appreciate it. You should be able to put a point across without playground tactics.

[Peikko 1,575]

Which 'bitchy comments' would those be then? My comments address your comments, I haven't ever made any comment about you or your personality. I did accuse you or basing your arguments on the kind of emotive clap trap easily found within the pages of the Daily Mail, but that's not exactly a playground taunt, or at least, it wasn't one when I was at school.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think someone takes issue with them tittes on page 3...

[Peikko 1,575]

There aren't any in the Daily Mail, or at least, there weren't the last time I picked the paper up.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There aren't any in the Daily Mail, or at least, there weren't the last time I picked the paper up.

So what page are the titties on in the Daily Mail?

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

I think someone takes issue with them tittes on page 3...

samantha fox!

maybe some in this thread are jealous cause they can't be on page 3......

[Heracles 417]

Is this clear enough? I don't dislike, hate, or otherwise feel any negative emotion towards the US government. I do however disagree with some national and some state policies. When I disagree with them, I will voice my disagreement. Really very simple.

As for personal stories on misdiagnoses, less than adequate treatment. As has been stated, we can go around in circles with that one. However, statistically, the US system fails the majority, the UK system serves the majority well. Should the UK system be improved? Without a doubt. Can the US system be improved in its current form so that it does serve at least the majority, it seems highly unlikely mainly because the vested interest, the private health insurance companies, make billions of dollars from the system, there seems to be no incentive or will to improve it, hence the need for change.

No, the UK system does NOT serve the majority well. It serves the majority, but certainly not well, or indeed fairly. People are now being turned away on a regular basis from doctors surgeries, and told they cannot become a patient of that particular surgery as they currently have too many members. People ARE being refused general care in the UK. In many places it is simply a zipcode lottery as to whether you receive treatment or not. Of course you can obtain emergency care there, but that is also true here too. Rationing, rationing, rationing. That is what it will boil down to when the government here realizes there is simply not the funds to support a UHC here. Christ, if they can't cope in the UK with their population, how on earth can it be sustained here? I will never be convinced that a UHC system is going to work here, not least because the federal government are involved.

You got that right. What people do not realize is that under a UHC you cannot simply walk into the operating room if you are diagnosed with something, unless it is an emergency. Quite a few people in AUS have to wait for years, on a list, for surgery. Not to the surprise of anyone there, they are heavily pushing for people to take up private health insurance.

The situation is really complicated and people need to look at the broader picture. Most countries who have socialized medicine are highly federalized nations. In the UK, Canada, Australia etc the federal government collects all income and consumption taxes rather than the states or counties directly. Known as GST / VAT. I just cannot see a UHC system being viable with the way taxes are collected here.

Now, what I would suggest is that:

1. Building government run hospitals in poor areas.
2. Creating a new insurance plan to cover the poor and the most vulnerable / people with disabilities. The government could tender a plan to cover, lets say, 70,000,000 people. I think they would be able to get a good deal on that one..
3. Enacting legislation to force insurance companies to cover and treat everyone; rather than only the healthy.

Australia spends $42 billion a year on UHC to take care of 21 million people. The other maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaajor obstacle is how would the US pay for the 12,000,000+ illegal immigrants? let alone everyone else. Any UHC would be bankrupted if it had to cover 12,000,000 illegal immigrants. So it's a catch 22. And we all know they would have to be covered. Edited October 8, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Marilyn. 340]

You got that right. What people do not realize is that under a UHC you cannot simply walk into the operating room if you are diagnosed with something, unless it is an emergency. Quite a few people in AUS have to wait for years, on a list, for surgery. Not to the surprise of anyone there, they are heavily pushing for people to take up private health insurance.

I don't think you can just walk into an operating room here in the US either

[SteveLaura 0]

You got that right. What people do not realize is that under a UHC you cannot simply walk into the operating room if you are diagnosed with something, unless it is an emergency. Quite a few people in AUS have to wait for years, on a list, for surgery. Not to the surprise of anyone there, they are heavily pushing for people to take up private health insurance.

I don't think you can just walk into an operating room here in the US either

Surgeons can. And anaethetists. Also TV crews, especially if it's for a ####### job.

[Marilyn. 340]

You got that right. What people do not realize is that under a UHC you cannot simply walk into the operating room if you are diagnosed with something, unless it is an emergency. Quite a few people in AUS have to wait for years, on a list, for surgery. Not to the surprise of anyone there, they are heavily pushing for people to take up private health insurance.

I don't think you can just walk into an operating room here in the US either

Surgeons can. And anaethetists. Also TV crews, especially if it's for a ####### job.

I know that... but he was referring to people who need surgeries

[SteveLaura 0]

You got that right. What people do not realize is that under a UHC you cannot simply walk into the operating room if you are diagnosed with something, unless it is an emergency. Quite a few people in AUS have to wait for years, on a list, for surgery. Not to the surprise of anyone there, they are heavily pushing for people to take up private health insurance.

I don't think you can just walk into an operating room here in the US either

Surgeons can. And anaethetists. Also TV crews, especially if it's for a ####### job.

I know that... but he was referring to people who need surgeries

Ah. Yes, that makes more sense.

[no name 1]

Which 'bitchy comments' would those be then? My comments address your comments, I haven't ever made any comment about you or your personality. I did accuse you or basing your arguments on the kind of emotive clap trap easily found within the pages of the Daily Mail, but that's not exactly a playground taunt, or at least, it wasn't one when I was at school.

Agreed. Your argument holds no water, britty.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

For the ones here that want free heathcare, heres the plan. Quit your job, Then walk into your local welfare office and apply.In a few weeks you will recieve in the mail all that you desire.Medical coupons,food debit card to avoid embarassment,job training,free daycare,subsidized housing and a muriad of other benefits that are there for the taking.

If you so choose this option, I got one thing to say, and thats "your welcome" Now get out there and become dependant!