Friday, August 14, 2009

NHS: Long Waits and Putting the Patient Last

1. TELEGRAPH -- A quarter of a million people are waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment on the NHS, new figures show. The figures, published by the Lib Dems, show that 236,316 people are currently waiting more than 18 weeks for a range of treatments including oral surgery, rheumatology and geriatric medicine. This means that nearly 10% of patients are not being treated within the government's waiting list target.

2. TELEGRAPH -- Civitas, the think tank, blames the monolithic nature of the National Health Service for “putting the patient last”. It argues that the “customer” of the NHS business model introduced by Tony Blair and continued by Gordon Brown is the health secretary rather than the patient.

Originally posted at Carpe Diem.

13 Comments:

At 8/14/2009 10:03 AM, Blogger rufus said...

I've probably given some people that read this blog the idea that I would be in favor of a "Government Option." Let me state, unequivocably, that I Am Not.

I do, however, think we need to get all Americans covered with Health Insurance. Here's how I propose to do it:

1) Insurance Companies must cover All pre-existing conditions, in all policies. Patients with pre-existing conditions Cannot be charged extra. Period.

2) All American Citizens (only citizens are covered) will be "Required," under penalty of "Criminal" Law to carry Health Insurance. This is absolutely vital in order to avoid "adverse selection," and to make the plan affordable.

3) Assistance (Means-Tested) will be provided to those who cannot afford coverage.

4) ALL coverages will be provided by PRIVATE Companies.

5) 80% of Premiums will be "Tax Deductible." 20% of the Cost of Employer Paid Premiums will be "Taxable Income" to the employee.

6) There Is NO (6.) Anyone trying to come up with a (6) will be vigorously Waterboarded.

 
At 8/14/2009 10:53 AM, Blogger Angela said...

Sorry Rufus. Mandates aren't the answer, and neither is a bigger bureaucracy.

Insurance for a pre-existing condition is an oxymoron.

John Mackey has it right. Let the market work.

 
At 8/14/2009 1:45 PM, Blogger David Blanar said...

Good grief. Get a clue.

You guys are useless. You'd rather see people die than actually deliver health care.

Come back when you have something proper to offer. Something that doesn't put profit before people.

Oops ... sorry, not 'people' ... Citizens. Because if you're not a citizen, you don't count as human.

Grow up.

 
At 8/14/2009 3:14 PM, Anonymous GregL said...

I have a nice company supplied plan. I can have my choice of doctors and I recently choose to wait 4 months for the first opening for my pick of neurologists.

That was right here in America under God's own Capitalist health care system.

 
At 8/14/2009 3:17 PM, Blogger 1 said...

Thank you rufus for that Norman Thomas moment but your hilarious ideas that are all about what the present day Dems in Congress and the clown defiling the Oval Office are trying to foist onto American citizens...

David Blanar whines: "You guys are useless. You'd rather see people die than actually deliver health care"...

Actually David Blanar, I'm waiting for hypocrites like you to take in a dozen or so of these parasites you think need health care and take care of their problems...

Maybe you should hook up with Sheila Jackson Lee...

Just a thought...

 
At 8/14/2009 4:38 PM, Blogger Jack Miller said...

One of the briers in this garden has been growing since 1954, when the congress made health income free but tax deductible to corporation. Now, we try to fix the distortion to the market by adding further distortion. Covering pre-existing conditions is like selling a driver a collision insurance policy the day after he runs into a tree and agreeing to fix the car! Yeah, you are going to have to have the threat of jail to get that one through.

 
At 8/14/2009 5:59 PM, Blogger OA said...

Thanks David. You've wasted a minute of my life reading your pointless name calling. Did you have a bad day or something?

Where exactly are all these people dying in the streets for lack of treatment or denied care?

Are you saying that a selfless government program is better than a for profit insurer? And that's because one is for profit and the other isn't? Do you not get the implication of having to wait for treatment under government care?

 
At 8/14/2009 8:13 PM, Anonymous Mika said...

(1) No one is advocating a system like they have in Britain, so the original post is unrelated to the current health care debate.(2) A substantial number of those without health care insurance are hard-working Americans who pay taxes, but can't afford exorbitant premiums.(3) Treating human illness can't and shouldn't be compared to insuring vehicles - apples and oranges. Medical health insurance companies are fleecing America - over 400% profit in the last seven years. They can more than afford to cover those who actually need it. The current system is a shameful national travesty.

 
At 8/14/2009 11:30 PM, Anonymous CompEng said...

I hate watching conservative vs. liberal mudslinging. I'm not sure which is worse, vicious or stupid, but I'm leaning towards vicious as stupid is easier to cure.

Whatever method we rely on, and free market economics has a reasonable record as a form of distributed arbitration that can keep incentives balanced, the goal of more people living healthier lives ought to be easy to agree upon.

 
At 8/15/2009 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rufus, in most states, as in mine, all citizens who own an automobile are required, under penalty of law, to have auto insurance. I believe the national average of citizens who do not have insurance is 16-17%. I'm guessing you would have about the same % trying to fly under the health insurance radar.

That interesting number aside, a large portion of the uninsured (Health) can afford insurance but choose not be insured. They tend to be young and healthy. Just what do you do with these people? Jail? It's hard to buy insurance when you are jailed and now the government is providing you with health care, free. Fine them and then garnish wages to purchase insurance? What do you do with one of these Bozos when they develop a chronic or expensive condition and you discover they are uninsured?

 
At 8/15/2009 10:15 AM, Anonymous rsm said...

Mika:

Can you provide a link to your ridiculous number?

Mika: over 400% profit in the last seven years. They can more than afford to cover those who actually need it

That number doesn't pass my sniff test, nor should it pass yours. Please provide a link, or source for that number.

 
At 8/15/2009 11:31 PM, Blogger Eric said...

Mika, you're silly insane.

First of all, Obama and his allies have stated on many occasions their ultimate goal is a single-payer that would only differ from those in the UK and Canada in minor details. This has been covered in detail on numerous sites recently if you but look.

Second, the insurance industry has nothing remotely like the profits you claim. They are consistently in the low single digits. A recent survey of the most lucrative industries in the US placed health insurance down in the 80s. Not a group that is raking in massive profits.

You might be confused when you see a company has netted billions of dollar but failed to consider how customers were involved and how minor the profit from each.

If you want to give a donation to a non-profit hospital, please do. It's your money to do with as you please. But don't try to enlist the government to take money from productive people to give to complete strangers.

 
At 8/16/2009 4:23 AM, Blogger 1 said...

"I hate watching conservative vs. liberal mudslinging. I'm not sure which is worse, vicious or stupid, but I'm leaning towards vicious as stupid is easier to cure"...

No wonder the socialists in this country until recently had such easy going...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home