I can´t say that they are necessarily evil, but their business models need to change, so to my mind, could be a good thing.

And Morg, perhaps even you might agree that the physician should be dictating standards of care rather than the insurer. Certainly your wife has better things to do than spend time on the phone with a clerk telling her what she can and cannot prescribe.

I'll take that as a "yes".

How about if drug x has a 65% of curing you, but drug y has a 15% of curing you, and drug x is 15 times more expensive?

You're still dealing with cost constraints. Which leads to health care rationing. Which most Americans oppose period.

I'm focusing on one hypothetical example to get you to clarify your position on the topic.

And if they rule against the person who would have the 65% of being saved? What do you do then? Bow to the wisdom of the "death panel" and put your affairs in order?

Or better yet, how long do these appeals take? Weeks, months, years? People can die waiting that long for treatment which would ordinarily save them.

On this issue, at least, you are taking the socialist stance. Sorry to break it to you.

Morg

Would heartily agree. Long live the benevolent state.


Larry

See, this is just my point - Instead of the private company making a health care rationing decision, now you have the United States government making that decision. If a public health care system is implemented, then the paperwork / bureaucracy becomes ten times as bad as it already is. That one clerk becomes ten.

Morg

A McDonalds isnt any than buying real food in a UK supermarket... you can get a good meal of vegetables and some good quality sausages for £3.50.

Most insurance plans in the US have a formulary, or list of preferred drugs. If you have prescription coverage, then you pay a co-pay on your prescriptions ranging from $45 to $5 per prescription. If your physician chooses to prescribe something not on the formulary, then he or she must wrestle with whoever manages prescription coverage for the insurer. In the US, for example, there is a company called Medco. There have been some quality issues with generics in the past.... if a physician prefers to give a patient a non-generic, the patient has to have the physician contact the prescription management company, and negotiate, or prove that the patient needs the non-generic drug.

And yes, private companies allow X number of treatments, and then re-evaluate them as time goes on. Not too different from nice, as I see it.

But that's not MY point. I don't think a for profit company is effective in making such a decision. You do. End of discussion.

Sure it is. Your "comparison" notwithstanding.

A financial constraint is a financial constraint is a financial constraint. Doesn't matter if it's measured in total care dollars spent or limiting access to expensive treatments.

I'm sure there are limitations - but I can always go out to the private marketplace and find a company that will cover those treatments. Pelosi and Co. want to destroy the private health insurance companies, and thus limit our choices, which I'm having none of.

If I were rich enough I could pay for the treatments myself, but there are rumors circulating that you won't even be able to do that under the more extreme versions of the plan.

There are None so deaf as those who will not hear.

For the last time, now listen carefully, your not refused treatment, the nhs will treat you with what they consider to be the best treatment, that gives the best results, we DO NOT have a system like the us where drug companies advertise there wears on tv etc.

Its not a case of well you cant have wonder drug xxx so you'll get nothing! you'll get some of the best care in the world, that according to the WHO is better the the US's

now I'm owt, its tedious making the same point again and again just for some argumentative ill informed person to keep twisting them, you live in your little utopia of lovely health insurance and watch all those inconvenient poor people suffer and die, America F**k Yeah!

Then you must think a government agency is effective in making such a decision, right? We simply put our faith in different institutions then - you in the public, and me in the private.

Nothing wrong with that. I just don't agree with your viewpoint.

morg

Physician, heal thyself.

That should be up to the doctor and the patient. Not a panel of so-called "experts".

No, you won't get wonder drug X that has a 65% chance of saving you, you'll get wonder drug Y that has a 25% change of saving you. Hope Lady Luck is watching over you.

I'm not saying the UK has bad health care. I'm just saying it's not for me, or for my country.

Argumentative, yes. Ill informed, no. I'm not twisting your arguments, I'm forcing you to realize the socialist premise that they're based on, and you don't want to acknowledged that.

And you live in your utopia of socialist healthcare. We agree to live in our respective utopias. I won't try to change yours, you don't try to change mine. Deal?

Morg

I am glad we have put this down to a matter of faith. As long as you are aware that there is always a person who does not have your best interest in mind between you and your doctor, whether it is the paper-pushing bureaucrat with thick glasses or the money-grabbing accountant at the insurance company, who you trust more is a matter of personal conviction. It is unfortunate health care is not run by Jesus.

Ok then, Morg, answering Yes or No ONLY. Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?

Agreed. But this is different from saying we will only spend 10000 pounds on each patient each year. Categorically different. you cannot tell me that is the same as an overall budget limitation.

Final point, but I made this ages ago but its very very very relecant. NICE is not working towards profit. It is a public body with people's medical interests at heart. Private Health companies however, want to make money. This will affect any decision making.

Union refutes US 'lies' about NHS

Yeah and it's gross, you pay it without deductions.

Ok another post for you to answer. It is my word against yours. I have just seen this very statement about a price cap on Sky News being denied by someone in the UK. Interesting. So who knows? I don't and wouldn't know how to verify it.

Maybe Panorama can clarify it in a future episode.

One sure thing is that cost issues of treatment influence Doctor's decisions. FACT.

Doctor's aren't always the only people involved in all medical decisions, as you know local authority's are responsible as well and look how that works, but I don't want to go there.

Don't worry about the search you have to log on to view this thread so the audience is limited. Then word of mouth comes into play and then what are the facts.

I don't know, do you?

I never said there was no such thing as a non-yes or no question. I said that my question was a yes or no question. Yes, it is financial constraint to withold drug A from one patient in order to give 100 other patients drug B, or no it is not a financial constraint.

Patient A has his health care options restrained due to the financial decisions of NICE. Hence, financial constraint.

A financial constraint is a financial constraint is ... etc. etc. I'm not saying it's the same thing as an overall budgetary limitation. I'm saying it's a stoppage in your health care (constraint) that's based on monetary (financial) considerations, made by a government panel.

You ever stop to think that maybe my insurance company will give me drug X at 15 times the cost of drug Y because it is so profitable to them? In fact, they will encourage more people to take the better drug - if they can afford it - to make more money. Basic statistics here - if more people take drug A with a 65% chance of cure and the same amount take drug B with a 25% chance of cure, the cure rate overall goes up. Health system improvement in action.

Whereas if drug A is withheld, the chance of cure stays static.

Profit fuels innovation in all industries, including heatlh care.

Morg

Not true you have forgotten the upper earnings limit.

Once you reach this (40k GBP a year) you continue to pay 1% gross on everything above 40k. Your employer however continues to pay 12.8% too on your earnings.

This was changed by Gordy and is now a nice little earner, especially as it coincides with the kick-in of 40% tax on your income above this 40k limit too.

Same in America. Insurance companies refuse to pay for treatments/drugs all the time. Out of pocket payment if you want it.

In the UK, you can also have private health insurance if you don't feel the NHS is suiting your needs/will suit your needs.

There is no capping that I am aware of. Having worked in the field of Oncology I'm fairly sceptical about the "latest treatment". These are usually highly experimental, unproven medicines that at best extend life by weeks, often with unpleasant side effects, and can cost thousands of dollars a month.

Of course, nobody in England is denied the right to pay for treatment if they are unhappy with the NHS. In fact the quality of private health care cost in the UK is extremely reasonable, particularly if you take out insurance, and is widely available. You might say that is paying for something twice, but I see it more like choosing an upgrade. You get private rooms and nicer food etc. In practice I don't think private healthcare in the UK provides any better outcome than NHS healthcare and I'm not aware of any evidence of that either.