Can we have a calm discussion about health care?

@Pro Con

England does not have a death panel that goes through individual cases.

Which drugs are available on the NHS as a whole is decided by two indpendent bodies firstly the National Institute of Clinical Excellemce (NICE) and secondly the Primary Care Trusts.

Primary care trusts, which are not legally obliged to follow NICE advice, are local area committees that make decisions on how the NHS budget is spent in their part of the country.

There are 149 trusts in England and Wales issuing decisions about whether or not it is reasonable to prescribe a drug within its domain. The administrators of the PCTs across Britain are all able to make independent decisions as to whether to follow NICE rulings.

There are many people who would like to see our own health reform with NICE disbanded. It should also be noted that NICE has changed it's policies more recently, following public pressure, and now makes decisions far more quickly, allows far more life saving trial drugs on the NHS and gives far greater priority to quality of life than before, including for patients such as the Terminally ill.

American Perceptions of the British National Health Service: Five Myths

Christopher Potter & Janet Porter

Duke University Medical School

This article explores five strong beliefs, or myths, held by Americans about the British National Health Service: (1) the NHS is socialized medicine; (2) widespread rationing occurs; (3) NHS patients have to face long waiting times; (4) the NHS does not offer free choice of provider; and (5) private medicine is taking over. The authors explore how ethnocentricity and American values have shaped these five myths, and argue that these cultural biases limit the ability of Americans to objectively evaluate the NHS and prevent them from learning from the British system.

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/content/abstract...

Universal Health Care: Lessons From the British Experience

Donald W. Light Phd is with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Stratford.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg...

Quote by Professor Willem Buiter - Professor of European Political Economy, London School of Economics and Political Science; former chief economist of the EBRD, former external member of the MPC; adviser to international organisations, governments, central banks and private financial institutions.

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/07/the-inevitab...

Quote -

"The rise of genomics - the branch of genetics that studies organisms in terms of their full DNA sequences or genomes - will in the not too distant future kill off most private health insurance. That’s probably a good thing, for two reasons. First, because of asymmetric information, when there is risk and uncertainty about a person’s future health, health insurance markets are badly affected by adverse selection and moral hazard. Second, because the private health insurance industry is a monument to inefficiency everywhere and, especially in the US, a rent-seeking Leviathan whose ruthless lobbying efforts corrupt all it touches."

Health Insurance Companies do lots of rationing themselves, in fact they have whole departments dedicated to scrutinising insurance claims, looking at small print and scouring medical histories.The Health Insurance Companies pay these people bonuses in relation to the money money they save.

In terms of NHS waiting times, there is now a maximum two week wait in terms of referral from a GP to see a Cancer Consultant, any longer and the NHS must pay for the patient to receive a private consultation.

Finally Cancer survical rates have improved dramatically in the UK in recent years following the NHS Cancer Plan in 2000 which was matched by a massive investment programme in Cancer Services. Indeed British women now have more than an 80% chance of surviving breast cancer, and the same is true of other major cancers.

http://www.cancer.nhs.uk/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/57856...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489681/Bre...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cancer-deaths-in...

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/behindthehea...

The truth is diagnosis and recording of cancers vary from nation to nation, and countries which have universal health care treat the poorest in society for cancer, with the poorest and most vulnerable generally having the lowest survival rates. I wonder what the survival reate is amongst the 47 million uninsured Americans or the other 25 million who are underinsured.

Furthermore it is uip to the pathologist to determine how a patient died, however in some countries deaths being recorded as cancer are far greater than in others, and this is down to both definition of what constitutes cancer, definition of what killed the individual say heart failure bought on by cancer and how large the cancer registry is, many registeries only record a few thousand of the population as a snap shot, whilst others such as Britain provide far more comprehensive figures.

http://www.forces.org/writers/hatton/files/lies.ht...

1

This can not be discussed without the political aspect because it is political in its nature. Anyway the reasons why I am against it ( I have read some of what this bill contains) is:

1) The way it is set up and implemented will eventually drive all private insurers out of business. (This would be an ultimate power grab by the government)

2) It will decrease care for the elderly and disabled.

3) The government will require all medical information and all financial information including bank accounts or savings account (personally if this passes I will be pulling all of my money out of my bank account, I am sure I am not alone in this. Can you imagine what this will do to the already struggling banks?)

4) The government has not run any other program successfully. Why would this be any different?

5) Why should an intelligent person go through 10 years (+) of higher education only to be a government employee with a capped salary, still having to pay high medical malpractice insurance and still worry about getting sued? These people will go into other fields where their salary is not capped. Then this brings up the issue of a shortage of qualified doctors. Without doctors then quality of care will go down and there will be very long waiting lists for those still in business.

I agree that somethig needs to be done but a government run option is not the answer.

We can discuss it all we want, but the Democrat Congress is still going to do whatever they want without fear of being replaced. They sure don't represent me.

Most of these government programs designed to do something 'for us', end up doing many an atrocious thing 'to us.'

I believe Obama and Frank when they said that the gov't option is just a mile marker in the road to a single payer system. That's scary.

I'm very happy with my current health insurance and health care provider. I just got my tonsils out five days ago and had a wonderful experience (considering... - haha). I fear that meddling with the profit motive that drives the medical industry (and all others) will result in diminished care.

I don't trust the government to run a DMV - let alone my health. They screwed up social security. Medicare is broke. The National Flood Insurance Program is running a 17 billion dollar deficit. Amtrack is in shambles. The US Mail is a joke. Why would health care be the first major gov't initiative to run in solvency?

What you see is the democrats will go it alone. Unfortunately you will see no agreement on public option by republicans...I recognize little validity with each party. All you have to do is see which corporations buys who...I am an in dependent who values competition. There is none when corporations work by collusion is setting prices and denying care.

There are 38 countries ranked ahead of the US in healthcare in terms of cost and quality. That means, folks, that 37 others, besides Canada, are doing something better.

Businesses would not settle for being number 39. They would look at the top 10 and analyze what best practices are working and how they could be adapted.

Let's demand, just like stockholders, that our "board of directors" act in a thoughtful, business like fashion. But that means we need to do that also. Research, Read, Write.

i fail to see how we can leave politics out of it...after all, it *is* a political issue. i absolutely agree with the person who said it isn't reform, it's a new system. "reform" would be keeping the current system intact, but limiting profits that insurance companies could make, so that i'm not paying $1000/month for my medication [if i was uninsured, that is.] our healthcare system *does* need some serious reform. but the government's job is to do what's right by the people, and this is simply a disguised attempt to increase the power of the government. something we do not need.

To leave the true political agenda of the Obama admin out of any discussion on the proposed healthcare bill is to miss the point entirely. I am not against providing some type of healthcare for indigent or the unemployed.

I am against a backhanded sneaky attempt to eliminate private and employer funded healthcare. I do not need the gov't to control my health or tell me how to raise my child. Did you know that parents on gov't healthcare will be required to participate in home visits where they will be told how to raise their children? I for one do not believe it takes a village, I believe it takes a mom and a dad to raise a child.

Yes.

Reform is needed, but if we're honest - Obamacare is not reform, it is a new system. It's implementation will bankrupt America as the only way to pay for it is taxation. It will lower the quality of care & damage discovery & innovation in the field. It calls for minimal care to those who are not able to contribute to society, and therefore cuts care for the disabled & elderly.

This is a great article: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/o...

If any one wants to see Gov run health care in action, just go to a VA Hospital and look around.

This health care bill is not about "single payer" or "death panels". We cannot have a reasonable debate out healthcare while Republicans are allowed to lie. There is nothing about "single payer" insurance or "death panels" in the bills before Congress right now.