Here's one implementation of Nationalized Health Care by a country held as a standard.
The UK is sometimes used as an example of nationalized health care done right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
But apparently they have **a “national crisis” in patient care.**
A scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.
They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.
However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.
“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
|
1) As per your own source, six doctors in the U.K. have called the recomended near-death assessment scheme a "national crisis." Six. Also, those six U.K. doctors aren't talking about their whole system -- they are only referring to the potential or estimated results of one optional policy decision as precipitating a "national crisis." Here in the States, our scholars, pundits, and politicians emphasize that our entire health care system is in "national crisis." 2) The imminent-death-assessment system you criticize, according to the article you cited, is also not a national policy of the NHS. It's a recommendation made by an independent recommending body (see http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/ ) and it is optional. The recommendation concerning imminent death care withdrawal has been voluntarily adopted by "more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England." It is, arguably, a flawed recommendation -- or at least one requiring great care in its implementation. But it is neither an official NHS policy, nor a policy specific to or even related to nationalized health care. 3) Again as per your source, "[Dr. Hargreaves] added, 'What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying. It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.'" There is nothing about "tick-box medicine," where a simple symptom assessment is used as full diagnostic grounds, that is specific to nationalized health care. "Tick-box medicine" happens everywhere, most especially in the States. 4) The U.S. does that same sort of death-care rationing under our current health care system, except instead of being assessed as near-death for free you pay tens of thousands of dollars for the assessment, and then when you run out of money they kill you. (Or at least, in Texas they kill you. Google "Tirhas Habtegiris" for an example of what healthcare rationing looks like in the States.) 5) Free health care up to the point that an entire team of doctors led by a senior treating physician determine that extraordinary lifesaving methods will do no good, or . . . no health care whatsoever at all. Ummm, I still can't see why that would be a difficult choice to make in any way. I'll take the free care up until the point of imminent death over the no care, thanks much. Side: This happens in every system
You might as well be talking to a brick wall. I've linked copies of the white house's bill and gone through it pointing out the fallacies of the fear tactics being used against it, I've linked our rankings in both money spent and overall quality of care, I've pointed out the windfall of money ins takes in at the expense of customer service, samples of private ins dropping paying customers, mentioned my own inability to get ins because of family history and the millions like me who on one hand don't qualify for aid and on the other are priced out of a privatized system. Joe will ignore all facts, and in three days dig up some faulty example of healthcare woes (likely from a site funded by private ins) in a country that provides cheaper and better healthcare, and then run with it like it's the holy grail of privatized ins. Side: lmao if you think private ins does beter
Ok, here's the thing about health care rationing: we don't have an infinite amount of health care resources. Say we have one old guy with a terminal disease that can be treated at a cost of $1 million in order to extend his life by one year. Now say we have 100 younger people with a terminal disease that can be treated for $10,000 each in order to extend their lives by an average of 30 years. Wouldn't it be a better idea to take that million and use it to cure the younger people? By not having any sort of rationing, we are effectively killing them. Scarcity demands that we ask tough questions and make sacrifices for the greater good. Side: A certain amount of rationing is good
0
points
So, world according to Joe One old guy who's gonna die in a year > 100 young people who have 30 or more years to live... That's not a "wait till you get older" thing, that's a retarded thing. And what on earth makes you think a private ins company will fork out 1 million dollars to extend someone's life by 1 year? lmao, 65% of bankrupcies in this country happen specifically because the private insurance people do have doesn't pay. That guys dying unless he happens to have a million of his own in the bank, at least in this country. lmao, Israeli's are surrounded by suicide bombers and have a GDP smaller than most States... and they live longer. Side: lmao if you think private ins does beter
2
points
To always look out for the "Greater Good" is a slippery slope, and one that I'm not experienced or wise enough to even really comment on. But I'll try. Theoretically and statistically, it would make sense to deny treatment to those who are closer to death in favour of providing treatment for those who can be saved. It's commonly seen in military hospitals, the rationing of supplies for the ones who can actually use them. But can this be justified morally? I don't know. The problem with nationalized health care may be that countries are just too big now for taxpayers to be able to support each other. Consequently, this brings up the question of overpopulation, which brings us in a full circle back to health care. Perhaps by denying health care to some, we can lower the population (brutally) and thus lessen the burden on the taxpayers. But... ouch. That's harsh. So, there's what can be done and what should be done. Who can judge? I'm definitely not the right person to be in that position. Side: lmao if you think private ins does beter
1
point
And here's how these types of implementations of some form of Nationalized Healthcare compare directly and factually to our own completely Privatized Healthcare System (hint, all the places with some form or a nationalized option are cheaper and better) Side: lmao if you think private ins does beter
0
points
Now, let me get this straight --- We're going to maybe have a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he does not understand it, Passed by a Congress that has not read it but, exempts themselves from it, Signed by a president who smokes (and who also has not read it), With funding administered by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and Financed by a country that is broke. Hey, what could possibly go wrong? ;) Side: lmao if you think private ins does beter
1
point
|
