Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460129 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-13 15:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-26 13:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 264 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:10 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:54 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:59 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 00:34 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 08:49 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 02:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:14 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 09:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:02 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 16:10 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 01:12 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 10:57 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-18 10:42 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 15:48 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:47 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 00:03 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:09 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-05-18 09:13 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 09:37 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 04:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:58 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-17 08:21 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:28 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:13 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 10:14 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:31 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 19:17 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 23:45 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-19 19:57 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 23:35 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 07:42 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-20 00:48 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 09:24 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 12:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 17:44 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 16:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:29 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 19:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 11:32 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 01:16 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:04 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-24 07:40 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-05-31 11:57 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-20 05:12 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 21:07 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-23 19:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:46 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 12:56 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 12:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 18:12 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-24 16:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-24 19:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-26 15:41 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:18 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 18:54 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 23:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 15:32 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 15:01 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 00:52 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-15 19:17 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:26 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:01 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 21:12 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 13:51 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:50 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:27 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 22:00 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-14 18:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 16:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:05 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 17:49 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:25 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:28 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 19:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:05 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 18:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 21:53 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 12:51 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-20 11:54 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-20 12:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-22 08:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-22 11:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:06 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:38 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:44 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-13 17:35 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 17:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:00 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 21:29 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 18:47 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 22:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 19:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:08 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 21:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:02 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 18:02 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:58 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-14 09:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:04 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-14 11:12 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 12:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-14 10:55 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-14 13:32 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:03 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-13 20:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 20:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 08:55 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-14 08:11 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 14:25 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 23:54 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:09 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:43 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 00:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 19:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-13 16:32 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:00 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 16:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 17:31 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 17:36 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 20:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:58 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:35 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:17 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:27 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 19:49 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 21:27 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 18:53 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 19:43 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:52 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-17 18:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:59 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-05-13 20:06 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:53 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 13:33 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 23:53 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:11 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:24 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-15 19:16 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 09:29 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:58 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 21:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 00:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 14:29 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:48 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-14 18:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 09:44 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 12:34 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 09:34 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 09:03 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 12:36 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 14:12 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 14:36 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 17:43 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 18:01 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-18 15:18 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 19:39 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-19 09:22 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:37 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-19 17:51 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-22 11:30 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:32 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-23 10:58 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:09 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-23 14:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-24 13:30 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 13:01 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-26 15:43 +0200
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:13 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-19 07:50 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-18 20:03 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 20:39 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-05-14 12:19 +0800
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 22:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 22:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-18 18:10 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:31 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:28 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-14 10:53 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:30 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 11:49 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 12:56 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-19 18:05 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-20 08:36 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-20 15:58 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-23 10:21 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-23 13:26 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 17:41 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-24 08:37 +1000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 00:45 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:52 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 00:52 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 15:16 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 08:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 13:33 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-19 09:50 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 01:32 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 08:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:19 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-25 08:57 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 11:49 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-25 18:04 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 13:15 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:15 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:28 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 04:40 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-31 06:19 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-31 18:08 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-25 18:30 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-25 13:15 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-26 09:54 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 12:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-26 13:44 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:47 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-24 00:18 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-24 09:20 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 12:38 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-06-24 12:11 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-24 13:04 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-29 14:20 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-29 15:37 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-30 11:05 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-30 08:13 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-06-30 12:26 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-30 03:43 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 21:07 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-26 18:59 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-26 22:17 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-27 09:37 +0100
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-27 09:30 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-27 18:23 -0700
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-26 08:47 -0400
Re: What's wrong with "national health care"? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-26 13:43 -0700
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 15:10 -0700 |
| Subject | What's wrong with "national health care"? |
| Message-ID | <of801n$5ej$1@dont-email.me> |
So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I.e., what would you wish was different/better? How are your "death panels" implemented? How is care "rationed"? What have you NOT been given (by way of care) that you feel you ought to have? I.e., if you were starting from scratch to reinvent YOUR system, what would you change?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 22:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of82qm$d5j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460129 |
On Sat, 13 May 2017 15:10:31 -0700, Don Y wrote: > So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" > (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? I would say that it encourages unhealthy lifestyle choices, because it treats all patients equally, regardless of how culpable they are in their own misfortune. Not only that, but once you have such a system, you inevitably begin to attract others, often from overseas, who have never contributed to its upkeep, yet still expect to be 'fixed-up' by it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of82ss$ds9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460131 |
On 5/13/2017 3:54 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote: > On Sat, 13 May 2017 15:10:31 -0700, Don Y wrote: > >> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? > > I would say that it encourages unhealthy lifestyle choices, because it > treats all patients equally, regardless of how culpable they are in their > own misfortune. Not only that, but once you have such a system, you > inevitably begin to attract others, often from overseas, who have never > contributed to its upkeep, yet still expect to be 'fixed-up' by it. And, which country are you reporting from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 00:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RJMRA.4506$Ky3.3282@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #460132 |
On 13/05/17 23:59, Don Y wrote: > On 5/13/2017 3:54 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote: >> On Sat, 13 May 2017 15:10:31 -0700, Don Y wrote: >> >>> So, for the folks who live/work in places with "national health care" >>> (whatever THAT means), what's *wrong* with it? >> >> I would say that it encourages unhealthy lifestyle choices, because it >> treats all patients equally, regardless of how culpable they are in their >> own misfortune. Not only that, but once you have such a system, you >> inevitably begin to attract others, often from overseas, who have never >> contributed to its upkeep, yet still expect to be 'fixed-up' by it. > > And, which country are you reporting from? A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and trollery.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of874l$pa0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460140 |
On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> And, which country are you reporting from? > > A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of > the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and > trollery. You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU) a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or, only Brits (et al.)? What about immigrants? Do they have to gain UK citizenship? Do they have to reside in the country for a particular length of time before being eligible for "full benefits" (whatever that means)? Do they have to pay into the system for a minimum length of time in order to qualify? E.g., one can't move to the US on the eve of their 65th birthday, become naturalized (other than through marriage) and expect to claim social security benefits. Or medicare. What "buy in" does the public have regarding "apportionment of resources"? I recall being in Manchester in ~`83 and hearing a "panel" discussing health care dollars on BBC <n>. One of the examples that stuck in my mind was: "Do we repair the 80 year old's broken hip or vaccinate N children?" Of course, if I'm 79, I have a lot different view of that question than if I'm child-bearing age!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 08:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UZTRA.71706$Gx4.7875@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #460145 |
On 14/05/17 01:11, Don Y wrote: > On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> And, which country are you reporting from? >> >> A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of >> the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and >> trollery. > > You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU) > a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or, > only Brits (et al.)? There are "reciprocal agreements". "Health tourism" does exist, in both directions, but the relative costs are subject to political rabble rousing and lies - or "alternative facts" as we should learn to call them. I've never bothered to drill into real figures, since I've never heard any evidence that it is a /significant/ problem. > What about immigrants? Do they have to gain UK citizenship? > Do they have to reside in the country for a particular length > of time before being eligible for "full benefits" (whatever > that means)? Do they have to pay into the system for a minimum > length of time in order to qualify? For many benefits you do have to pay into the system for a minimum amount of time to get them. > E.g., one can't move to the US on the eve of their 65th birthday, > become naturalized (other than through marriage) and expect to > claim social security benefits. Or medicare. Nor here. E.g. to get a full state pension, you have to have made "national insurance" contributions for a minimum of 10 years, only getting the full state pension after 35 years. However, there are many cases where you can have "NI Credits" without having made any payments, e.g. if you can't work because you are a "carer". > What "buy in" does the public have regarding "apportionment of > resources"? I recall being in Manchester in ~`83 and hearing a > "panel" discussing health care dollars on BBC <n>. One of the > examples that stuck in my mind was: > > "Do we repair the 80 year old's broken hip or vaccinate N children?" > > Of course, if I'm 79, I have a lot different view of that question > than if I'm child-bearing age! Those important questions can never be resolved, under any system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 02:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of9658$trf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460208 |
On 5/14/2017 12:49 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 14/05/17 01:11, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> And, which country are you reporting from?
>>>
>>> A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of
>>> the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and
>>> trollery.
>>
>> You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU)
>> a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or,
>> only Brits (et al.)?
>
> There are "reciprocal agreements". "Health tourism"
> does exist, in both directions, but the relative costs
> are subject to political rabble rousing and lies - or
> "alternative facts" as we should learn to call them.
>
> I've never bothered to drill into real figures, since
> I've never heard any evidence that it is a /significant/
> problem.
So, there may be some "special cases" where gaming the system can work
to some individuals' advantage -- but, its not an obvious/prevalent
set of circumstances.
>> What about immigrants? Do they have to gain UK citizenship?
>> Do they have to reside in the country for a particular length
>> of time before being eligible for "full benefits" (whatever
>> that means)? Do they have to pay into the system for a minimum
>> length of time in order to qualify?
>
> For many benefits you do have to pay into the system
> for a minimum amount of time to get them.
In the interval *before* they are "vested", I assume they use the
same health care service -- but, have to PAY for their care (CASH)?
I.e., the equivalent of The Uninsured, here?
Is the fee schedule "reasonable (i.e., affordable) or, do they get
raked over the coals (see Mike K's example of a $32 test being repriced
at $3 "with insurance")?
Said yet another way, does it make sense to NOT participate in
the plan -- i.e., by remaining a "foreigner" and paying "list price"?
>> E.g., one can't move to the US on the eve of their 65th birthday,
>> become naturalized (other than through marriage) and expect to
>> claim social security benefits. Or medicare.
>
> Nor here. E.g. to get a full state pension, you have
> to have made "national insurance" contributions for
> a minimum of 10 years, only getting the full state
> pension after 35 years.
That didn't make sense.
"To get a full state pension...minimum 10 years..."
and
"Full state pension after 35 years"
> However, there are many cases where you
> can have "NI Credits" without having made any
> payments, e.g. if you can't work because you are
> a "carer".
>
>> What "buy in" does the public have regarding "apportionment of
>> resources"? I recall being in Manchester in ~`83 and hearing a
>> "panel" discussing health care dollars on BBC <n>. One of the
>> examples that stuck in my mind was:
>>
>> "Do we repair the 80 year old's broken hip or vaccinate N children?"
>>
>> Of course, if I'm 79, I have a lot different view of that question
>> than if I'm child-bearing age!
>
> Those important questions can never be resolved,
> under any system.
But, I'm sure there are cases where people are told, "Sorry, no!".
Do they simply accept this as a Fact of Life? Or, do they bitch?
Or, pay out of pocket? Or...
E.g., here, I think the standard of care suggests routine colonoscopy
beginning at 50 and every ~10 years, thereafter (assuming "negative").
But, from 76 to 85, the "routine" aspect is dropped and only recommended
"in special circumstances" (e.g., bleeding out your ass would likely be
one!). And, after 85, not at all.
These things are codified into our health care policies (e.g., Medicare,
in this case) so there is no coverage for them. E.g., if your ass is
bleeding and you're 87, tough! (you'd have to pay for the procedure
yourself). The thinking being that comorbidity increases with age and
contraindicates these sorts of "preventative" tests: "You've already
lived past your SELL BY date..."
The same sorts of criteria apply to things like mammography.
And, I'd wager that a pre-menopausal 60 year old would be denied
/in vitro/ fertilization in just about *any* health plan... No
idea when a man would be denied treatment for ED!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KdVRA.39587$rh7.24762@fx46.am4> |
| In reply to | #460213 |
On 14/05/17 10:00, Don Y wrote: > On 5/14/2017 12:49 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 14/05/17 01:11, Don Y wrote: >>> On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>>> And, which country are you reporting from? >>>> >>>> A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of >>>> the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and >>>> trollery. >>> >>> You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU) >>> a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or, >>> only Brits (et al.)? >> >> There are "reciprocal agreements". "Health tourism" >> does exist, in both directions, but the relative costs >> are subject to political rabble rousing and lies - or >> "alternative facts" as we should learn to call them. >> >> I've never bothered to drill into real figures, since >> I've never heard any evidence that it is a /significant/ >> problem. > > So, there may be some "special cases" where gaming the system can work > to some individuals' advantage -- but, its not an obvious/prevalent > set of circumstances. All systems can be "gamed". The rabble-rousers will always be able to find /some/ examples. As I said, I've never bothered to drill into the real figures. >>> What about immigrants? Do they have to gain UK citizenship? >>> Do they have to reside in the country for a particular length >>> of time before being eligible for "full benefits" (whatever >>> that means)? Do they have to pay into the system for a minimum >>> length of time in order to qualify? >> >> For many benefits you do have to pay into the system >> for a minimum amount of time to get them. > > In the interval *before* they are "vested", I assume they use the > same health care service -- but, have to PAY for their care (CASH)? > I.e., the equivalent of The Uninsured, here? > > Is the fee schedule "reasonable (i.e., affordable) or, do they get > raked over the coals (see Mike K's example of a $32 test being repriced > at $3 "with insurance")? > > Said yet another way, does it make sense to NOT participate in > the plan -- i.e., by remaining a "foreigner" and paying "list price"? > >>> E.g., one can't move to the US on the eve of their 65th birthday, >>> become naturalized (other than through marriage) and expect to >>> claim social security benefits. Or medicare. >> >> Nor here. E.g. to get a full state pension, you have >> to have made "national insurance" contributions for >> a minimum of 10 years, only getting the full state >> pension after 35 years. > > That didn't make sense. > "To get a full state pension...minimum 10 years..." > and > "Full state pension after 35 years" Correct :( Sloppy proofreading on my part. Sliding scale from 10 to 35 years. You can "buy" extra years for ~£700/year; whether it is worth doing so depends on how long you expect to live! >> However, there are many cases where you >> can have "NI Credits" without having made any >> payments, e.g. if you can't work because you are >> a "carer". >> >>> What "buy in" does the public have regarding "apportionment of >>> resources"? I recall being in Manchester in ~`83 and hearing a >>> "panel" discussing health care dollars on BBC <n>. One of the >>> examples that stuck in my mind was: >>> >>> "Do we repair the 80 year old's broken hip or vaccinate N children?" >>> >>> Of course, if I'm 79, I have a lot different view of that question >>> than if I'm child-bearing age! >> >> Those important questions can never be resolved, >> under any system. > > But, I'm sure there are cases where people are told, "Sorry, no!". > Do they simply accept this as a Fact of Life? Or, do they bitch? > Or, pay out of pocket? Or... > > E.g., here, I think the standard of care suggests routine colonoscopy > beginning at 50 and every ~10 years, thereafter (assuming "negative"). > But, from 76 to 85, the "routine" aspect is dropped and only recommended > "in special circumstances" (e.g., bleeding out your ass would likely be > one!). And, after 85, not at all. > > These things are codified into our health care policies (e.g., Medicare, > in this case) so there is no coverage for them. E.g., if your ass is > bleeding and you're 87, tough! (you'd have to pay for the procedure > yourself). The thinking being that comorbidity increases with age and > contraindicates these sorts of "preventative" tests: "You've already > lived past your SELL BY date..." > > The same sorts of criteria apply to things like mammography. > > And, I'd wager that a pre-menopausal 60 year old would be denied > /in vitro/ fertilization in just about *any* health plan... No > idea when a man would be denied treatment for ED! The guidelines here are developed by NICE, and are available on the web in versions for medical professionals and ordinary punters. A key point is that they provide solid references supporting each decision. It is an interesting ongoing debate as to whether it is justified to restrict treatment available to, for example, the morbidly obese. The medical justification would be based on the probability of a poor outcome, but there's concern that the boundary could be nudged by non-medical considerations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of9t1u$7b2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460214 |
On 5/14/2017 2:14 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> But, I'm sure there are cases where people are told, "Sorry, no!".
>> Do they simply accept this as a Fact of Life? Or, do they bitch?
>> Or, pay out of pocket? Or...
>>
>> E.g., here, I think the standard of care suggests routine colonoscopy
>> beginning at 50 and every ~10 years, thereafter (assuming "negative").
>> But, from 76 to 85, the "routine" aspect is dropped and only recommended
>> "in special circumstances" (e.g., bleeding out your ass would likely be
>> one!). And, after 85, not at all.
>>
>> These things are codified into our health care policies (e.g., Medicare,
>> in this case) so there is no coverage for them. E.g., if your ass is
>> bleeding and you're 87, tough! (you'd have to pay for the procedure
>> yourself). The thinking being that comorbidity increases with age and
>> contraindicates these sorts of "preventative" tests: "You've already
>> lived past your SELL BY date..."
>>
>> The same sorts of criteria apply to things like mammography.
>>
>> And, I'd wager that a pre-menopausal 60 year old would be denied
>> /in vitro/ fertilization in just about *any* health plan... No
>> idea when a man would be denied treatment for ED!
>
> The guidelines here are developed by NICE, and
> are available on the web in versions for medical
> professionals and ordinary punters.
Yes you (or Martin?) sent me a pointer in a previous thread.
> A key point is
> that they provide solid references supporting each
> decision.
The same is done, here. But, that doesn't keep people
from being outraged when it results in their being
"denied" care.
E.g., there was a publicized case, recently, where a 79
year old received some test/treatment that ended up
having a significant impact on their life; the point of the
article being that at *80*, the test/treatment would NOT
have been provided. I.e., were it for anything other
than the *luck* of the symptoms being noted and Dx'ed
*THEN*, they may well have died from a "denial of care".
People who are in their 70's obviously relate to this as
a potential threat to THEIR health/longevity. And, thus,
are outraged at the "arbitrariness" of the criteria.
I.e., they don't want to acknowledge the underlying
science -- thinking *they* ought to ALWAYS be treated as
the special case, regardless of the probabilistic outcome
and expected value of that care.
Someone in their 60's may consider that far enough away
(in time) that it is more easily accepted as "making sense".
The very same folks who objected to the "socialistic" nature
of these programs seem (IME) most demanding of services
from them: "I *paid* for this!" (no, you paid for what you
are getting; had you wanted more, you would have advocated
PAYING more!)
> It is an interesting ongoing debate as to whether
> it is justified to restrict treatment available to,
> for example, the morbidly obese.
No doubt, the morbidly obese being most vociferously
opposed to any restrictions placed on the care available
to them.
> The medical
> justification would be based on the probability
> of a poor outcome, but there's concern that the
> boundary could be nudged by non-medical considerations.
"Probability" is the problem. Most people are terribly
inept at understanding this (witness the confusion over
something as simple as "odds" vs. "probability"). And,
all want to think THEY are the exception.
We lost a friend to ALS a couple of years ago. I was
astonished at her attitude, throughout. She clung to
the belief that she would be the exception case -- the
one who lived decades with her illness... despite the
LIKELIHOOD that she would suffer the "average" prognosis.
Another friend died of congestive heart failure last (?)
year. He spent most of the last 6 months of his life
in and out of the hospital's intensive care unit. They'd
"fix him up" and send him home. And, a week to 10 days
later, he'd present at the ER, again, swollen from fluid
retention, trouble breathing, etc. Push the diuretics
and other meds directly into his heart. Wait a week
(at taxpayer's expense), then get discharged and repeat
the process ("Can't wait to get home and have some PIZZA!")
Doctors tried to coerce him to having an LVAD "installed"
but he wasn't keen on the idea. Would that have improved
his outcome? Or, just translated the same CtD behavior
a year or three down the line?
When do you decide that he's just pissing away health care
dollars -- that could be used to improve the quality of
life of someone else with a better prognosis?
Keep in mind, this is a close *friend* so I've some interest
in having him around (I saw more of him than his *kids* did,
during that time); OTOH, also interested in seeing him NOT
acting purely out of fear -- of death -- and incurring the
discomfort associated with prolonging the inevitable
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 15:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of9r6k$s4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #460145 |
On 14/05/2017 01:11, Don Y wrote: > On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> And, which country are you reporting from? >> >> A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of >> the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and >> trollery. > > You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU) > a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or, > only Brits (et al.)? Any EU citizen. But you have to be aware that not all national health services are alike. ISTR Spain's dosn't include food. When I lived in Belgium we were covered by the EU health insurance scheme (as well as private corporate insurance). You can get an EHIC to prove eligibility: https://www.gov.uk/european-health-insurance-card And it is free - though there are plenty of private enterprise squatting websites sat in the adverts on likely Google searches who will charge you (much like there are for getting a US Visa waiver) What it doesn't cover are things like repatriation and the small print about what you must pay for and what is chargeable in each country. You may not get English speaking doctors - need travel insurance for that. It may well stop when Brexit goes horribly pear shaped. > What about immigrants? Do they have to gain UK citizenship? > Do they have to reside in the country for a particular length > of time before being eligible for "full benefits" (whatever > that means)? Do they have to pay into the system for a minimum > length of time in order to qualify? Depends where they have come from and what status they have. Corporate expats tend to have private health insurance that goes with their job whereas students would invariably rely solely on the NHS. NHS isn't very good at billing non-UK patients unless they run up a huge bill the cost of invoicing and enforcement outweighs the gains. > E.g., one can't move to the US on the eve of their 65th birthday, > become naturalized (other than through marriage) and expect to > claim social security benefits. Or medicare. > > What "buy in" does the public have regarding "apportionment of > resources"? I recall being in Manchester in ~`83 and hearing a > "panel" discussing health care dollars on BBC <n>. One of the > examples that stuck in my mind was: > > "Do we repair the 80 year old's broken hip or vaccinate N children?" They pose these questions on provocative talks shows but in practice the NHS had no problems at all mending my 90 y.o. mum's broken hip and she recovered from that pretty well. There is always a tension between what provides maximum benefit for society and individual needs. > Of course, if I'm 79, I have a lot different view of that question > than if I'm child-bearing age! Do many men get pregnant in the USA or is Don really Donna? https://www.creativereview.co.uk/saatchi-saatchis-pregnant-man-nativity/ -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of9uuh$drr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460231 |
On 5/14/2017 7:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 14/05/2017 01:11, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> And, which country are you reporting from?
>>>
>>> A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of
>>> the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and
>>> trollery.
>>
>> You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU)
>> a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or,
>> only Brits (et al.)?
>
> Any EU citizen. But you have to be aware that not all national health services
> are alike. ISTR Spain's dosn't include food. When I lived in Belgium we were
> covered by the EU health insurance scheme (as well as private corporate
> insurance). You can get an EHIC to prove eligibility:
>
> https://www.gov.uk/european-health-insurance-card
>
> And it is free - though there are plenty of private enterprise squatting
> websites sat in the adverts on likely Google searches who will charge you (much
> like there are for getting a US Visa waiver)
Yes, though (per Tom), there doesn't appear to be much "shopping around"
for the best *place* to receive your care.
E.g., here, we (if responsible, self-interested consumers) typically
do some research into our selection of PCP, specialists, etc. A friend
spent the better part of a year looking for his orthopaedic surgeon.
Had that MD left the "plan" that was providing my friend's coverage
*or* had my friend left (or been forced from) that plan, there is
a chance that the collection of surgeons from which he could choose
would change. And, no guarantee that the "new" surgeon would want him
as a patient (in the time frame that he wanted/needed).
Engaging an ultra liberal friend in a discussion of universal health
care, I asked him what LIMITS would apply to the care dispensed.
His reply, "None"! (WTF? There can be limitless NEED for health
care; surely you can't expect to meet it ALL?!). When I suggested
that folks "from the other side of the tracks" would likely want to
avail themselves of the specialists that he uses (doctors practice
where they want to LIVE; few voluntarily venture into places that
aren't appealing, personally), he was indignant -- realizing that
this would increase HIS wait time when needing to access that
specialist: "No, they should use doctors where THEY live!"
Hmmm... but aren't all (similar) doctors paid the same by the same
payer? Why wouldn't a patient want to travel to the best doctor
qualified to handle his particular condition??
Surely, there must be some variation in the quality of care
from (EU) country to country or (UK) community to community.
Why wouldn't I want to shop around and get treated by the
cardiologist in Liverpool instead of the local guy in Manchester?
"Heck, I'm willing to make the drive..."
> What it doesn't cover are things like repatriation and the small print about
"Repatriation"?
> what you must pay for and what is chargeable in each country. You may not get
> English speaking doctors - need travel insurance for that.
>
> It may well stop when Brexit goes horribly pear shaped.
Why? Because Brits would want to retain access to foreign providers?
>> What about immigrants? Do they have to gain UK citizenship?
>> Do they have to reside in the country for a particular length
>> of time before being eligible for "full benefits" (whatever
>> that means)? Do they have to pay into the system for a minimum
>> length of time in order to qualify?
>
> Depends where they have come from and what status they have.
> Corporate expats tend to have private health insurance that goes with their job
> whereas students would invariably rely solely on the NHS.
Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS
is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private insurance
picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a hospital
stay result in THREE bills being issued:
- to the NHS for "basic services"
- to the private insurer for services above those
- to the patient for services "not covered"
> NHS isn't very good at billing non-UK patients unless they run up a huge bill
> the cost of invoicing and enforcement outweighs the gains.
So, no "stick" to discourage that abuse? Couldn't the NHS "simply"
invoice the patient's "country of origin" and develop reciprocal
agreements to facilitate this?
"In the past 30 days, we provided THIS care to THESE citizens of yours
at a cost of X. We acknowledge that, in the same time period, you
provided care to some number of OUR citizens at a cost of Y (< X).
As such, the outstanding balance is..."
>> E.g., one can't move to the US on the eve of their 65th birthday,
>> become naturalized (other than through marriage) and expect to
>> claim social security benefits. Or medicare.
>>
>> What "buy in" does the public have regarding "apportionment of
>> resources"? I recall being in Manchester in ~`83 and hearing a
>> "panel" discussing health care dollars on BBC <n>. One of the
>> examples that stuck in my mind was:
>>
>> "Do we repair the 80 year old's broken hip or vaccinate N children?"
>
> They pose these questions on provocative talks shows but in practice the NHS
> had no problems at all mending my 90 y.o. mum's broken hip and she recovered
> from that pretty well. There is always a tension between what provides maximum
> benefit for society and individual needs.
But where are the limits?
The fear mongers, here, tell us that universal health care will result in
rationing, death panels, people DYING because they have been denied care
(and, amusingly, acting as if none of these things happen with PRIVATE
health insurance!).
What mechanisms ensure that (NHS) coverage is available to everyone, everywhere
for "every" need? What's to stop all the providers from settling in London
and its suburbs -- to the detriment of folks farther out? What's to stop
a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an established
provider? etc.
>> Of course, if I'm 79, I have a lot different view of that question
>> than if I'm child-bearing age!
>
> Do many men get pregnant in the USA or is Don really Donna?
> https://www.creativereview.co.uk/saatchi-saatchis-pregnant-man-nativity/
One can be "of child bearing age" and still not "able to bear children"! :>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 18:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <z40SA.41105$Ps3.12798@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #460241 |
On 14/05/17 17:04, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/14/2017 7:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 14/05/2017 01:11, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2017 4:34 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> And, which country are you reporting from?
>>>>
>>>> A variant of the UK, distorted through the lens of
>>>> the Daily Sexpress, the Daily Wail, prejudice and
>>>> trollery.
>>>
>>> You're in England, Tom? Can (while you're still a member of the EU)
>>> a Frenchman (or other EU citizen) receive care at your NHS? Or,
>>> only Brits (et al.)?
>>
>> Any EU citizen. But you have to be aware that not all national health services
>> are alike. ISTR Spain's dosn't include food. When I lived in Belgium we were
>> covered by the EU health insurance scheme (as well as private corporate
>> insurance). You can get an EHIC to prove eligibility:
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/european-health-insurance-card
>>
>> And it is free - though there are plenty of private enterprise squatting
>> websites sat in the adverts on likely Google searches who will charge you (much
>> like there are for getting a US Visa waiver)
>
> Yes, though (per Tom), there doesn't appear to be much "shopping around"
> for the best *place* to receive your care.
There are two main reasons why shopping around
/cannot/ happen:
- in an emergency, you aren't in a position to
make a choice
- most people don't know how to choose anyway,
other than on distance and colour of the decor
So they simply rely on the professionals; no
change there, then
Trying to get libertarian politicians to provide
a response to those fundamentals is, um, challenging.
> Surely, there must be some variation in the quality of care
> from (EU) country to country or (UK) community to community.
> Why wouldn't I want to shop around and get treated by the
> cardiologist in Liverpool instead of the local guy in Manchester?
> "Heck, I'm willing to make the drive..."
I'm not in a position to discuss country-vs-country.
It is traditionally more difficult to get good staff
"out in the sticks". I presume that applies everywhere
e.g. the US TV programme "Northern Lights" about Alaska
and "Doc Hollywood". Good solid source information
there :)
>> It may well stop when Brexit goes horribly pear shaped.
>
> Why? Because Brits would want to retain access to foreign providers?
Lots of British have retired to the Spanish
Mediterranean coast.
> Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS
> is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private insurance
> picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a hospital
> stay result in THREE bills being issued:
> - to the NHS for "basic services"
> - to the private insurer for services above those
> - to the patient for services "not covered"
It is not co-insurance. All sane people use private
health insurance as a "top up", relying on the NHS
for all basic important services. The insurance clauses
often reflect that.
Few people have their own private health insurance;
companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because
the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare
appointments around the employee's work schedule.
> The fear mongers, here, tell us that universal health care will result in
> rationing, death panels, people DYING because they have been denied care
> (and, amusingly, acting as if none of these things happen with PRIVATE
> health insurance!).
And continue to waffle/deny that when it is
repeatedly pointed out to them!
We can fire politicians; we can't fire CEOs
and shareholders.
> What mechanisms ensure that (NHS) coverage is available to everyone, everywhere
> for "every" need? What's to stop all the providers from settling in London
> and its suburbs -- to the detriment of folks farther out?
See above.
> What's to stop
> a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an established
> provider? etc.
Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the
contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the
over-optimistic prices mean the private sector
can't make a profit.
Cherry-picking makes the rest of the NHS look
more expensive, which is then used as ammunition
for breaking up the "too expensive" NHS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofanuc$qor$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460250 |
On 5/14/2017 10:02 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> And it is free - though there are plenty of private enterprise squatting
>>> websites sat in the adverts on likely Google searches who will charge you (much
>>> like there are for getting a US Visa waiver)
>>
>> Yes, though (per Tom), there doesn't appear to be much "shopping around"
>> for the best *place* to receive your care.
>
> There are two main reasons why shopping around
> /cannot/ happen:
> - in an emergency, you aren't in a position to
> make a choice
Not all health care is delivered on an emergency basis.
I have a friend who has scoliosis. She tolerates the
pain -- until she can't. Then, starts looking for remedies.
Given that those remedies will require messing with her spine,
she's leary about letting "just anyone" go mucking around
in there.
So, she researched the treatments, providers, etc BEFORE
selecting one.
Likewise, folks needing joint replacements (lady down the
street just had a shoulder done... after both knees, both
hips and some fused vertebrae in her lumbar spine... BIONIC
WOMAN! :< )
Cataract surgery is almost always something you can schedule
at your convenience -- so, spend that time shopping around
for someone with a proven track record instead of just rolling the
dice.
> - most people don't know how to choose anyway,
> other than on distance and colour of the decor
> So they simply rely on the professionals; no
> change there, then
I'll agree that most folks don't know how to choose.
Many will just ask their friends and "trust" to their
answers -- without even bothering to notice, for themselves,
what their friends' *outcomes* may have been.
"Gee, Bob is recommending Dr Foo for back surgery -- but,
Bob is always bent over and complaining about his BACK!"
You have to know how to evaluate the "data" that you collect
in addition to how/where to collect it. But, given that
YOU are the ultimate beneficiary of that collection and
analysis, one would think you'd be highly motivated to
figure out how best to go about it!
> Trying to get libertarian politicians to provide
> a response to those fundamentals is, um, challenging.
>
>> Surely, there must be some variation in the quality of care
>> from (EU) country to country or (UK) community to community.
>> Why wouldn't I want to shop around and get treated by the
>> cardiologist in Liverpool instead of the local guy in Manchester?
>> "Heck, I'm willing to make the drive..."
>
> I'm not in a position to discuss country-vs-country.
>
> It is traditionally more difficult to get good staff
> "out in the sticks". I presume that applies everywhere
> e.g. the US TV programme "Northern Lights" about Alaska
> and "Doc Hollywood". Good solid source information
> there :)
Of course. Doctors (providers) practice where they want to
live. You're not going to see a guy living in London (because
he enjoys the metropolitan environment) and commuting, daily,
to his "surgery" in Manchester. Regardless of whether the
clientele will be able to pay him (esp with your NHS footing
the bill -- why live someplace desolate if you'll be
reimbursed just as well as if you'd practiced someplace more
acceptable to your lifestyle preferences)
>>> It may well stop when Brexit goes horribly pear shaped.
>>
>> Why? Because Brits would want to retain access to foreign providers?
>
> Lots of British have retired to the Spanish
> Mediterranean coast.
But did they do that because it is more affordable (stretch your
retirement dollars)? Or, because they are anticipating increased
need for health care in their "advanced years"? E.g., many retire
to Mexico and south american countries, here, to stretch their
retirement dollars *and* avail themselves of more affordable
health care. E.g., IN HOME care for less than an office visit
in the States.
>> Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS
>> is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private insurance
>> picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a hospital
>> stay result in THREE bills being issued:
>> - to the NHS for "basic services"
>> - to the private insurer for services above those
>> - to the patient for services "not covered"
>
> It is not co-insurance. All sane people use private
> health insurance as a "top up", relying on the NHS
> for all basic important services. The insurance clauses
> often reflect that.
I'm seeing a discrepancy between your comments and Martin's,
elsewhere. Perhaps some of it has to do with nomenclature?
He indicated that "private" was a parallel system. I.e.,
you were treated under NHS *or* your private provider.
Yet, your comments here suggest that it acts as a
"supplemental insurance" -- let the NHS cover the basic
portion of your care and then pass the remaining costs on
to the private coverage (so you get sponge baths with
WARM water instead of COLD!)
> Few people have their own private health insurance;
> companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because
> the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare
> appointments around the employee's work schedule.
Is that benefit treated (taxed) as income? VAT? Does
the employer get to deduct it from taxable income? I.e.,
does it effectively steer dollars away from your NHS?
>> The fear mongers, here, tell us that universal health care will result in
>> rationing, death panels, people DYING because they have been denied care
>> (and, amusingly, acting as if none of these things happen with PRIVATE
>> health insurance!).
>
> And continue to waffle/deny that when it is
> repeatedly pointed out to them!
>
> We can fire politicians; we can't fire CEOs
> and shareholders.
Sorry for my being persistent/stubborn/cynical. I just can't see how
there can be NO "rationing", denial of service, etc. Its foolish NOT
to place limits on these resources -- esp as they are so costly.
Perhaps I've been spending too much time discussing "disaster
preparedness" with colleagues (where, clearly, planning assumes
resources will be SEVERELY overstressed)...
>> What's to stop
>> a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an established
>> provider? etc.
>
> Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the
> contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the
> over-optimistic prices mean the private sector
> can't make a profit.
So, CorporationX enters into a contractual arrangement with the NHS
to provide coverage by building/staffing a bunch of "surgeries" in
western Liverpool. Then, realizes they can't make money doing so
based on their initial estimates of the market, there.
Rather than declare bankruptcy to weasel out of their contract(s),
they exercise some other option to get out of their contractual
obligations (and the NHS *lets* them do this??). Then, those
surgeries get boarded up while the NHS scurries to find someone
else to take over that contract? What happens to patients in
those areas in that transition?
Does everyone suddenly find themselves with a new doctor and/or
different address to present for treatment?
> Cherry-picking makes the rest of the NHS look
> more expensive, which is then used as ammunition
> for breaking up the "too expensive" NHS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 01:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eo6SA.108390$kY3.37194@fx47.am4> |
| In reply to | #460295 |
On 15/05/17 00:10, Don Y wrote: > On 5/14/2017 10:02 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>>> It may well stop when Brexit goes horribly pear shaped. >>> >>> Why? Because Brits would want to retain access to foreign providers? >> >> Lots of British have retired to the Spanish >> Mediterranean coast. > > But did they do that because it is more affordable (stretch your > retirement dollars)? Or, because they are anticipating increased > need for health care in their "advanced years"? E.g., many retire > to Mexico and south american countries, here, to stretch their > retirement dollars *and* avail themselves of more affordable > health care. E.g., IN HOME care for less than an office visit > in the States. Warmer, cheaper, all the obvious reasons. >>> Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS >>> is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private insurance >>> picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a hospital >>> stay result in THREE bills being issued: >>> - to the NHS for "basic services" >>> - to the private insurer for services above those >>> - to the patient for services "not covered" >> >> It is not co-insurance. All sane people use private >> health insurance as a "top up", relying on the NHS >> for all basic important services. The insurance clauses >> often reflect that. > > I'm seeing a discrepancy between your comments and Martin's, > elsewhere. Perhaps some of it has to do with nomenclature? > > He indicated that "private" was a parallel system. I.e., > you were treated under NHS *or* your private provider. > Yet, your comments here suggest that it acts as a > "supplemental insurance" -- let the NHS cover the basic > portion of your care and then pass the remaining costs on > to the private coverage (so you get sponge baths with > WARM water instead of COLD!) You can, and people do, "dip in and out" of the NHS "at will". The NHS treatment is free "at the point of delivery", the private has to be paid for either by your cash or by cash from your insurance. For example, my PCa... Initial discovery, diagnosis, options all done on the NHS very well. As a sanity check I paid privately for a third opinion by a surgeon whose name is in the NICE guidance. I chose to get that surgeon to do the surgery on the NHS, "free"; he recommended I use the NHS rather than pay him to do the surgery. My close family has had analogous experiences with other "ailments". >> Few people have their own private health insurance; >> companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because >> the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare >> appointments around the employee's work schedule. > > Is that benefit treated (taxed) as income? VAT? Does > the employer get to deduct it from taxable income? I.e., > does it effectively steer dollars away from your NHS? ISTR yes w.r.t. tax, and no w.r.t steering resources. >>> The fear mongers, here, tell us that universal health care will result in >>> rationing, death panels, people DYING because they have been denied care >>> (and, amusingly, acting as if none of these things happen with PRIVATE >>> health insurance!). >> >> And continue to waffle/deny that when it is >> repeatedly pointed out to them! >> >> We can fire politicians; we can't fire CEOs >> and shareholders. > > Sorry for my being persistent/stubborn/cynical. I just can't see how > there can be NO "rationing", denial of service, etc. Its foolish NOT > to place limits on these resources -- esp as they are so costly. > > Perhaps I've been spending too much time discussing "disaster > preparedness" with colleagues (where, clearly, planning assumes > resources will be SEVERELY overstressed)... Of course. There is continual agonising over that. But you have to remember that the NHS much closer to people's hearts and minds than religion. In fact it isn't far off a religion, as celebrated in the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony! >>> What's to stop >>> a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an established >>> provider? etc. >> >> Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the >> contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the >> over-optimistic prices mean the private sector >> can't make a profit. > > So, CorporationX enters into a contractual arrangement with the NHS > to provide coverage by building/staffing a bunch of "surgeries" in > western Liverpool. Then, realizes they can't make money doing so > based on their initial estimates of the market, there. > > Rather than declare bankruptcy to weasel out of their contract(s), > they exercise some other option to get out of their contractual > obligations (and the NHS *lets* them do this??). Then, those > surgeries get boarded up while the NHS scurries to find someone > else to take over that contract? What happens to patients in > those areas in that transition? God knows. All the politicians care about is that they spend less money in the short term. Given that, any competent lawyer/businessman can ensure that they can fold and walk away from a contract - all they have to do is declare bankruptcy. > Does everyone suddenly find themselves with a new doctor and/or > different address to present for treatment? One hopes so, but the politicians are doing a good job of pissing off the medics in general - and they refuse to discuss the effect Brexit will have, shudder. It has only recently become an issue with GPs, so there isn't yet much public awareness about how it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <offec3$u0s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460299 |
On 5/14/2017 5:12 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> Few people have their own private health insurance;
>>> companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because
>>> the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare
>>> appointments around the employee's work schedule.
>>
>> Is that benefit treated (taxed) as income? VAT? Does
>> the employer get to deduct it from taxable income? I.e.,
>> does it effectively steer dollars away from your NHS?
>
> ISTR yes w.r.t. tax, and no w.r.t steering resources.
"yes wrt tax" is ambiguous. If you mean "taxed as income", then
the benefit (private health insurance provided by employer)
*contributes* to the funds available to gummit (e.g., for NHS).
If, OTOH, you mean "deduct it from taxable income", then it
effectively steers dollars (resources) AWAY from the gummit.
E.g., our state income tax allows us to take a 1:1 tax credit
(this is not an "income deduction") for certain charitable donations.
So, if I owe $1000 in state taxes, I can write a check for $400 to
some school or other "approved charity" and send the balance ($600)
to the state. I've, thus, "earmarked" $400 of my state income taxes
for a specific use.
The state, in turn, has $400 less to spend on the things one would
expect it to spend those resources -- like GENERAL education.
>>>> The fear mongers, here, tell us that universal health care will result in
>>>> rationing, death panels, people DYING because they have been denied care
>>>> (and, amusingly, acting as if none of these things happen with PRIVATE
>>>> health insurance!).
>>>
>>> And continue to waffle/deny that when it is
>>> repeatedly pointed out to them!
>>>
>>> We can fire politicians; we can't fire CEOs
>>> and shareholders.
>>
>> Sorry for my being persistent/stubborn/cynical. I just can't see how
>> there can be NO "rationing", denial of service, etc. Its foolish NOT
>> to place limits on these resources -- esp as they are so costly.
>>
>> Perhaps I've been spending too much time discussing "disaster
>> preparedness" with colleagues (where, clearly, planning assumes
>> resources will be SEVERELY overstressed)...
>
> Of course. There is continual agonising over that.
>
> But you have to remember that the NHS much closer to
> people's hearts and minds than religion. In fact it isn't
> far off a religion, as celebrated in the 2012 Olympic
> opening ceremony!
Again, being persistent. You are claiming there is *no* rationing?
The NHS meets *all* the needs of the population ("bread" vs. private
health insurance "cake"). There are NO calls for MORE funding of NHS?
(after all, if it is meeting all needs, why give it more money?)
>>> Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the
>>> contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the
>>> over-optimistic prices mean the private sector
>>> can't make a profit.
>>
>> So, CorporationX enters into a contractual arrangement with the NHS
>> to provide coverage by building/staffing a bunch of "surgeries" in
>> western Liverpool. Then, realizes they can't make money doing so
>> based on their initial estimates of the market, there.
>>
>> Rather than declare bankruptcy to weasel out of their contract(s),
>> they exercise some other option to get out of their contractual
>> obligations (and the NHS *lets* them do this??). Then, those
>> surgeries get boarded up while the NHS scurries to find someone
>> else to take over that contract? What happens to patients in
>> those areas in that transition?
>
> God knows. All the politicians care about is that they
> spend less money in the short term.
Of course. That's true of most corporate entities -- and many
biological ones! It takes discipline to NOT indulge yourself
in the future -- to save one of those scoops of ice cream for
tomorrow.
> Given that, any competent
> lawyer/businessman can ensure that they can fold and walk
> away from a contract - all they have to do is declare
> bankruptcy.
So, what's to stop them? Can/does the NHS then refuse to engage
them in future contracts?
>> Does everyone suddenly find themselves with a new doctor and/or
>> different address to present for treatment?
>
> One hopes so, but the politicians are doing a good job
> of pissing off the medics in general - and they refuse
> to discuss the effect Brexit will have, shudder.
The same is true, here. Doctors (and teachers) are tired of
the meddling -- by hypocritical zealots ("We'll begrudgingly
cover prescription drugs -- but FORBID the government from
negotiating drug prices with Pharma... and then we'll piss
and moan about how the deficit keeps growing -- esp when we
cut taxes/revenues AND freely engage in military experiments.")
> It has only recently become an issue with GPs, so there
> isn't yet much public awareness about how it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofkm6u$u9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460539 |
On 5/16/2017 10:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/14/2017 5:12 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> Few people have their own private health insurance;
>>>> companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because
>>>> the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare
>>>> appointments around the employee's work schedule.
>>>
>>> Is that benefit treated (taxed) as income? VAT? Does
>>> the employer get to deduct it from taxable income? I.e.,
>>> does it effectively steer dollars away from your NHS?
>>
>> ISTR yes w.r.t. tax, and no w.r.t steering resources.
>
> "yes wrt tax" is ambiguous. If you mean "taxed as income", then
> the benefit (private health insurance provided by employer)
> *contributes* to the funds available to gummit (e.g., for NHS).
> If, OTOH, you mean "deduct it from taxable income", then it
> effectively steers dollars (resources) AWAY from the gummit.
>
> E.g., our state income tax allows us to take a 1:1 tax credit
> (this is not an "income deduction") for certain charitable donations.
> So, if I owe $1000 in state taxes, I can write a check for $400 to
> some school or other "approved charity" and send the balance ($600)
> to the state. I've, thus, "earmarked" $400 of my state income taxes
> for a specific use.
>
> The state, in turn, has $400 less to spend on the things one would
> expect it to spend those resources -- like GENERAL education.
>
>>>>> The fear mongers, here, tell us that universal health care will result in
>>>>> rationing, death panels, people DYING because they have been denied care
>>>>> (and, amusingly, acting as if none of these things happen with PRIVATE
>>>>> health insurance!).
>>>>
>>>> And continue to waffle/deny that when it is
>>>> repeatedly pointed out to them!
>>>>
>>>> We can fire politicians; we can't fire CEOs
>>>> and shareholders.
>>>
>>> Sorry for my being persistent/stubborn/cynical. I just can't see how
>>> there can be NO "rationing", denial of service, etc. Its foolish NOT
>>> to place limits on these resources -- esp as they are so costly.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I've been spending too much time discussing "disaster
>>> preparedness" with colleagues (where, clearly, planning assumes
>>> resources will be SEVERELY overstressed)...
>>
>> Of course. There is continual agonising over that.
>>
>> But you have to remember that the NHS much closer to
>> people's hearts and minds than religion. In fact it isn't
>> far off a religion, as celebrated in the 2012 Olympic
>> opening ceremony!
>
> Again, being persistent. You are claiming there is *no* rationing?
> The NHS meets *all* the needs of the population ("bread" vs. private
> health insurance "cake"). There are NO calls for MORE funding of NHS?
> (after all, if it is meeting all needs, why give it more money?)
As with the US, I guess there must be TWO UK's to explain the differences
in comments, here, and reported elsewhere:
<https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/08/nhs-rationing-denying-patients-care-cash-crisis-survery-doctors>
"Survey of doctors reveals concern about adults and children
being denied treatment, resulting in emergency care or
worsening of long-term conditions"
"Patients are being denied mental health care, new hips and
knees, and drugs to boost their recovery from illnesses including
cancer as the NHS increasingly rations treatments to try to
overcome its growing cash crisis"
<https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/rationing-care-fact-of-life-nhs>
"Rationing is nothing new, of course. When waiting lists stretched
to many months and even years, treatment was often rationed simply
by the patient dying before they reach the operating table. Heart
surgery was a striking example of this. The long waits in A&E
departments acted as another form of rationing"
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11636897/The-UNs-suggestion-that-Britain-ration-health-care-is-a-wake-up-call.html>
"Britain needs a serious, honest debate about the NHS’s priorities,
structure and finances. Part of the solution will be shifting
resources away from hospitals and emergency care and towards
services such as GP surgeries. Greater competition in the delivery
of those services should help raise efficiency. Steps have to be
taken to ensure that individuals have decent private pensions and
savings to invest in high-quality care. Preparation for old age can
also mean leading a healthy lifestyle earlier on, to avoid the kinds
of problems that can put someone in hospital."
[IME, debating "priorities" is code for "rationing"]
<https://www.pri.org/stories/2010-12-17/how-uk-rations-health-care>
"'We have a limited budget for health care, voted by Parliament
every year, and we have to live within our means,' said Michael
Rawlins, chairman of a government agency called the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)."
"In essence, NICE asks these questions: How much does a drug or
procedure cost? How much does the treatment extend the average
patient's life? And what is the quality of that life gained?"
"NICE has set a maximum that it will spend on a treatment: about
$47,000 per quality-adjusted year gained."
[Nice to know how much the gummit thinks your life is worth! :> ]
"But he argued that if Britain spends a lot of money at the end
of life, 'we're going to have to deprive other people of cost-effective
care.' Rawlins said that might mean spending less money at the
beginning of life -- and might result in a higher infant mortality rate."
[Deciding who gets what == rationing]
This suggests "private health care" actually has ANOTHER value to those who
have it: access to care/procedures they would otherwise be denied!
<http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/08/28/stephen-hawkings-health-care-and-the-nhs/>
Armed with the QALY "valuation" figure, I can now go back through the care my
(recently deceased) friends received -- paid for by private insurance and/or
Medicare -- to see how they would have fared.
And, the friends currently/recently undergoing gasterectomy, mastectomy, etc.
procedures.
Maybe Brits are just more willing to accept their part in The System ("Stiff
upper lip" and all that) whereas Americans tend to *demand* more (even if
undeservedly)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 14:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ofknrp$4if$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460812 |
On 5/18/2017 1:42 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
> [IME, debating "priorities" is code for "rationing"]
>
> <https://www.pri.org/stories/2010-12-17/how-uk-rations-health-care>
>
> "'We have a limited budget for health care, voted by Parliament
> every year, and we have to live within our means,' said Michael
> Rawlins, chairman of a government agency called the National
> Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)."
>
> "In essence, NICE asks these questions: How much does a drug or
> procedure cost? How much does the treatment extend the average
> patient's life? And what is the quality of that life gained?"
There's the rub, considering the "average". No patient is average.
Some are less average than others. I won't go into a long rant, but
doctors were considering not giving treatment to a friend simply because
she was over 80. Age is NOT a medical condition. She was *far* above
average in health and would have ended up far out on the tail of long
life if she had survived the leukemia. Her surviving partner is now 90
and is also in great health other than the macular degeneration. He
still has a high quality of life and lives independently.
Averages only apply to populations. Medical care is provided to
individuals.
> "NICE has set a maximum that it will spend on a treatment: about
> $47,000 per quality-adjusted year gained."
>
> [Nice to know how much the gummit thinks your life is worth! :> ]
>
> "But he argued that if Britain spends a lot of money at the end
> of life, 'we're going to have to deprive other people of
> cost-effective
> care.' Rawlins said that might mean spending less money at the
> beginning of life -- and might result in a higher infant mortality
> rate."
>
> [Deciding who gets what == rationing]
>
> This suggests "private health care" actually has ANOTHER value to those who
> have it: access to care/procedures they would otherwise be denied!
You don't know that. Insurance companies do *exactly* the same thing.
In fact, my friend with leukemia was denied coverage by the insurance
company while Medicare covered it!
> <http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/08/28/stephen-hawkings-health-care-and-the-nhs/>
>
>
> Armed with the QALY "valuation" figure, I can now go back through the
> care my
> (recently deceased) friends received -- paid for by private insurance
> and/or
> Medicare -- to see how they would have fared.
No, you can crunch numbers, but you won't know anything about how they
*would* have fared.
> And, the friends currently/recently undergoing gasterectomy, mastectomy,
> etc.
> procedures.
>
> Maybe Brits are just more willing to accept their part in The System
> ("Stiff
> upper lip" and all that) whereas Americans tend to *demand* more (even if
> undeservedly)
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 10:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ofhluj$n5j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460250 |
On 5/14/2017 1:02 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 14/05/17 17:04, Don Y wrote: > >> Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS >> is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private >> insurance >> picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a hospital >> stay result in THREE bills being issued: >> - to the NHS for "basic services" >> - to the private insurer for services above those >> - to the patient for services "not covered" > > It is not co-insurance. All sane people use private > health insurance as a "top up", relying on the NHS > for all basic important services. The insurance clauses > often reflect that. I don't follow. What is an insurance "top up"? Are there things private insurance pays for that NHS doesn't? If not, why would you need private insurance at all since NHS is free? > Few people have their own private health insurance; > companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because > the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare > appointments around the employee's work schedule. Above you say "all sane people use private health insurance", then here you say few people have it. Are you saying most people are not sane? >> What's to stop >> a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an >> established >> provider? etc. > > Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the > contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the > over-optimistic prices mean the private sector > can't make a profit. > > Cherry-picking makes the rest of the NHS look > more expensive, which is then used as ammunition > for breaking up the "too expensive" NHS. I assume you are talking about doctors and not hospitals. Here a hospital can only be built with approval from the regulators. They specifically want to prevent oversupply and I suppose undersupply as well although they can't make anyone build a hospital. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 15:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpZSA.5961$Rw1.1776@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #460657 |
On 17/05/17 15:19, rickman wrote: > On 5/14/2017 1:02 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 14/05/17 17:04, Don Y wrote: >> >>> Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS >>> is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private >>> insurance >>> picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a hospital >>> stay result in THREE bills being issued: >>> - to the NHS for "basic services" >>> - to the private insurer for services above those >>> - to the patient for services "not covered" >> >> It is not co-insurance. All sane people use private >> health insurance as a "top up", relying on the NHS >> for all basic important services. The insurance clauses >> often reflect that. > > I don't follow. What is an insurance "top up"? Are there things private > insurance pays for that NHS doesn't? If not, why would you need private > insurance at all since NHS is free? If you look at my other postings you will be aware that mostly private health insurance is used to enable appointments to be at more convenient times, buy more time for less hurried discussions with specialists, better decor/food in hospitals, and have more obsequious staff. But see http://www.drphilhammond.com/blog/2014/09/13/private-eye/private-eye-issue-1374/ for some reasons why private healthcare is distrusted here. (Hammond is a GP, campaigner, and a long-time acerbic comedian, starting off in the 80s in a twosome called "Struck Off and Die". He's always worth listening to, since he knows where the skeletons (ho ho) are buried) >> Few people have their own private health insurance; >> companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because >> the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare >> appointments around the employee's work schedule. > > Above you say "all sane people use private health insurance", then here you say > few people have it. Are you saying most people are not sane? Re-read the /entire/ sentence. Don't chop important part of a sentence when quoting. >>> What's to stop >>> a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an >>> established >>> provider? etc. >> >> Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the >> contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the >> over-optimistic prices mean the private sector >> can't make a profit. >> >> Cherry-picking makes the rest of the NHS look >> more expensive, which is then used as ammunition >> for breaking up the "too expensive" NHS. > > I assume you are talking about doctors and not hospitals. Here a hospital can > only be built with approval from the regulators. They specifically want to > prevent oversupply and I suppose undersupply as well although they can't make > anyone build a hospital. That seems relatively sane. Unfortunately commercial interests and political dogmatism can skew things. I don't understand the details, which are changing all the time. If you are actually interested, you will be able to find more details on Hammond's site.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-17 13:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ofi0ge$dvv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460662 |
On 5/17/2017 10:48 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 17/05/17 15:19, rickman wrote: >> On 5/14/2017 1:02 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: >>> On 14/05/17 17:04, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>> Is "private health insurance" a sort of "coinsurance"? E.g., the NHS >>>> is billed for the "basic" care you might receive and the private >>>> insurance >>>> picks up the costs that aren't covered by the NHS? I.e., can a >>>> hospital >>>> stay result in THREE bills being issued: >>>> - to the NHS for "basic services" >>>> - to the private insurer for services above those >>>> - to the patient for services "not covered" >>> >>> It is not co-insurance. All sane people use private >>> health insurance as a "top up", relying on the NHS >>> for all basic important services. The insurance clauses >>> often reflect that. >> >> I don't follow. What is an insurance "top up"? Are there things private >> insurance pays for that NHS doesn't? If not, why would you need private >> insurance at all since NHS is free? > > If you look at my other postings you will be aware that > mostly private health insurance is used to enable > appointments to be at more convenient times, buy more > time for less hurried discussions with specialists, > better decor/food in hospitals, and have more obsequious > staff. That seems very expensive to have "options". If you are paying for insurance, why bother using the NHS? > But see > http://www.drphilhammond.com/blog/2014/09/13/private-eye/private-eye-issue-1374/ > > for some reasons why private healthcare is distrusted > here. > > (Hammond is a GP, campaigner, and a long-time acerbic > comedian, starting off in the 80s in a twosome called > "Struck Off and Die". He's always worth listening to, > since he knows where the skeletons (ho ho) are buried) > > >>> Few people have their own private health insurance; >>> companies can offer it as a "perk", but that's because >>> the companies would like to be able to schedule healthcare >>> appointments around the employee's work schedule. >> >> Above you say "all sane people use private health insurance", then >> here you say >> few people have it. Are you saying most people are not sane? > > Re-read the /entire/ sentence. Don't chop important > part of a sentence when quoting. Of course I read the whole thing, but it isn't clear. That's why I asking. >>>> What's to stop >>>> a new provider coming to town and eating into the "market" of an >>>> established >>>> provider? etc. >>> >>> Nothing. Cherry-picking happens; sometimes the >>> contracts are "handed back" to the NHS when the >>> over-optimistic prices mean the private sector >>> can't make a profit. >>> >>> Cherry-picking makes the rest of the NHS look >>> more expensive, which is then used as ammunition >>> for breaking up the "too expensive" NHS. >> >> I assume you are talking about doctors and not hospitals. Here a >> hospital can >> only be built with approval from the regulators. They specifically >> want to >> prevent oversupply and I suppose undersupply as well although they >> can't make >> anyone build a hospital. > > That seems relatively sane. Unfortunately commercial > interests and political dogmatism can skew things. > I don't understand the details, which are changing > all the time. > > If you are actually interested, you will be able to > find more details on Hammond's site. > -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web