Two Years On: Obamacare

Getting those who can purchase health coverage, but choose not to, is a huge step in the right direction.

Fewer tests isn't the solution, and isn't going to happen. Not only is it not safe, but also the malpractice factor is in play and not testing to rule out something will invite the issue.

No point in trying to get some form stating that patients will gladly bypass the test. Talked to a physician once regarding this, and was told that the form wouldn't be worth the paper on which it's printed.

Given our current system of healthcare and litigation, fewer tests are not going to happen.

 

Do you have any justification for your statement that "the Brits hate the NHS?"

Because as a Brit who lives here and rather likes the NHS, I can unequivocally tell you that you're wrong. We recognize the imperfections in the NHS, but ask 100 people if they'd rather have the U.S. system and if you got one yes, it'd be because you accidentally included David Fucking Cameron in your sample. No one, NO FUCKING ONE, wants to wholesale get rid of the NHS. Understand? NO. ONE.

So yeah. You can stick your "the Brits hate the NHS" in a warm, dark place.

 

I used to go to an endocrinologist in the States that would charge 20 goddamn dollars for a finger-stick blood glucose test, the same one I perform at home multiple times a day. They'd bill me six of those dollars. Six fucking dollars for a test I've done on my own probably in excess of 100,000 times.

But yeah. MORE testing. That's the ticket.

 

You're citing the Daily Mail, which shoots your credibility in the face. The poll was commissioned by the Daily Telegraph*, which makes results showing dissatisfaction with the NHS less surprising. And although the article doesn't appear to be dated, it references Alan Milburn as health secretary.

Alan Milburn resigned as health secretary in 2003.

Nonetheless, even if it were a valid source, and not a 9-year-old survey, it'd be worth pointing out that four in 10 saying they'd go private if they could is hardly surprising. It's asking Buick owners if they'd rather have a BMW. Well yeah, of course they would. Doesn't mean the Buick isn't plenty good enough.

*-Yes, it was conducted by Gallup. That said, one must analyze EVERYTHING in the British press from the perspective of which newspaper created it. And I say that as someone who will happily use the Guardian to prove a point.

By the way, I HAVE private health insurance, through work. Have done for over a year. I've never used it.

 

Oh, look. A survey from 2011. Wonder what it says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12805586

 

Here is link to the New Yorker article by Dr Atul Gawande.
He discusses the results from The Dartmouth Study.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

Lengthy but well worth the read to truly understand some of the health care issues of the day. It was a big read at the White House.

 

Indeed, the NHS won't pay for drugs until it's proven that they work. What an idea. And your focus on cancer care suggests exactly the reality: that cancer care in the U.K. has typically been behind the standards in other parts of the world. What you ignore is the steady improvement. You also ignore that your original contention was that the Brits hate the NHS, which was comprehensively disproven.

Moreover, from one of the Daily Mail stories you linked:

So if you care about some people having access to the best care money can buy, the U.S. is your place. If you care about people not dying from literally festering tumors that lie undiagnosed and then untreated, then maybe it's not.

And if the U.K. spent 16% of GDP on health care, then I'd bet that the cancer survival rate would improve. As it is, the U.S. does that and STILL doesn't cover 50 million people. Break down those cancer survival numbers by socioeconomic means and I bet it doesn't look so nice and shiny.

 

Ragu on Michelangelo's David: "David's penis was out of proportion to his scrotum"