mcgeer%sirius.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (09/21/86)
>>If government pays for something: >> >>1) The price skyrockets. >> Government really has no control. Doctors say 'it costs this >> much' what are they going to do? > >This is an unjustified and unsupported defeatist attitude. Here in >the United States our medical costs are higher than in England with >socialized medicine. Why should government have no control? >Government can set maximum prices for common procedures the same way >that Health Insurance carriers here in the United States do now. >Don't even bother to reply that there will be much waste and fraud >because that same waste and fraud exists in the United States today >under our present system. (1) Health care costs in England are lower because the standard of care in England is far lower. Transplants, for example, are not done in England. Has it ever occured to any of our Kennedyite correspondents that the only major new therapies we've seen in the last 15 years have been pioneered in the US? Guess why. Governments won't pay for experimental therapies. (2) Waste and fraud? Well, Canada's medicare system is by all accounts far more effective than Britain's NHS. But in Saskatchewan, some years back, the government announced that it was considering the establishment of a board to review elective surgery. Hysterectomies immediately fell by 2/3. -- Rick -------
smith@slacvm.BITNET (09/29/86)
Reply to seamus on socialized medicine.
Seamus tell us, in reply to Keith about socialized medicine in
England:
"Wrong. For evidence I again use the British example. Private doctors
are free to practice medicine in England and they make a good living
at it."
According to P.L. Greaves in "Understanding the Dollar Crisis"
British socialized medicine was originally financed by very very large
gifts to England during and after WWII---gifts from the US government
(i.e. the American taxpayer). With $125 Billion dollars per year being
spent (dumped) by the US in Europe by its Nato commitment alone, it is
not surprising that Europe can play all it wants with socialized this
and socialized that. Let them do it by themselves so that we can see
if they even stand up without us holding their hands!
I know an english medical student who is going to get his
government (i.e., their fellow citizens and us) to pay for his medical
education in england and then come to where the action is---the US (he
is not alone). Go to england next time you need surgery and take a
number--then wait for a third world doctor do the surgery. Do they
award ridiculously large malpractice lawsuits in england or germany?
That has exascerbated the cost of medicine here; it's just more of the
"lucky lotto" attitude that has replaced the work ethic in this
country.
John R. Smith
-------kay@uu.warwick.ac.uk (10/10/86)
mcgeer%sirius.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes: >(1) Health care costs in England are lower because the standard of >care in England is far lower. Transplants, for example, are not done >in England. Has it ever occured to any of our Kennedyite >correspondents that the only major new therapies we've seen in the >last 15 years have been pioneered in the US? Guess why. Governments >won't pay for experimental therapies. Two points: Transplants *are* done in England (and, FYI, throughout the rest of the UK as well); yesterday (Sept 22nd) a 2 1/2 month old boy became the youngest-ever combined heart-lung recipient. I wonder why it might occur to them. (BTW, what *are* Kennedyites?) What do you call a major new therapy? would you not include in-vitro fertilisation, pioneered by Patrick Steptoe, here in the UK? and I imagine that it's rather easier for a researcher to develop therapies here than in the USA - aren't patients somewhat litigious over there? This, at least, is what our media report. >(2) Waste and fraud? Well, Canada's medicare system is by all >accounts far more effective than Britain's NHS. But in Saskatchewan, >some years back, the government announced that it was considering the >establishment of a board to review elective surgery. Hysterectomies >immediately fell by 2/3. And? Presumably you're telling us this because you want to propose the theory that 2/3 of hysterectomies are either wasteful or fraudulent? Mesured by what criteria? In whose opinion? I'm sorry if I'm coming over more aggressive than I intend, but this newsgroup seems riddled with anecdotes masquerading as evidence, circular proofs and post hoc (never mind ad hominem!) arguments. My logic and rhetoric teacher would be shocked... Kay. ------- ------- -------