US Republicans tell lies about the NHS

[haydnguy]

If it weren't so serious it would be funny. They are just now implementing a system that requires diagnostic codes to be uniform and forcing doctors to submit via computer.

Prior to this, diagnostic codes used by hospitals, for instance, were not the same codes as the ones used by government in medicare. When the doctors submitted the claims, the clerks receiving the claims would often have to find the "best fit" medicare code.

The whole system is awash with inefficiency and corruption. The people that claim that it doesn't need reform are simply in denial. (Like an alcoholic that denies he's an alcoholic even though it's clear to see.)

The one thing I couldn't understand is why the Republicans at least didn't come out with an alternative bill. That left them in an awful position. Who knows.

[Chi_town/Philly]

Originally Posted by haydnguty

...I think that's a little lame to ask about acupuncture

Actually, I was trying to learn more about the choices an indvidual has in Socialized Medicine settings, and was making an effort to lower the temperature in the room, a little. On the other hand, you have chosen to raise the temperature, by characterizing my curiosity as 'lame.' That's okay- I'll be like the New Jersey Devils- I'll mix it up however you want to play it...

Originally Posted by haydnguy

The one thing I couldn't understand is why the Republicans at least didn't come out with an alternative bill.

Say WHAT???

A 20 second internet search yielded this website, where an intellectually honest search into the matter reveals no fewer than 8 GOP legislative proposals. (And I'll bet you that all 8 put together wouldn't equal 2200+ pages.)

I'm willing to concede that you were misinformed on the topic, which contrasts with Obama's 'some-would-have-us-do-nothing' false dichotomy. That's all right...you were almost certainly ignorant of this. Obama, on the other hand, surely knew, and chose to dissemble on the matter.

Even Rush Limbaugh off-handedly proposed taking half of the stimulus money for the purpose of medically insuring the citizen-uninsured. A little flippant, sure. Not a serious solution- okay-- but it has the considerable merit of keeping the government's meat-hooks off of the 75+% of the American adult population who are happy with their medical coverage, and their doctor-patient relationship.

I'll deal with the ad-hoc socialism issue a little later (probably). Though (to give you a taster) what's described as unfairness is just another application of market-forces. I know, I know... how horrible it is that American caregivers should have to submit to market forces. Well, here, there's something worse than heeding market-forces- and that's not heeding market-forces. If I return, I'll discuss that, too---

[haydnguy]

I just wrote a lengthy response and lost it because I hit the wrong button.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

I'll deal with the ad-hoc socialism issue a little later (probably). Though (to give you a taster) what's described as unfairness is just another application of market-forces. I know, I know... how horrible it is that American caregivers should have to submit to market forces. Well, here, there's something worse than heeding market-forces- and that's not heeding market-forces. If I return, I'll discuss that, too---

Anyone who hasn't been trapped in a cave in Chechnya for the past two years has every right to be puzzled at people's abiding devotion to the wisdom and prudence of heeding 'market forces.' We're finally starting to see that, although old-fashioned capitalism might work in the production of widgets, it's a different matter entirely when it comes to promoting stable economies, sustaining arts and culture, and providing for human needs like health care.

It's odd that the insurance companies spent billions to discredit the public option that Obama initially proposed in his health care package. It seemed like the perfect opportunity for private industry to demonstrate that it was better than the government at providing useful services. Could it be that the big insurance and pharmaceutical corporations were afraid of having to compete with a government that conservatives have been telling us is inefficient and inept for the past forty years?

[Chi_town/Philly]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Anyone who hasn't been trapped in a cave in Chechnya for the past two years has every right to be puzzled at people's abiding devotion to the wisdom and prudence of heeding 'market forces.'

D'jyou know anyone who lives in Southern California?? (C.Q.: Maureen!)

There is a 'no-refusal-of-treatment' mandate for American hospitals. This means- hospitals see a certain number of people with no prospect for repayment for the services they use. The more such patients they see, the more compromised their finances. See enough patients like that, hospitals close their doors.

Lose/Lose. It's happening a lot on the West Coast. Wish it wasn't... but there it is---

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

There is a 'no-refusal-of-treatment' mandate for American hospitals. This means- hospitals see a certain number of people with no prospect for repayment for the services they use. The more such patients they see, the more compromised their finances. See enough patients like that, hospitals close their doors.

And this is supposed to illustrate anything except the futility of running a hospital as a profit center?

[Chi_town/Philly]

Substitute the phrase "fiscally viable entity" for the phrase "profit center" and we would be closer to the truth (though we wouldn't be entirely there yet).

When I made my living with my back, and worked up a sweat every day, one of the 'suits' shared a valuable aphorism with me. He said "the bottom line is- there has to be a bottom line."

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

When I made my living with my back, and worked up a sweat every day, one of the 'suits' shared a valuable aphorism with me. He said "the bottom line is- there has to be a bottom line."

Want to hear an anecdote that's not so heartwarming?

The banks and insurance companies, unrestricted by post-Depression regulatory infrastructure that's been hacked away by every US administration since Nixon, have long been concocting moneymaking schemes that would make Ponzi blush. The decades-long shakedown of the little guy ended up running out of rubes, and the once-lucrative mortgage debt trough ran dry. Predatory banks that played the economy like a roulette wheel became "too big to fail" and got rewarded for their reprehensible behavior with a trillion-dollar bailout. Meanwhile, millions of people found themselves without jobs. However, just because the unemployed don't have health insurance (and what layoff victim can afford to pay exotortionate COBRA bills as well as the mortgage?), they do get sick. And without access to a regular doctor, they get real sick. So where do they end up? The emergency room.

So in the alternate universe inhabited by laissez-faire libertarians, with their religious devotion to the benign wisdom of "market forces," what would happen to all these people if the big bad government stops requiring private hospitals to treat 'em?

[Chi_town/Philly]

The issue of 'predatory lending' and unemployment (unemployment that The One said would not get above 8.5% if we only made sure to enact 'stimulus') kind of takes us off on a tangent- and might be suitable for another thread. The issue of whether adults are entitled to 'impositive rights' [i.e.: the granting of them imposes a burden upon others] may be slightly more relevant, but also might wind up taking us further afield.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

So in the alternate universe inhabited by laissez-faire libertarians, with their religious devotion to the benign wisdom of "market forces," what would happen to all these people if the big bad government stops requiring private hospitals to treat 'em?

Guess you'll have to ask a libertarian.

I'm just sayin' that the much-reviled "market forces" have a way of creeping into the equation regardless. An earlier post made mention of the fact that the uninsured have a worse deal taking treatment in hospitals. No doubt. The hospitals don't have the option of placing a real cost on their care, so many will instead impose an oppportunity cost via their wait-times. Of course, a hospital can treat the uninsured with as much alacrity as the (so-to-speak) paying customers... but if you do it too much, you end up with a closed hospital. You could arguably assert that it would cost fewer lives in the long run if a hospital employs some practices that increase the odds of keeping their doors open...

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

I'm just sayin' that the much-reviled "market forces" have a way of creeping into the equation regardless. An earlier post made mention of the fact that the uninsured have a worse deal taking treatment in hospitals. No doubt. The hospitals don't have the option of placing a real cost on their care, so many will instead impose an oppportunity cost via their wait-times. Of course, a hospital can treat the uninsured with as much alacrity as the (so-to-speak) paying customers... but if you do it too much, you end up with a closed hospital. You could arguably assert that it would cost fewer lives in the long run if a hospital employs some practices that increase the odds of keeping their doors open...

You make it sound like it's inevitable that hospitals make decisions about the cost-effectiveness of treating the sick. We decide as a society whether to allow health care to be subjected to market forces. Don't we already exempt emergency services like the fire department from such forces? Should we force firefighters to make cost-benefit analyses about putting out fires in certain regions?

Please, let's deal with reality, shall we?