Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=2&hp
What does this mean for socialized medicine in the free world? Is it a pipe dream?

i dont understand... i read the article, but, im not sure how this sounds like a good idea at all. though that might be because im just not quite sure exactly their doing

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
i dont understand... i read the article, but, im not sure how this sounds like a good idea at all. though that might be because im just not quite sure exactly their doing

The idea is that managing the whole system from the top slows things down, introducing inefficiency and higher costs for the government.

I don't like this. But then again, i'm not English. Gahaha.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't like this. But then again, i'm not English. Gahaha.





I actually spit my crumpets out after reading that.

This is still socialized medicine, as the government is still going to pay the costs for citizens. So I don't really see this being indicative of any trend other than Britain has always had bottom-of-the-socialized-barrel healthcare, and they're trying to fix that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is still socialized medicine, as the government is still going to pay the costs for citizens. So I don't really see this being indicative of any trend other than Britain has always had bottom-of-the-socialized-barrel healthcare, and they're trying to fix that.

I uh, yeah. Ditto.

The right's backlash against Britain's restructuring kind of reminds me of people saying, "AHA! record lows! NOW where's you're global warming."

What's funny: it's probably the same people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I uh, yeah. Ditto.

The right's backlash against Britain's restructuring kind of reminds me of people saying, "AHA! record lows! NOW where's you're global warming."

What's funny: it's probably the same people.
That's not so funny as it is tragic, since these people vote.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's not so funny as it is tragic, since these people vote.

Indeed. That is part of the reason I want people to have to take a voting proficiency test. However, there's obvious weaknesses to that idea, as pointed out by Bardock and inimalist.

There's no winning, ever, unless you have a god-like sentience making the decisions for a nation. (They were talking about something similar to that in a show on the Science channel. They predict a god-like AI before 2050.)

I made a movie in high school where a godlike AI ran governments.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I made a movie in high school where a godlike AI ran governments.

Dude...


Link me.


Send it via PM.

Its still free healthcare!

The people arent paying for it, DA GUVMENT IS! FREE!

Yes, thank you for restating the (true) things that have been said already. You are adding so much to this discussion.

Originally posted by jaden101
That's misleading in a massive way. The GP's will be able to purchase and use drugs and medicines of choice (must as they do now anyway) based on what research they've been reading. It encourages doctors to be more knowlegable and skilled so it's not a bad thing.

Unfortunately it'll also mean more lobbying of GP's by pharma companies to buy certain drugs regardless of whether they are the best (and incentives will be used to effectively bribe the GP's)

GP's WONT be buying equipment for hospitals or taking care of invoices for office equipment.

So the gov won't be suceptible to manipulation by the pharma. co.s? Lobbyists don't affect the gov? I have a pretty good relationship with my GP, and I trust him more than the gov. Who should I trust more?

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is still socialized medicine, as the government is still going to pay the costs for citizens. So I don't really see this being indicative of any trend other than Britain has always had bottom-of-the-socialized-barrel healthcare, and they're trying to fix that.

So the UK's healthcare sytem is the crappiest out of all? I thought they had a pretty good one. What is their average prognosis for S3 Lung Cancer as opposed to the US or Canada?

In England and Wales the latest figures show around 27% of male and 30% of female lung cancer patients are alive one year after diagnosis falling to 7% and 9% respectively at five years

US
The overall 5-year relative survival for 1999-2006 from 17 SEER geographic areas was 15.8%. Five-year relative survival by race and sex was: 13.8% for white men; 18.6% for white women; 11.3% for black men; 14.4% for black women.

US
The overall 5-year relative survival for 1999-2006 from 17 SEER geographic areas was 5.6%. Five-year relative survival by race and sex was: 5.4% for white men; 5.7% for white women; 4.2% for black men; 6.0% for black women.
UK
Figure 3.2 shows that whilst there has been an small increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer that survive their disease beyond five years after diagnosis, the survival rate is very low at around 3%.

And on and on. Tiny percentages. High prices. Until it's you or your child. Every year a cancer patient lives is another year that a experimental treatment could be used on them that might be the cure.

Jonas Salk didn't find the cure for polio under the umbrella of socialised medicine. He found it at the University of Michigan. Tom Francis told him so.

Originally posted by tsscls
So the gov won't be suceptible to manipulation by the pharma. co.s? Lobbyists don't affect the gov? I have a pretty good relationship with my GP, and I trust him more than the gov. Who should I trust more?

GP's have always been lobby'd by pharma companies and always will be. The difference with lobbying government is the aim is to change policy. With GP's it's to get them to recommend a certain drug.

The only problem under this system is that the GP's will be keeping in mind budgets while prescribing drugs or treatment rather than recommending the absolute best possible and leaving it to health boards to either allow the treatment to go ahead or not.

Originally posted by tsscls
Jonas Salk didn't find the cure for polio under the umbrella of socialised medicine. He found it at the University of Michigan. Tom Francis told him so.

The Uinversity of Michigan is publicly owned.