"David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget.
“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.” "
That's my GP! He's lilke a waiter. The analogy is very telling. That MRI=too many complimentary rolls.
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
I don't like this. But then again, i'm not English. Gahaha.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
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.
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.)
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?
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 24th, 2010 11:21 PM
