It amazes me that the AARP seems to be on the Obamacare train.
No one argues that any public health system will have to carefully consider where to apply its limited funds. One obvious place to cut back will be care for the elderly. When put into pretty much any equation, those who've already had many decades, who have few years ahead of them at best, and who have many health issues will be seen as a poor investment of healthcare dollars.
Of course, the other big issue is that, even when care is not denied, it will be substandard simply because of wait times, poorly trained physicians, and limited access. The latest horror story out of Britain's healthcare system has people getting arthritis drugs only after it's too late to do them any real good.
If you're old or ever will be, and if you care about anyone who is, I would advise asking your Congressmen to hold out for something else than nationalized healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
AARP represents people who already have government provided healthcare. The fact that they know how it works and they support suggests to me that your scare tactics are misguided.
All health systems have to decide where to apply their funds. In the private system, the decision is too often made by a person who has a personal financial stake in the decision.
Nothing in that Daily Mail article suggests that the problem is a result of a flaw in the British healthcare system. A big part of the delay is that people don't seek treatment.
"The fact that they know how it works and they support [it]" make me wonder what drugs they're on.
Medicare is such a wonderful program that even after denying procedures and paying less for care than any insurance company, it's going to go broke before Social Security.
As for Britain: "GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment."
That's a systemic problem: poorly trained physicians, a natural result in socialized medicine.
"the decision is too often made by a person who has a personal financial stake in the decision"
Yes, a person who has to balance making a profit with keeping customers happy. Get people more involved in choosing their insurance, and there will be a stronger push to keep customers happy.
This is far superior to having a faceless govt drone plugging you into an equation.
There is nothing in the article you cited to suggest that physicians in Britain are poorly trained. Moreover, if you care to visit the Arthritis Foundation’s website, you would learn that “[d]iagnosing rheumatoid arthritis is a process. There isn’t a surefire test that can tell you positively that you have RA.” Like other auto-immune disorders, the symptoms mimic other more common ailments. There us nothing unusual about a GP seeing a patient several before making a diagnosis or a referral to a rheumatologist.
This isn't a "horror story" Chris and it does not reflect in any way on the advantages or disadvantages of socialized medicine. Misrepresentations like that don't do anything to help your side of the debate.
"There is nothing in the article you cited to suggest that physicians in Britain are poorly trained."
Other than the sentence I quoted.
General practitioners always lack specialist knowledge. That's not a criticism of GP's or their training. That's the difference between specialists and general practitioners. Specialists have specialist knowledge and GP's have general knowledge.
It especially does not show that the training is worse in a system of socialized medicine since GP's in the United States also have to see a patient several times in order to diagnose RA.
Is there anything about that that isn't clear? If so perhaps you should refrain from posting on the topic of health care reform.
Getting testy are we?
Having to explain such a simple concept is frustrating.
Post a Comment