Healthcare rationing: The problem with public healthcare that no one wants to discuss.

England is not a country recognised as a sovereign nation by the UN

The country is the UK.

That’s typical of the lies and inaccuracies in your posts.

This thread is typical of the far right propaganda used by the opponents of health. Not the pejorative use of the term socialised medicine.

Nobody outside of America calls it that, and nobody concerned about the health of ordinary people inside America would call it that. It’s a term only used by those concerned about the profits of big pharma.

There is no healthcare rationing as Max is trying to make out.

There is an organisation called NICE, which stands for The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence. The acronym licences medicine for use by the NHS.

That is where the problem lies, with new medicine not yet fully tested. People believe this medicine may help but as it has yet to receive a licence it can’t be given on the NHS.

We’re talking about a handful of cases and usually one of two things happens, either NICE makes a special case or there is an appeal to buy the funds privately.

Max tries very hard not to appear as a white supremacist opposed to affordable health care, but he lies so very much that he’s not fooling anyone.

1. Health care rationing is an issue in the UK (with apologies to Izzy for my geographical error). Here is an article from the BBC (hardly a right wing outlet). https://www.bbc.com/news/health-40485724

2. My constant criticism of the left-wing on Able2know is their inability to look at issues from more than one point of view. Izzy again demonstrates this. Instead of actually talking about the issue of healthcare rationing (and in the UK the decisions are made by the NHS) Izzy skirts the issue and turns it into an personal attack of anyone who even questions the ideoologically correct answer.

3. Healthcare is a complex issue in any country. Health care policy means balancing needs and costs and making difficult choices on a national level.

That is why healthcare in the US will need to be fixed from the center. We need to look at all of the issues honestly, and this is one of the most difficult ones.

If you weren’t so dishonest you would not attract so many personal insults.

You constantly attack those left of centre while constantly letting right wing posters off the hook.

The BBC employs Laura Kuennsberg as political editor.

She’s a Tory. The BBC is right wing.

This is silly (I suppose I shouldn't respond).

Here is an article from the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/30/healthcare-rationing-what-does-nhs-england-intend-to-do. Is The Guardian a right wing paper? You will find discussions of health care rationing in any serious journalistic outlet that discusses health policy.

At least you’re looking at something other than Fox.

Limited resources means things have to be used fairly, however, pound for pound the NHS is the most efficient health care system in the World.

And it's certainly preferable to your kill the poor alternative.

You are being silly. I don't know if the NHS is the most efficient or how efficiency is being measured. That is irrelevant.

The issue here is health care rationing, something the NHS does and something that needs to be a part of any serious discussion on health care reform.

It’s about you wanting to rubbish universal health care by using any argument against it.

Why do you think it’s acceptable to murder people by neglect?

That’s what your system does, so instead of attacking the NHS why don’t you look at the thousands of people slaughter by American Health Care every year?

Facts are true whether they support one ideological narrative or the other. They are just facts. The facts are..

1) Any national health care system needs to have a way to decide what is covered and what is not covered. In the UK this is the NHS.

2) This will include difficult decisions and people who are upset with the bureau in charge. This is true in Canada and the UK.

3) The political left is correct about the problem with the current US system. In the US system people fall through the cracks. You could make the argument that the US system has a perverse form of health care rationing that rations care on wealth rather than on need.

My opinion is that a discussion about health care should be honest about the difficult issues involved.

This ideological screaming match where the political left is screaming "White Supremacist" and the political right yells "Nazi" doesn't help anyone.

Any discussion of a national healthcare will need to have a discussion of rationing... what life-saving treatments will be excluded. If a health care system provides every life-saving treatment no matter how expensive or how sure the results, it will run out of resources very quickly.

Let's be honest.

What do you consider to be "public health care"?
My BA in social work was in "social medicine" which is part of the public health sector here.
("Public health" is an area of the respective health care system in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Its goal is to protect the health of the population . The diverse tasks are performed at the local level by the public health offices in districts/cities.)


And what do you mean by "socialised medicine" here?
Our health insurance system is based on the principle of solidarity.And it's mandatory besides for those who can be members of the private insurers.
(Social medicine is a branch of medicine with special reference to social and societal issues. In particular, it takes into account the multiple interactions between disease, health, the individual and society.)

That’s it in a nutshell. You don’t want a discussion, you want to control a discussion. You want to set parameters, what can and what can’t be discussed, and how people should behave.

You don’t want to discuss the subject just how people are responding to your set of rules.

That’s why people don’t debate, or discuss on your thread because they don’t have the freedom to do it, not with your ego getting in the way.

"Socialized medicine" is probably a term that only applies in the US political sphere. I use the term to imply a health care system run (to a large extent) by the federal government. This is a complex idea, but it is one that I support.

I am curious on your opinion on health care rationing (meaning setting policy to make the sometimes difficult decisions of what care will be provided or denied). You must have discussed this in your education.

Well, e.g. health insurance only pays flat-rate fixed allowances for dentures.
And we've got a prescription charge (but limited).

Normally, the statutory health insurances only cover treatment methods that correspond to the generally recognised state of medical science.

Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) - Fünftes Buch (V) - Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung (Social Code - Book V - Statutory Health Insurance)
The law states that the insured person has a right to sufficient medical treatment for sickness that meets their needs and corresponds to the generally recognised state of medical science. This includes, in particular, medical, dental and psychotherapeutic treatment, the provision of medicines, dressings, remedies and aids, home care, hospital treatment, medical rehabilitation services and other services. In addition, it is stipulated that the benefits must comply with the efficiency principle. This means that they must be sufficient, appropriate and economical and must not exceed what is necessary.

Legal cases concerning the public health insurance are dealt at the Sozialgerichte ("Social Courts"). Appeals against decisions of these courts are heard by the Landessozialgerichte ("Superior State Social Courts"), before the cases may wind up at the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court).

The thing is, America won’t be starting from scratch like the Labour Government had to do.

There are UHC systems throughout the developed world, what is and what isn’t covered is on record.

The most telling fact that Max has left out is that America spends more per capita on social healthcare yet still does not have UHC.

That’s a scandal he can’t address.

I don't know very much about health care in Germany. My interest is in discussing the proper way to reform the US health care system. Of course the German experience is helpful as a example of the pros and cons.

There are articles the indicate that health care rationing in an current issue in Germany. Any health care system needs to make difficult decisions around limited resources. This isn't a surpise.



https://www.dw.com/en/german-doctors-fear-health-care-rationing/a-5139759

(A more scholarly look at health care rationing in Germany)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-012-9423-7

The need to balance need with resources is a fact of life in any system.

Izzy is arguing with himself. I have never defended the current American health care system. The funny thing, is that I agree with Izzy on this point (something that he can't seem to allow).

Let's try this.... Izzy, you are absolutely correct about the US health care system. I even gave you the red ribbon of approval.

The only thing I am certain that I am absolutely correct about is that Max is thoroughly dishonest. You can’t believe a word he says.

This is a tactic Max employs all the time. He claims he is in favour of something politically left of centre, and then puts a load of obstacles in its way.

As I have said before, instead of debating what should go into a UHC package you need to be asking why you pay more per capita on healthcare than we do.

If you are already paying more than us then why the **** don’t you have UHC?