The NHS is inefficient compared to what ? ... Americans spend over twice that of the British on healthcare and still have less access to treatment than we do.
I think there comes a point where people have to stop obeying the rules and just do what makes sense. The bureaucracy needed to be material resource efficient would be prohibitively complex. The law of diminished returns applies to regulation as much as anything else.
---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I'm having genuine difficulty deciding whether you completely missed the point or are deliberately refusing to engage with it. Let's have another go.
If one model treats 60% of those that need it, and the other treats 90%, with money left to financially reward those that made it so efficient, do you seriously contend that the system that fails to treat 40% of those in need is better than the one that fails 10%, simply because in the former system there is no profit incentive?
This is the only way I can rationalize the position you're apparently wedded to. It's not one we're ever going to agree on as you appear to want to put your ideology ahead of making a pragmatic choice to work more efficiently.
Nice try re: the straw bogeyman of the US health system by the way; I never mentioned, nor advocated that system as being one to import into the UK, therefore in the context of this discussion there's little point in you wasting your time constructing arguments against it.
|
I'm being ideological? ... I'm not the one making 'if' arguments. Why hand out financial rewards when there's still 10% that need treatment? my referencing the US healthcare system isn't a strawman at all, you're advocating a for profit healthcare system so I referred to one that actually exists, not the one you created in your 'if' fantasy, you know, the one where you considered the last 10% of untreated patients less important than a cash reward.
---------- Post added 21-04-2011 at 00:02 ---------- Previous post was 20-04-2011 at 23:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
so healthcare can be profitable ,if your original statement about "healthcare cannot be profitable" was directed at the NHS ,then i'm sure your aware that it's not meant to make a profit ,just operate within a budget .Hospitals in the USA are mostly paid through medical insurance but even their they have a version of our NHS for those who have no insurance or cannot afford it ,that is way i think we will go .I think we will end up with a means tested NHS ,those who can afford insurance will have to take it to cover some illnesses ,possibly things like cancer, heart disease could still be covered by the NHS but lesser illness ,broken limbs or non life threatening illness could be covered by insurance .Thats just a thought not sure if it is workable or not  |
Yes, healthcare can be profitable if it refuses to treat those in need. If you're referring to Medicaid in the USA it only covers immediate need treatments and a hospital is only allowed to spend a limited amount. Once their limit is reached, they literally dump patients on the street. They also charge at the same rate that they charge insurance companies so treatment still has lower fiscal efficacy. Obama almost had his arse ripped out over his attempts to improve the healthcare situation in the USA.
---------- Post added at 00:13 ---------- Previous post was at 00:02 ----------