Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

nsfwcorp.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#61

Post by kevinskii »

btilly wrote: post #52
ahi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the TANSTAAFL argument in this case is that the NHS is far cheaper than the American alternative. It is also far superior at providing preventative care than the American alternative.

Indeed. The US private sector and the US federal government EACH spend more per capita on health care than the UK does. And yet we rank behind the UK on virtually every health statistic that they bother to track. In 1993 Republicans did an interesting analysis. They found that Clinton's health care plan would work, and would be popular. If it passed, they believed that Republicans would be losing national elections f…

> "They found that Clinton's health care plan would work..."

They found nothing of the sort. Did you even bother to read their analysis at your link? You can disagree with someone without misrepresenting their motives.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#62

Post by elemeno »

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #45
abstractbill wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in the uk for the first 27 years of my life, and then in California for the past 10, I have only one word to describe the way American healthcare feels to me: barbaric. Long live the NHS, and yay for Obamacare - it seems like a step in the right direction at least.

Speaking as someone who's had multiple relatives die at the hands of NHS rationing, I completely disagree. In a system where you can't sue your healthcare provider for egregious malpractice because they're a governmental body and are thus subject to the same citizen-sues-state rules as law enforcement or any other public service, I fear for the quality of our healthcare.

> In a system where you can't sue your healthcare provider for egregious malpractice because they're a governmental body and are thus subject to the same citizen-sues-state rules as law enforcement or any other public service, I fear for the quality of our healthcare.

That's nonsense, hospitals and NHS Trusts are routinely sued for malpractice, along with the doctors involved. There's nothing special about any part of the NHS that makes it impossible for them to be sued - they're not part of the state, they're just state funded. Hell, you can sue most government bodies in the UK since there's no restrictions on suing the state, only against suing the Crown.

It makes your 'multiple relatives' claim seem somewhat suspect.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#63

Post by carsongross »

flexie wrote: post #26

When my wife gave birth in Europe the 11 hour procedure, which apart from the traditional medical stuff, included massage and acupunture for relaxation, involved a handful of nurses, 3 midwives, 2 doctors, an anesthesiologist etc. After the birth our little family stayed in the 300 square foot private room at the hospital for two days. We never saw any papers except the booklets the hospital gave us about having an i…

It was not free. You didn't pay for it.

There's a difference.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#64

Post by VLM »

mikekij wrote: post #41

- I'm really sorry to hear about the author's father's passing. - While it's heart-warming, it is unrealistic to think that a public program can spend infinite amounts of money on citizens who a) have paid "little or no" taxes and b) "throat cancer suffers who quit smoking four years afterwards". The math just doesn't add up. - The fact that the US has a pseudo market-based healthcare system is what allows drug / dev…

"we'll see far fewer technological developments in healthcare, which will lead to worldwide increases in infant mortality / decreases in life expectancy."

Confusing more or less a 2nd, 3rd or maybe 4th derivative of a value with the value itself.

"unrealistic to think that a public program can spend infinite amounts of money on citizens"

I read the article, and they cut him off virtually everything when recovery was deemed impossible. Tapering off the drugs, non-interference directive when he therefore codes... he was taking up a bed, not much else. Not quite the same as euthanasia (although not too far) but hardly an infinite amount of money, either.

"have paid "little or no" taxes"

In a civilized society, should the police, fire, military, educational, and environmental monitoring organizations cut off poor people as a primary goal, rather than as a scandal when they rarely do it anyway?

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#65

Post by cpleppert »

btilly wrote: post #52
ahi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the TANSTAAFL argument in this case is that the NHS is far cheaper than the American alternative. It is also far superior at providing preventative care than the American alternative.

Indeed. The US private sector and the US federal government EACH spend more per capita on health care than the UK does. And yet we rank behind the UK on virtually every health statistic that they bother to track. In 1993 Republicans did an interesting analysis. They found that Clinton's health care plan would work, and would be popular. If it passed, they believed that Republicans would be losing national elections f…

You are exactly right and often times the ability to derail a reform plan in the legislature costs it support not only by seemingly discrediting it in the political process but also forcing reform advocates to support a concrete bill that has real consequences while opponents don't need to offer anything and can attack consequences of the bill passing out of context. No one is sure it will pass, so invariably some members waver and the bill is watered down to guarantee support, at which point it becomes compromised and rather ineffective which once again discredits reform.

Its interesting in the post-1945 election in the UK very few voters strongly supported the NHS but once it passed it developed bipartisan support. The chances of a party taking every house of congress a supermajority in the senate and the presidency to have the ability to move legislation is incredibly small in our system as compared to a parliamentary one. I'm not suggesting that our system is always worse but in this instance it certainly is.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#66

Post by ctdonath »

The article deifies government. By now I am convinced that the NHS – and I hyperbolise, but only slightly – is the greatest achievement of humankind, the nearest we get to a benevolent deity, a goddamn superhero. Such worship of the state never ends well, starting with large-scale confiscation of private earnings (where do you think the money for this incident came from?) and veiling of failings (having delivered soothing words and relaxed settings for the patient's death, no mention of what life-saving options were available and why not administered). All delivered with non-sequitur jabs at another healthcare system. "I love Big Brother" - Winston Smith

As someone who should be dead four times over, I find the American health care system quite functional, effective, and satisfactory. No worship thereof necessary.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#67

Post by lifeisstillgood »

droithomme wrote: post #25
oneandoneis2 wrote: post #6

I was in America, in LA, a few years back (I'm British), when the whole Obamacare thing was being debated everywhere. The one thing I noticed, and it was a rule that didn't have a single exception, was that everyone I talked to could give at least one example of a time when either they or somebody they personally knew had been faced with a ruinous bill for healthcare. People who'd been bankrupted, people who'd fled t…

I'm one of those people. Allow me to respond. I have seen people ruined with medical bills. There are many reasons why the system is dysfunctional, and I'm aware of nearly all of them. Did you know that a round of cancer treatment in the US can cost over $500,000, and even if you are fully insured with a good policy you can have a 20% copay required, meaning that with insurance you still personally have to pay $100,0…

I non-trolling Brit here.

Single-payer seems from scan of Wikipedia to be "government pays the bills" - in other words an NHS like solution.

Which seems to me a position the others in the thread are advocating (ie our current system is barbaric, bankrupts people we must fix it)

So I am a little confused why your post seems to be defending itself from posts that as an outsider I would see as firmly in your camp?

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#69

Post by hcayless »

sultezdukes wrote: post #30
oneandoneis2 wrote: post #6

I was in America, in LA, a few years back (I'm British), when the whole Obamacare thing was being debated everywhere. The one thing I noticed, and it was a rule that didn't have a single exception, was that everyone I talked to could give at least one example of a time when either they or somebody they personally knew had been faced with a ruinous bill for healthcare. People who'd been bankrupted, people who'd fled t…

I tried then, and I've tried in the years since, but I simply cannot understand where they're coming from. How anyone can support a healthcare system in this day & age that can, and does, bankrupt or refuse to treat people.. I just can't understand it. I find it curious and odd that you can't understand another philosophy on the role of government and the individual.

I can't understand it. It seems to me to combine selfishness and short-sightedness in equal measure. "I'm all right, I have insurance" plus "I'll never be faced by a health crisis greater than my plans will handle." You might be right, and good for you if you are, but God help you if you aren't.

I guess I understand the philosophical argument, from a purely logical perspective, that an individual must stand or fall on their own. But I don't get how people can seriously hold that opinion without living in a cabin in the woods, or in a bubble.

Re: This is how you healthcare: American Death in London

#70

Post by droithomme »

chrisdevereux wrote: post #60
droithomme wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people. Allow me to respond. I have seen people ruined with medical bills. There are many reasons why the system is dysfunctional, and I'm aware of nearly all of them. Did you know that a round of cancer treatment in the US can cost over $500,000, and even if you are fully insured with a good policy you can have a 20% copay required, meaning that with insurance you still personally have to pay $100,0…

You may be right about this specific solution, but parent was talking about people opposed to any healthcare reform. Especially a single-payer system, I'd imagine.

Yes, I am inferring, and I am sure correctly, that parent assumed that opposition to PPACA was opposition to any healthcare reform, which supported his preexisting prejudices about ignorant hypocritical Americans, as they are widely promoted in the press. The reason I am sure I am correct about is two reasons. One is that every time I explain problems with PPACA, I am labelled an ignorant health care reform bigot/hater/militant/republitard/teabagger even though I fully support and advocate for single payer. My support for single payer is deemed irrelevant though, all that is important in this debate with most people is that the all concerns with PPACA be dismissed with handwaving, and anyone opposing it is painted an enemy of reform. The second reason is that the majority of people I have talked to who have issues with PPACA also support or are highly positive towards the idea of a single payer system. Therefore I do not believe that every person he talked to who had objections to PPACA was opposed to reform, that was his own inference.
Post reply on HN