British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby kiryan » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:46 am

As Americans begin adding bureacracy to healthcare, Britians apparently have realized thats stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world ... n.html?hpw


LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

-- da fuk, I thought centralizing and socializing healthcare was the panacea to rising healthcare costs... some democrat help me understand what went wrong. (oh right, they can't speak english correctly and therefore are complete f*king idiots like Sarah Palin). I mean what could be wrong with 100 of the stupidest people on earth (the US senate) "fixing" healthcare every year? I mean how many years does it take to FIX the "doctor fix" or to FIX the AMT. These are the guys you want deciding your healthcare?

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

-- Reduce administrative costs by 45%... 30 billion in "effiicency savings". Doctors' making healthcare decisions for patients. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS CRAZY TALK!!! DON'T THEY KNOW THAT YOU CAN ONLY BEND THE COST CURVE AND REDUCE COSTS BY CENTRALIZING AND SOCIALIZING!!!! ** BOGGLE ** Stupid britians, I mean what do they know other than having had socialized centralized medicine for a few years longer than us.... pssshht

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

-- BOGGLE but only government knows the right decision for you... How are you going to function?

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.

-- the doctor WHAT, wait I think I heard about someone doing that somewhere. now where was that.

“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.”

-- LOL ok this is truly funny. sure you don't want the waiter in charge of managing the restaurant. On the other hand, how the fuk does the chef or restaurant manager know whether a specific customer should eat a triple bacon chesseburger. The waiter can see how fat the bastard is and how often he eats there and that he can barely walk from his car to the table without passing out, the manager on the other hand only knows that we need to order more bacon and that we aren't charging enough for cheese.

--

Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were “far too many bureaucratic hurdles to leap” in the system, impeding communication. “In many places, the communication between G.P.’s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,” he said.

The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service.

-- communication has become fragmented and distant, wait but they have national electronic medical record, how could communication become distant and fragmented... wait a second how the fuk is obama going to save us billions by spending billions on EMR if the savings are complete BULLSHIT (I've implemented EMR so if you haven't, you don't get to respond).

Privitization, that sounds like something we should look into!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby Sarvis » Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:09 pm

If you're going to respond line by line to an article, at least use quote blocks so it's easy to read. I'm sooo not going through that crap.

As far as I did get: Sounds like the medicine is still government paid for, so they may have found an efficient way to provide healthcare to everyone who needs it rather than just the wealthy. Since this is the goal, and "socialism" is a red herring in the debate... I think we're good. You can't even shout "OMG Socialism" anymore since the government won't be controlling things, just paying for them.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby Kifle » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:51 am

I just read this yesterday. I think it's very interesting what they are doing. I'm not sure if this will exactly cut costs, though, mainly due to the expenses you make up in management costs on the government end might be sucked up by new hires in the doctors office to manage the expenditures. Seems as though they are just trying to shift the cost laterally in an attempt to make government spending look less inefficient.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:21 am

Sarvis wrote:so they may have found an efficient way to provide healthcare to everyone who needs it rather than just the wealthy.

* Yes, stealing what does not belong to you using the violent force of government can be seen as 'efficient,' just as plantation owners in the American south saw slavery as being efficient.
* The wealthy drive development. Every major advance in automotive technology has always first been in high-end luxury vehicles. Their implementation lowers cost for mass production. By removing wealth as a driver, you are only going to set us back by decades.
* People who need health care still aren't getting it in the UK: 12 month waiting periods for procedures, and millions flocking to foreign destinations to receive care. I think it's particularly telling that UK citizens often come to the United States for treatment, particularly more advanced treatments.

Sarvis wrote:Since this is the goal, and "socialism" is a red herring in the debate... I think we're good. You can't even shout "OMG Socialism" anymore since the government won't be controlling things, just paying for them.

*Alcohol Tax
*Tobacco Tax
*Soda Tax
*Fast Food Tax
*Tax tax.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby kiryan » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:43 pm

I post the link to the article if you care to read it.

I do think its wiser for doctors to determine treatment if health of the patient is the concern. Its important for government to determine treatment if budget is the concern.

But basically we're recreating the failed system of public education... The teachers "responsible" for educating the kids have the least impact on how well kids learn. The parents/kids are the real problem in education (if you ask me) just like the patient is the real problem in healthcare. People not managing their weight, their cholesterol, diabetes, stress ect are a lot of the reason for the increased consumption of healthcare.

--

more unintended consequences of healthcare reform, insurers refusing to write policies for children's coverage because they don't want to be saddled with costs when a kid comes down with cancer and the parent then decides to get insurance. WAY TO GO DEMOCRATS, less worse more expensive coverage!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Some-insu ... l?x=0&.v=1
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:19 pm

kiryan wrote:But basically we're recreating the failed system of public education... The teachers "responsible" for educating the kids have the least impact on how well kids learn. The parents/kids are the real problem in education (if you ask me) just like the patient is the real problem in healthcare. People not managing their weight, their cholesterol, diabetes, stress ect are a lot of the reason for the increased consumption of healthcare.


So when a drunk driver crosses the center line and puts a family of four in the hospital, THEY are the problem?

Kiryan, Kiryan... one of these days you'll learn that not everything can be painted with such a broad brush. Sometimes students/parents are the problem, sometimes teachers are the problem. Sometimes patients are the problem, sometimes doctors are. Sometimes there are outside factors in both scenarios.

While parents, students and patients all need to take more responsibility it won't matter for crap if they can't afford to see a teacher or a doctor, or if the teacher/doctor is so incompetent they do more harm than good.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby kiryan » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:05 pm

I think you are confusing the specific with the general which is amazing since you make that argument with global warming deniers.

The car accidents scenario you put forth would be expensive, but the decreased health of US citizens and increased costs of medical care are being driven in no small part by the causes i listed. Here's an article just on obesity, 21% of all healthcare spending will be related to obesity by 2018. Diabetes is a much more insidious disease than most people realize. Diabetes doesn't just mean regulating your body sugar, there are a whole host of poor health issues you are susceptible when you are a diabetic, espeically one who doesn't manage their disease. Go search the Internets if you want more on diabetes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/wei ... osts_N.htm
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:32 am

kiryan wrote: Here's an article just on obesity, 21% of all healthcare spending will be related to obesity by 2018.


And yet Conservatives outright refuse laws that would require restaurants to list nutrition information for their food, denying consumers the ability to make healthier choices.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:25 am

That's because people get spend their money the way they please, including on their own obesity. That's part of liberty. That's part of freedom.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:07 pm

Do you think you have real freedom to make choices when they don't have the info to make those choices on?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:46 pm

The information is already there, blasted as public knowledge by an aggressive Federal level public agency. You won't find a single American that legitimately believes that a big mac is considered healthy by the greater scientific community.

There are some that will develop their own crackpot theories, but they have the right to be insane in their own backyard. So yes, it is real freedom. Being able to order a mystery meal is freedom as well. No one is tricking you as to what it is.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:50 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:The information is already there, blasted as public knowledge by an aggressive Federal level public agency. You won't find a single American that legitimately believes that a big mac is considered healthy by the greater scientific community.


But how many calories are in a McDonald's salad Teffie?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: British healthcare, dismantling the bureacracy?

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:21 pm

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:The information is already there, blasted as public knowledge by an aggressive Federal level public agency. You won't find a single American that legitimately believes that a big mac is considered healthy by the greater scientific community.


But how many calories are in a McDonald's salad Teffie?

No one gives a shit, Sarvie. I just wouldn't eat one. Not the least of which because it's from McDonalds. Or is a salad.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest