"Rigid Class System in Europe" Bob Roll Comments



M

Michael Press

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:58:04 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> You've got to be kidding. The NHS is a disaster. Basically, what you
> >> have in Britain is health care rationing. If this was not so, you
> >> wouldn't have waiting lists for medical procedures and hospital
> >> admissions.

> >
> >I use it, regularly; you've read about it. Which of us knows it better?

>
>
> My information is a bit old, but I used to work with a British
> physician who had his MD from the University of London. He did his
> surgery residency at the University of Toronto. He then ended up in
> Boston, where I met him. This was 20 years back, but he described the
> state of British medical care as primitive compared to the US. I take
> his word for it because he knew both systems intimately. Of course,
> his experience in the US was in top teaching hospitals associated with
> Harvard Medical School, but if your a citizen of Boston and you have
> insurance, or you're on Medicaid, these facilities are available to
> you.
>
> The big problem with health care in the US is that not everyone has
> health insurance. However, this is not true in practice. If you
> don't have insurance you can go to the hospital ER and get treatment.
> Then the hospital will send you a bill and if you don't pay it,
> nothing happens. You can even go back to the same hospital again and
> again and still get treated.


A number of years ago the county hospital, Highland
Hospital, had a bad reputation. That is all, reputation. I
was born with a funny deal in my heart, never a health
problem or a limit on my activities, but I did not know
what it was. Finally I decided to find out, walked into
the hospital off the street, and asked for a diagnosis. I
made several visits over two months, seeing different
physicians and taking various tests. One physician
suggested experimental changes in my diet to see how they
affected symptoms. They lent me a portable EKG tape
recorder that I wore for twenty-four hours, and kept a
journal of episodes. Eventually I had an interview with a
physician who drew a freehand picture of my heart and
described the nature of my condition. We talked about it
all, discussing strategies for avoiding episodes, and how
to stop episodes. It was an intense experience. I
discovered later that he is well known in the USA at large
for being a superb cardiologist. I did not pay a penny for
the diagnosis at that time. A year or two later they sent
me a bill for $90 that I paid.

So what is the moral? Generalizations are bad. You get
what you need. We are each ultimately responsible for our
own health. Good things happen.

Epilogue
The funny deal is Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome; the
symptom is paroxysmal atrial tachycardia. Dehydration,
stress, overheating, caffeine, and other stimulants
increase the likelihood of paroxysms. Allergy medication
is a bad thing.

--
Michael Press
 
P

Pudd'nhead Wilson

Guest
Earlier:

JH> It is also a Government agency and is influenced by politics.

Just stop at "agency." The rest is redundant.

-------
JH> I have no problem with people who consider leisure time as a luxury
as
long as they don't expect people who work to provide for them.

"Consider (leisure time as a luxury [good])?" What else could it be?
A government granted positive right?

Oh wait, nevermind, it is a positive right under some regimes, as
stunning as that may seem. One person's postive right is another
person's bill, unless you believe the government rains manna from
heaven; unless you believe the government produces something for $5
that the market can only produce for $50.

"They" do expect someone else to provide for them. After all, that is
the big lie -- somehow the government is going to steal in "my"
interest and against "yours;" this is why the indoctrinated believe in
the necessity of government. (That and the other falsehood that
government is a necessary legal force that acts as an unbiased judge.
{laughs}
http://www.mises.org/store/The-Enterprise-of-Law-Justice-without-the-State-P297C0.aspx)


On another goofy rbr track, here is the Jablonski paper on skin color:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf
 
P

Pudd'nhead Wilson

Guest
Jack Hollis wrote:
> you.
>
> The big problem with health care in the US is that not everyone has
> health insurance.


No, that is not a "problem." If someone doesn't want insurance, or
can't pay for it, it is their business.

> However, this is not true in practice. If you
> don't have insurance you can go to the hospital ER and get treatment.
> Then the hospital will send you a bill and if you don't pay it,
> nothing happens. You can even go back to the same hospital again and
> again and still get treated.


What you are describing is not "insurance."
 
H

Howard Kveck

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> The funny deal is Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome; the
> symptom is paroxysmal atrial tachycardia. Dehydration,
> stress, overheating, caffeine, and other stimulants
> increase the likelihood of paroxysms. Allergy medication
> is a bad thing.


So racing your bike on a hot day without someone to hand up bottles could be
problematic. Anyway, it's nice to have gotten it figured out and received info on
how to deal with it properly.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
S

Sandy

Guest
Jack Hollis a écrit :
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:05:37 GMT, "steve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> As a general rule, however, the regulation game isnt so much the little guy
>> vs. the big guy, it's generally big corporations and whole industries using
>> regulation to thier advantage...airline vs. airline, US car companies vs.
>> foriegn, railroad vs trucking, cable TV vs. satallite dish, Netscape vs.
>> Microsoft...and that isnt competition, it's economic thuggery.
>>

>
> Anyone has the right to sue over unfair competition. Microsoft has
> had their wings clipped a number of time by the courts in favor of the
> small guy.
>

While that right may exist in theory, you will find that there has been
a 30 year growth spurt in the "Consumer Protection" industry. Similar
to the growth of personnel cost in the not-for-profit industry. Costs
of prosecuting wide range unfair competition is beyond the means of the
typical "victim".

The rule of carnivorous competition does bring prices down, yet usually
at the expense of choices.
 
B

Bob Martin

Guest
in 524346 20060822 180019 Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:08:50 +0100, Simon Brooke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> And, when you say health care, if you mean the British NHS, it hardly
>>> qualify's.

>>
>>You wouldn't say that if you'd ever used it. I've used it all my life; I
>>have never had less than first-quality service.

>
>
>You've got to be kidding. The NHS is a disaster. Basically, what you
>have in Britain is health care rationing. If this was not so, you
>wouldn't have waiting lists for medical procedures and hospital
>admissions.


I'll back up everything Simon says. People may moan - that's the British
way - but my family has never had less than excellent treatment.
From what you say in a subsequent post your "knowledge" is based entirely
on the opinion of one ex-pat some decades ago. I don't think I'd argue with
people directly involved on that basis.
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
Jack Hollis wrote:
> Anyone has the right to sue over unfair competition. Microsoft has
> had their wings clipped a number of time by the courts in favor of the
> small guy.


And how many small guys can afford the legal fees when the large
corporations employ thousands of lawyers ? God is on the side of the rich.

Fortunately microshit have found it harder to bribe politicians in the EU
than they have in the US.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Robert Chung
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:58:04 +0100, Simon Brooke
>>
>>> Yes, I'm currently waiting two months for a non-urgent operation.
>>> That isn't a problem; it's efficient use of resources.

>>
>> No it's rationing.

>
> It would only be rationing if there was sufficient capacity for Simon
> to receive the operation now but the supply was being artificially
> restricted. I don't know what operation he's waiting for, but I'd be
> pretty surprised if that were the case.


It sort of is rationing, but I don't see why rationing is a problem. I
will get the treatment I need, from an appropriately skilled and
qualified practitioner, in a reasonable time. Furthermore, the surgeon
said to me when he examined me initially that if I choose to go to admit
myself as an emergency case, I will be treated the same day. So it is
rationing, but if I feel it's urgent enough to jump the queue, I get it
when I want it. It isn't a bad system.

> Jack also huffed:
>> You get what you pay for [with respect to health care].

>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/scpo/exp-percap.png


Or to put it in simple terms, it costs almost four times as much in the
States to get the same quality of healthcare, as measured by life
expectancy, as we get in the United Kingdom. Gee, private enterprise
sure is efficient.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Jack Hollis
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:58:04 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I will say this again, very slowly: Britain spends considerably less of
>>GDP on healthcare than the US. Why? Because public health care is more
>>efficient and cheaper than private health care.

>
> And a lot worse. You get what you pay for.


Not in health care you don't. I don't need solid gold taps in my
bathroom; they don't function any better than stainless steel or bronze.
The United Kingdom achieves the same life expectancy as the US for one
quarter of the cost. 'Better' doesn't mean much if it doesn't produce
any measureable improvement.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.
 
S

steve

Guest
On 23-Aug-2006, smacked up and reeling, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:

> Or to put it in simple terms, it costs almost four times as much in the
> States to get the same quality of healthcare, as measured by life
> expectancy, as we get in the United Kingdom. Gee, private enterprise
> sure is efficient.


If only it was private in the sense that govt didnt interfere through
regulation and a bad tort system, and if health insurance wasnt also heavily
regulated. Fundamentally the problem is that you've got free floating
prices BUT no form of market discipline to hold them down. There is
virtually no real competition in medicine, as so many people are heavily
insured and price insensitive. 30-40 years ago, a co-pay insurance policy
meant something, because the physician collected the 20-50% from the insured
and the rest from the insurer. But now doctors often settle for the 80% and
dont even collect from the insured. No incentive for the insured to find a
lower cost alternative, and every incentive for the doctor to throw medical
mud at the walls to avoid a lawsuit.

Years ago, some health insurers tried to exclude AIDs from coverage to help
manage costs and keep premiums down. Same thing with cost of pregnancy and
child birth...generally a choice rather than a random health problem (the
term here is "not an insurable event"). In both cases, the laws were
changed to force the coverage.

No, it's not really the private sector. It's a perverse combination of
incentives. A free market in health care would solve many of these
problems. If only.

steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
 
S

steve

Guest
On 23-Aug-2006, smacked up and reeling, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> blindly formulated
the following incoherence:

> > Anyone has the right to sue over unfair competition. Microsoft has
> > had their wings clipped a number of time by the courts in favor of the
> > small guy.

>
> And how many small guys can afford the legal fees when the large
> corporations employ thousands of lawyers ? God is on the side of the rich.
>
> Fortunately microshit have found it harder to bribe politicians in the EU
> than they have in the US.


This is why the companies get away with it. You guys cheer the ********.

Learn the difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the
gun. The dollar is voluntary, the gun is coercive.

steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
 
J

Jack Hollis

Guest
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:39:02 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It would only be rationing if there was sufficient capacity for Simon
>> to receive the operation now but the supply was being artificially
>> restricted. I don't know what operation he's waiting for, but I'd be
>> pretty surprised if that were the case.

>
>It sort of is rationing, but I don't see why rationing is a problem. I
>will get the treatment I need, from an appropriately skilled and
>qualified practitioner, in a reasonable time. Furthermore, the surgeon
>said to me when he examined me initially that if I choose to go to admit
>myself as an emergency case, I will be treated the same day. So it is
>rationing, but if I feel it's urgent enough to jump the queue, I get it
>when I want it. It isn't a bad system.
>



What's described in this article is the description of a health care
system that is totally unacceptable in anyones terms. I could never
tolerate this type of treatment. They need to open up the system to
competition from private providers. People are literally dying of
neglect.

Nine month wait for a diagnostic test. Yikes.


NHS scan delays 'put lives at risk'

RICHARD GRAY HEALTH CORRESPONDENT
August 13, 2006

NHS patients in Scotland are being forced to wait up to nine months
for potentially life-saving tests for heart disease, cancer and other
serious illnesses.

Drastic shortages of staff and equipment have led to "unacceptable"
and "ridiculous" delays for diagnostic tests that the NHS classes as
routine.

Figures obtained by Scotland on Sunday show thousands of patients are
waiting - often in fear and pain - for up to 36 weeks to receive brain
scans, heart checks, endoscopy and other procedures.

The delays are all the more serious because, from next year, no
patient should have to wait more than nine weeks for most diagnostic
tests.

The new figures suggest it will be virtually impossible for hospitals
to come anywhere near these targets.

Politicians and patient groups fear the massive waiting times are
allowing many patients' conditions to worsen, and could even be
contributing to avoidable deaths.

In Scotland's biggest health board area, NHS Greater Glasgow and
Clyde, patients needing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan must
wait 27 weeks before they can be seen.

Patients in neighbouring Lanarkshire are suffering waits of up to 36
weeks for the same scans. MRI scans are used by doctors to look for
tumours, heart defects, injuries that X-rays can't detect and diseases
in the brain such as epilepsy.

In other areas, patients requiring echocardiograms - used to create
moving pictures of the heart - must wait up to 30 weeks before they
can have the vital test, which looks for signs of disease.

Endoscopy, where a flexible camera is used to search for abnormalities
inside the body, particularly bowel cancers, has waiting times of more
than six months.

The waits are massively longer than the nine-week diagnostic
waiting-time target that all health boards must meet by the end of
next year.

Also in Lanarkshire, computer tomography (CT) scans - typically used
for head injury examination - can take up to 18 weeks to perform,
while echocardiograms - frequently used to diagnose heart problems -
had 30-week delays and endoscopies took up to 26 weeks.

In Fife, patients needing ultrasound scans to identify problems in
their kidneys, bladders and blood vessels must wait an average of 20
weeks before they can be seen.

NHS Grampian has 20-week waits for echocardiograms and 22 weeks for
patients needing endoscopy.

But not all areas are working outside next year's guidelines. Dumfries
and Galloway had the shortest MRI wait - just four weeks - followed by
Highland and Tayside, which both reported MRI-scan waits of eight
weeks.

However, Highland patients are forced to wait up to 20 weeks for
echocardiograms and 21 weeks for endoscopies.

NHS Lothian, Forth Valley and Western Isles failed to provide any
figures for their diagnostic waiting times, but health service
insiders said they were unlikely to be any better than other areas.

Last year the Scottish Executive announced a cash injection of £50m to
cut waiting times in eight key diagnostic tests - including using
private mobile scanners and privately run diagnostic treatment
centres.

But yesterday doctors said staff shortages in some areas of the
country were still severely hampering efforts to diagnose patients as
quickly as possible.

Dr Paul Allen, president of the Scottish Radiologists Society, said
the health service could no longer operate as a weekdays-only
nine-to-five service. "There are unfilled posts around Scotland and
even if they were to be filled the demand is outstripping capacity,"
he said. "Departments are finding they must work later into the night
and at the weekends to meet this."

Health campaigners have warned that the growing burden of poor health
in Scotland will see waiting times continue to soar unless there are
drastic improvements in diagnosis.

Under the current system, if doctors decide patients' illnesses are
not urgent or an emergency, they are classified as routine, meaning
they spend weeks in queues to be seen by specialists.

But the Scottish Executive wants all patients to be seen within nine
weeks of referral for a test by the end of 2007.

Health minister Andy Kerr said: "At present, patients classed by
clinicians as 'routine' can experience lengthy waits for some
diagnostic tests that will determine their treatment.

"That's not good enough, and the new diagnostic standards, which will
improve patient care and shorten waiting times at all parts of the
patient journey, will change that."

Michael Summers, chairman of the Patients' Association, criticised
Scotland's health boards for failing patients. He said: "It is
unacceptable to make patients wait that long.

"Quick diagnosis is vital because the period of uncertainty before
that concerns patients more than anything else, as they are waiting to
see if there is something seriously wrong with them."

Tory health spokeswoman Nanette Milne said: "It is ridiculous that
patients should be waiting for so long to have these basic diagnostic
tests.

"For patients who are forced to wait a long time before a diagnosis,
it creates a tremendous amount of stress and their conditions can grow
worse during that time."

A spokeswoman for NHS Lanarkshire said: "Work is in progress to
improve the waiting times through service redesign and a
Lanarkshire-wide approach to service delivery."


http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178402006


Here's the hospital admissions waiting time in England (just in case
you thought it was only in Scotland) provided by the NHS itself.
Again, this is criminal and I don't understand why the British people
accept this.

http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/2004/q4/kh07_y00.html
 
J

Jack Hollis

Guest
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:13:50 +0200, Donald Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Fortunately microshit have found it harder to bribe politicians in the EU
>than they have in the US.



Actually, Microsoft's legal problems started in the US and it was
because they didn't "bribe" any politicians. Back in the old days,
Microsoft didn't make donations to either political party. So,
accordingly, they didn't have any friends on Capitol Hill.
 
J

Jack Hollis

Guest
On 22 Aug 2006 21:50:35 -0700, "Pudd'nhead Wilson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> you.
>>
>> The big problem with health care in the US is that not everyone has
>> health insurance.

>
>No, that is not a "problem." If someone doesn't want insurance, or
>can't pay for it, it is their business.



If someone chooses not to get insurance, it's their business, but if
someone wants and needs insurance then it's not that simple.

In the US, if your destitute you can get Medicaid, but it's the
working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but can't
afford insurance that are the problem. The trick is top find ways to
get these people health care without ruining the whole system.
 
D

Donald Munro

Guest
J

Jack Hollis

Guest
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:43:33 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The United Kingdom achieves the same life expectancy as the US for one
>quarter of the cost. 'Better' doesn't mean much if it doesn't produce
>any measureable improvement.



Life expectancy is not the measure of health care. It has some
effect, but there are so many other components that it's hard to tease
it out. There's a genetic component and diet and nutrition play a
role. Basically, people with a healthy lifestyle and good genes live
long lives and don't depend much on health care.
 
J

Jack Hollis

Guest
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:29:42 GMT, "steve" <[email protected]> wrote:

>No, it's not really the private sector. It's a perverse combination of
>incentives. A free market in health care would solve many of these
>problems. If only.
>
>steve


The insurance industry is highly regulated in the US and it's all done
on a state level. So it doesn't really answer to the free market.
People don't call up doctors and ask how much they charge for a
particular procedure, like they would if they were buying a car.
 
P

Pudd'nhead Wilson

Guest
Donald Munro wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > Actually, Microsoft's legal problems started in the US and it was
> > because they didn't "bribe" any politicians. Back in the old days,
> > Microsoft didn't make donations to either political party. So,
> > accordingly, they didn't have any friends on Capitol Hill.

>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v4/alrtv4n18.asp
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/15/justice_chief_queried_over_ms/
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9911.callahan.think.html


Eliminate Capitol Hill and eliminate the problem. I like how you
almost back into the best solution without even knowing it.
 
P

Pudd'nhead Wilson

Guest
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 21:50:35 -0700, "Pudd'nhead Wilson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> you.
> >>
> >> The big problem with health care in the US is that not everyone has
> >> health insurance.

> >
> >No, that is not a "problem." If someone doesn't want insurance, or
> >can't pay for it, it is their business.

>
>
> If someone chooses not to get insurance, it's their business, but if
> someone wants and needs insurance then it's not that simple.


What are you talking about "need [health] insurance?" You probably
mean "need health care." They are not the same thing. A lot of people
think they are the same thing.

No one "needs" health insurance, people simply *want* it to lower their
exposure to financial and medical risk.

> In the US, if your destitute you can get Medicaid, but it's the
> working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but can't
> afford insurance that are the problem. The trick is top find ways to
> get these people health care without ruining the whole system.


Well it isn't particularly my problem to find health care for the
masses I don't know (or pay for it, for that matter). But I can give
you some pointers: (1) Destroy the cartel power of the AMA (eliminate
monopoly licensing for doctors); (2) Allow free access to any drugs to
anyone who wants them without perscriptions; (3) Eliminate any
government involvement (end all regulation).

Ultimately I think I would say the "whole system" you talk about is
exactly what needs to be "ruined."