"Rigid Class System in Europe" Bob Roll Comments

[Jack Hollis]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:35:26 GMT, Steven Bornfeld
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Robert Chung wrote:
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Britain spend less on health care than the US because the budget is a
>>>fixed amount. So it's not efficiency that doing it, it's rationing.
>>
>>
>> They spend less and get better outcomes -- sounds like their "rationing"
>> is pretty efficient.
>>
>>
>
>An Inconvenient Truth

You want some inconveniet truths.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHS scan delays 'put lives at risk'

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.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a list of the waiting times for hospital admission in England
from the NHS website

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

It's an absolute discrace.

Anyone who thinks health care in the UK is anywhere near as good as
whats available in the US is living in a fantasy world.

 

[Robert Chung]

Jack Hollis wrote:

>
> Here is a list of the waiting times for hospital admission in England
> from the NHS website
>
> http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/2004/q4/kh07_y00.html
>
> It's an absolute discrace.
>
> Anyone who thinks health care in the UK is anywhere near as good as
> whats available in the US is living in a fantasy world.

Hmmm. I'd say anyone who thinks that waiting time is the only determinant
of quality of care isn't competent to discuss quality of care. On the
other hand, outcomes are a reasonably good measure of the quality of care
since they take into account the entire stream of services patients
receive. Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those in the US -- and they
achieve those comparable outcomes for about two-thirds of our cost.

 

[Robert Chung]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those
> in the US -- and they achieve those comparable outcomes for about
> two-thirds of our cost.

BTW, I'm not saying that the UK has the best health care system in the
world -- when I say that it's comparable to the US, I mean that they're
both roughly in the middle of the developed countries (which, as I've been
saying, ain't the worst place in the world to be). For example, France is
generally considered to have a better health care system than either the
US or the UK.

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:35:26 GMT, Steven Bornfeld
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Britain spend less on health care than the US because the budget is a
>>>>fixed amount. So it's not efficiency that doing it, it's rationing.
>>>
>>>
>>>They spend less and get better outcomes -- sounds like their "rationing"
>>>is pretty efficient.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>An Inconvenient Truth
>
>
> You want some inconveniet truths.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> NHS scan delays 'put lives at risk'
>
> 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.
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178402006
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here is a list of the waiting times for hospital admission in England
> from the NHS website
>
> http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/2004/q4/kh07_y00.html
>
> It's an absolute discrace.
>
> Anyone who thinks health care in the UK is anywhere near as good as
> whats available in the US is living in a fantasy world.


No one I know says healthcare thru the NHS is as good as that available
to affluent guys like me in the US.
Of course, excellent health care is almost always available to the
affluent.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Robert Chung wrote:

> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>
>>Here is a list of the waiting times for hospital admission in England
>>from the NHS website
>>
>>http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/2004/q4/kh07_y00.html
>>
>>It's an absolute discrace.
>>
>>Anyone who thinks health care in the UK is anywhere near as good as
>>whats available in the US is living in a fantasy world.
>
>
> Hmmm. I'd say anyone who thinks that waiting time is the only determinant
> of quality of care isn't competent to discuss quality of care. On the
> other hand, outcomes are a reasonably good measure of the quality of care
> since they take into account the entire stream of services patients
> receive. Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those in the US -- and they
> achieve those comparable outcomes for about two-thirds of our cost.
>
>

The problem with gross outcomes is that it blurs the enormous
differences in access to health care among the poor.
Like they say, if your chances of survival are 99%, that 100th guy is
still 100% dead.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Robert Chung wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>>Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those
>>in the US -- and they achieve those comparable outcomes for about
>>two-thirds of our cost.
>
>
> BTW, I'm not saying that the UK has the best health care system in the
> world -- when I say that it's comparable to the US, I mean that they're
> both roughly in the middle of the developed countries (which, as I've been
> saying, ain't the worst place in the world to be). For example, France is
> generally considered to have a better health care system than either the
> US or the UK.
>
>

At least they have a system.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Robert Chung]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, outcomes are a reasonably good measure of the
>> quality of care since they take into account the entire stream of
>> services patients receive. Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those
>> in the US -- and they achieve those comparable outcomes for about
>> two-thirds of our cost.
>
> The problem with gross outcomes is that it blurs the enormous
> differences in access to health care among the poor.
> Like they say, if your chances of survival are 99%, that 100th guy is
> still 100% dead.

Yes. To clarify, it appears that most of the population-level health
status difference between, say, the UK and the US (but also between France
and the US) is at the middle and the bottom of the income distribution. As
you say, in every country wealthy people can get superior care, and
superior care in the UK and in France looks pretty identical to superior
care in the US. However, in the UK (and in France and Germany and Japan
and Canada and a bunch of other countries), the not-so-wealthy can get
pretty good care: good enough so that their outcomes are no worse and
sometimes better than ours. Plus, they pay less.

 

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those
>> in the US -- and they achieve those comparable outcomes for about
>> two-thirds of our cost.
>
> BTW, I'm not saying that the UK has the best health care system in the
> world -- when I say that it's comparable to the US, I mean that
> they're both roughly in the middle of the developed countries (which,
> as I've been saying, ain't the worst place in the world to be). For
> example, France is generally considered to have a better health care
> system than either the US or the UK.
>
>

Then why do all the French have those craters on their faces?

--
Bill Asher

 

[Robert Chung]

William Asher wrote:
> Then why do all the French have those craters on their faces?

France is a very friendly country.

 

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> Then why do all the French have those craters on their faces?
>
> France is a very friendly country.

Just don't ask a Frenchman to lend you his sister.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Robert Chung wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the other hand, outcomes are a reasonably good measure of the
>>>quality of care since they take into account the entire stream of
>>>services patients receive. Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those
>>>in the US -- and they achieve those comparable outcomes for about
>>>two-thirds of our cost.
>>
>>The problem with gross outcomes is that it blurs the enormous
>>differences in access to health care among the poor.
>>Like they say, if your chances of survival are 99%, that 100th guy is
>>still 100% dead.
>
>
> Yes. To clarify, it appears that most of the population-level health
> status difference between, say, the UK and the US (but also between France
> and the US) is at the middle and the bottom of the income distribution. As
> you say, in every country wealthy people can get superior care, and
> superior care in the UK and in France looks pretty identical to superior
> care in the US. However, in the UK (and in France and Germany and Japan
> and Canada and a bunch of other countries), the not-so-wealthy can get
> pretty good care: good enough so that their outcomes are no worse and
> sometimes better than ours. Plus, they pay less.
>
>

I knew that YOU knew that--I just thought you were being too nice to
those flag wavers.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Pudd'nhead Wilson]

Robert Chung wrote:

> I'd say anyone who thinks that waiting time is the only determinant
> of quality of care isn't competent to discuss quality of care.

How about the competence of someone who spends time on rbr discussing
the value of time?

> On the
> other hand, outcomes are a reasonably good measure of the quality of care
> since they take into account the entire stream of services patients
> receive. Outcomes in the UK are comparable to those in the US -- and they
> achieve those comparable outcomes for about two-thirds of our cost.

How did you account the costs? I mean, are there any substantial leaks
you could imagine?

 

[Pudd'nhead Wilson]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Pudd'nhead Wilson ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >> > One thing wrong with the concept is it is based on theft of
> >> > rightfully acquired property.
> >>
> >> You are treating the right to individual property as axiomatic.

No, I would never act as if it had the deductive rigor of a closed
system built on axioms. I think I said at the outset that it could not
be such a thing, and why I didn't wholesale reject utilitarianism,
positivism, empircism, etcetera. To be "rational" is to take the ratio
-- to compare, to differentiate, to work one thing against another. It
is not to acquire some absolute deductive indusputable truth on
foundations. Of all the ideologies, the individual liberty doctrine as
social arrangement is the most minimal, has the most inner
consistantancy, and exterior-wise seems consistant with life itself, as
best I can tell. That is all. I am saying individual property
observationally exists -- people act that way.


/Empathy and the Source of Rights/ -- Stephan Kinsella
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005573.asp#more


> > No. I actually described it as observational. It is what people do,
> > and consistant with how life operates (again, observationally).
>
> If you observe people in a capitalist society, they will behave according
> to the mores of a capitalist society. There's nothing surprising,
> enlightening or interesting about that. You cannot use this
> as 'evidence' that capitalist mores are 'natural'; that's circular.

Individual property has existed for some long time. To make your
argument, you've got to prove every stone hand axe, every bow and
arrow, every tool to make bead trinkets for trade, and everything else
was not individual property and treated that way through time. Of
course, I would not argue that more individual liberty (individual
property) for the greater numbers became more prevalent in the past 3
centuries. Sure, when it became more prevalent, the industrial age
(fueled much more by private ownership of the means of production) came
into being, and supported much greater numbers of humans. So
according to my life-aligning (affirming) argument, yes it is
observationally true, although you would just call it "efficiency," I
guess.

What is property "in the commons?" Really, all that says is that
someone in power seized it for their own individual use. (I think we
agree on that -- that truly is a power play and non-respect for other's
(rights). )

> Your claim that 'property' is a universal value among human societies is
> simply false; the concept of property in the modern sense simply did not
> exist at all - anywhere in the world - before the 1750s.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. You can study it if you want. For
example, the Silk Road was a trade route. When someone is "trading,"
the are saying "property rights." Sure, a few weapons on display
encourage respect. Sure, robbers, crooks, enslavers, et al, were in
the mix too. That does not vanish property. Aristotle began
formulating some of these ideas.

http://www.mises.org/store/Austrian...-of-Economic-Thought-2-volume-set-P273C0.aspx

> In pre-modern
> Europe the overwhelming majority of land was commons, and people had
> usufruct rights only on the produce of the land. Material possessions,
> if not used, were commonly deemed to be abandoned and free to any taker.
> This concept of transient and limited property was at least as long
> lived and successful as the modern concept of absolute property.

Remember, a trait has to actually exist before it is selected,
including a cultural/moral/meme trait like property rights.

And when you write about "abandonment" and "absolute property," you are
copying me copying V.D. "For the utilitarians, one result of this may
be that many, many acres of land now held by wealthy people and
corporations would be released for use by others, since much of it,
especially large, remote, undeveloped parcels will be uneconomic to
maintain or defend absent government force," and acting like it is
your idea and in opposition to mine! But there is still abandonment
today -- ownership is not absolute. To the degree it is absolute, it is
because The State has distorted the price system for what it takes to
hold onto unused property: Property that would more properly be
abandoned. Of course, that is nothing compared to the amount of real
property The State itself has seized.

4 NR pages by a law professor:
http://www.randybarnett.com/pdf/imperative.pdf

Simon Brooke wrote:

> I'll leave this thread now - it is way off topic.

It was never on topic.

and endlessly:

> There's nothing surprising,
> enlightening or interesting about that.

Yes, do get back to "interesting" talk about bike racing.

 

[Robert Chung]

I wrote:

> Right, I wasn't implying that satisfaction is a reliable metric. In
> fact, I was citing an ancient study because I don't usually pay any
> attention to satisfaction data so I'm not up-to-date on it.
>
> I do, however, have a more appropriate example, even though it's an
> anecdote. A friend was trying to demonstrate that patient satisfaction
> surveys aren't terribly useful as an objective measure of quality of
> care. He got permission to do in-depth interviews with women who had
> been recently discharged after childbirth from a couple of hospitals in
> his area. Almost everyone was very satisfied with their care, citing the
> friendliness of the staff, the attractiveness of the rooms, the ability
> to have their partners with them, that sort of thing. However, when he
> went deeper into the interviews he uncovered nearly half who either had
> themselves or whose babies had post-natal complications: almost all of
> them were minor, but they were still conditions that could be linked to
> sub-standard care. He gave a report to the hospitals' administrations.
> You can see this coming: rather than taking this as evidence that
> patient satisfaction doesn't capture all aspects of quality of care, the
> administrations took it as a sign that they had been successful in
> getting the staff to be friendly and that their room remodeling had been
> successful.

Not the same study, but same result:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115758434624755703-lMyQjAxMDE2NTA3NzUwODc0Wj.html

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 6 Sep 2006 23:22:05 -0700, "Pudd'nhead Wilson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> I'd say anyone who thinks that waiting time is the only determinant
>> of quality of care isn't competent to discuss quality of care.

I'd say that no care is about as bad as it gets, especially when
you're talking about diagnostic procedures.

 

[Bob Martin]

in 526117 20060907 164606 Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2006 23:22:05 -0700, "Pudd'nhead Wilson" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say anyone who thinks that waiting time is the only determinant
>>> of quality of care isn't competent to discuss quality of care.
>
>I'd say that no care is about as bad as it gets, especially when
>you're talking about diagnostic procedures.

Jack, what is it with you and this chip on your shoulder?
Those of us who live in the UK are generally happy with the NHS.
By your own admission you are repeating 20-year-old moans of
an ex-pat.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Pudd'nhead Wilson wrote:
> Yes, do get back to "interesting" talk about bike racing.
>

Dumbass,

Don't let anyone see you with long white socks and Oakleys.
Your credibility on health care policy will be in the shitter
for sure.

If you guys want something interesting, check out my business
web page:

http://www.rsplastic.com/

Bob 'Call me Robert' Schwartz

 

[William Asher]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

<snip>
> If you guys want something interesting, check out my business
> web page:
>
> http://www.rsplastic.com/

Do you ever wake up with a nagging feeling that you've overinflated your
tires?

--
Bill Asher

 

[Robert Chung]

Bob Martin wrote:
>
> Jack, what is it with you and this chip on your shoulder?

His brand of kook-fu is very powerful.

 

[Robert Chung]

Jack Hollis, quoting gwhite, wrote:

>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say anyone who thinks that waiting time is the only determinant
>>> of quality of care isn't competent to discuss quality of care.
>
> I'd say that no care is about as bad as it gets, especially when
> you're talking about diagnostic procedures.

Then we agree on one of the reasons why general health status in the US is
worse than in the UK: we've got 45 million uninsured and they've got
universal coverage.

But even for those who are insured and have access to care, the UK appears
to do no worse and sometimes better:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/17/2037 and
http://roysocmed.ac.uk/media/downloads/j06-09diabetes.pdf

And it costs them less.