(12-07-2024, 08:00 PM)Eric Cartman wrote: all healthcare everywhere ultimately involves someone picking and choosing who lives or dies, the difference being whether its someone in the hospital making the judgement call at 'point of sale' based on medical grounds, or someone looking at a spreadsheet making that decision on profitability grounds.This is the only thing actually relevant to any of the argument I was making: your assertion is that the NHS funds anything any doctor of any kind asks of it without question? I've never heard such a thing about it, nor remotely your claim that this is true for any other country.
Because then how can this be true?
Quote:I also reject your proposition that UHC represents a monopoly interest; if anything it represens a baseline standard to encourgae competition.
If the NHS hits the levels of shittiness certain political leanings would like, people can always get private insurance instead.
Also, wait...
Quote:I'm also not sure you understand how, well, most every other country in the first world actually operates, because waiting lists are generally for non essential treatment, not diagnoses.Diagnoses?
So you agree that "every other country in the first world" denies treatments the patients or even doctors might want? It's just declared "non-essential" and money is saved, profit for the "baseline standard to encourage competition" corporation through "perfectly logical allocation of resources"!
Because if I'm being ignorant of something obvious I would like to know why these immediately Googled type of stories don't match my general impression:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/22/uk-health-regulator-rejects-lecanemab-as-treatment-for-alzheimers
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/23/alzheimers-drug-donanemab-rejected-widespread-nhs-use-england
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-14/nhs-drug-pricing-standoff-denies-cancer-patients-treatmen
1 user liked this post: