# How to Make Health Care More Efficient



## Toro (May 19, 2009)

Interesting article, I thought.

McKinsey: What Matters: Can the United States provide health care for all?


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

No you can't afford health care for everyone. You need to save your money to buy bombs to drop on people you don't even know or give a shit about. Pretty sad really.


----------



## Oddball (May 27, 2009)

> How to Make Health Care More Efficient


Abolish Medicare/Medicaid, and all of their mandates to state programs.

Declare the medical insurance business a field of interstate commerce (hell, virtually everything else has been declared as such), so anyone and everyone can shop for the insurance products they want, rather than what a patchwork of state mandates force insurance companies to provide.

Abolish the FDA, and devolve its functions to a private entity, like Underwriter's Laboratories.

That'd about do it.


----------



## caela (May 28, 2009)

Dude said:


> > How to Make Health Care More Efficient
> 
> 
> 1)Abolish Medicare/Medicaid, and all of their mandates to state programs.
> ...



*The numbers in the above quote were added for ease of replying and were not in the original post.*

1) So totally agree. Medicare/Medicaid set unrealistically low reimbursement rates for physicians which causes them to increase their costs on their other patients (trickling up to the insurance companies who then raise their premiums) to compensate. 

This is something the doctors I work with bitch about all the time and why many physicians offices simply refuse to deal with Medicare/Medicaid.

2) This would probably make BCBS pee in their pants but I think it's a great idea...at least in theory. It would take awhile for people to research their option but then at least insurance would have to become a truly competitive field.

3) No quite sure what the ramifications of this would actually be so I'm going to go with a "No opinion" on this one.


----------



## mskafka (May 31, 2009)

I hope that those of you who say "abolish medicare/medicaid" never need it.  That is amazing self-centeredness.


----------



## caela (Jun 1, 2009)

mskafka said:


> I hope that those of you who say "abolish medicare/medicaid" never need it.  That is amazing self-centeredness.



I don't consider it self-centered at all. I believe in personal responsibility not in quasi-socialist programs. I don't think anyone else should have to pay for MY healthcare and by that same token, I don't believe I should have to pay for theirs. 

The simple fact is that the way these programs are run, runs up the premiums for the rest of us _on top of_ the taxes we already pay to have those programs in place...so we actually pay for them twice. I get to hear on a daily basis how both these programs fuck the doctors that are willing to take these patients. They set unrealistically low reimbursement rates, reimburse on a screwed up scale (for example, a doctor can do a procedure at a surgery center or a hospital and be paid differently based simply on where he did it even though it's the EXACT SAME procedure and only the location changed) and they've also recently started tacking on more and more reasons for which they WON'T reimburse a doctor at all. Some are valid and some are outside the doctors control and have more to do with patient compliance which the docs can't control.

All of the above makes the doctors charge more for their services to those patients who have something other than the above 2 which makes other insurance carriers jack up their prices. Get rid of these two and open up insurance to interstate trade and you'd see premiums come down fairly quickly and with the money not being ripped out of their checks in medicare/medicaid taxes people could probably afford at least some basic insurance on their own.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2009)

caela said:


> mskafka said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that those of you who say "abolish medicare/medicaid" never need it.  That is amazing self-centeredness.
> ...



The basic result would be very cheap premiums for healthy younger people, and a denial of coverage to anyone over the age of 65.  Great idea.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> The basic result would be very cheap premiums for healthy younger people, and a denial of coverage to anyone over the age of 65.  Great idea.


I guess that depends upon the overall health and habits of the 65-year old.

That aside, who has any right to a private risk pool scheme??


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 2, 2009)

Toro said:


> Interesting article, I thought.
> 
> McKinsey: What Matters: Can the United States provide health care for all?



Agreed, interesting.

You might like to consider some of the points made in a speech given at Hillsdale College, February 18, 2009 by John C. Goodman, President Center for Policy Analysis
Ph.D, Columbia University

The alternative is to rely on private sector use of individual choice and free markets.  To fix Medicare, 
a.	Liberate patients by designating what they can pay for with the money, and then giving them more control over the money, at least one-third of their Medicare dollars. People with health savings accounts managing their own money make radically different choices: they are more prudent and economical.
b.	Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services the way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it wont pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors dont digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesnt pay for it. 
Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes! 
c.	The new system must be pre-funded.  We cannot expect todays teenagers to live in poverty to pay for their elders medical bills, so everyone must start saving now, at least 4% of their income- perhaps 2% each from employer and employee, into a private account invested in the marketplace. 
 If consumers save and spend their own money, and doctors are allowed to act like entrepreneurs, health care can be prevented from rising faster than our incomes.

The free market examples in health care:
a.	Cosmetic surgery behaves like a real market. It is not covered by insurance, consumers compare prices and services, and doctors act as entrepreneurs.  Over the last 15 years, the real price of cosmetic surgery has gone down, even though the number of people getting cosmetic surgery five- or six-fold.
b.	In Dallas, a health care provider has two million customers who pay a small fee each month for the ability to talk to a doctor on the telephone. Patients must have an electronic medical record, so that whichever doctor answers the phone can view his medical records. The company is growing due to the fact that it provides a service the traditional health care system doesnt provide.  
c.	Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance.
d.	Concierge doctors, doctors who dont want to deal with third party insurers. In Dallas, these doctors charge $40 per employee per month, give telephone and e-mail access, and keep electronic medical records. 
e.	Medical tourism: hospitals in India, Singapore and Thailand are competing worldwide for patients.  They have lower costs, and high quality, with doctors board-certified in the United States, and publicize their error rates, mortality rates, infection rates, etc.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

> a. Cosmetic surgery behaves like a real market. It is not covered by insurance, consumers compare prices and services, and doctors act as entrepreneurs. Over the last 15 years, the real price of cosmetic surgery has gone down, even though the number of people getting cosmetic surgery five- or six-fold.



Ditto Lasik treatment.

Funny how the pimps for medical Bolshevism gloss over these two areas of the medical services industry, where a real free market model is in full effect.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 2, 2009)

Switzerland's system actually makes the most sense, but there are still guidelines.  First of all, insurance is mandatory.  You don't have an option of opting out.  Secondly, there are only three age groups for which premiums may be set.  Last of all, there are caps on how much may be charged for various procedures.   And finally, the vast majority of Switzerland's multiple insurers are all non-profits.  

The idea that we should all just go without insurance and pay out of pocket would be a great idea if all procedures were relatively affordable.  But that is not the case.  At minimum, catastophic insurance is absolutely necessary as very few people can afford things such as organ translants or stem cell transplants, and even long term cancer treatment.

The biggest problem is that our current system does everything it can to exclude anyone who might be at risk.  Even those who make the choice to purchase insurance can find themselves in a position to later not be able to purchase that coverage through no fault of their own.  Of course, if you are dirt poor, then the government will pay for you.  The other problem is that costs continue to rise well above the rate of inflation.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> The idea that we should all just go without insurance and pay out of pocket would be a great idea if all procedures were relatively affordable.  But that is not the case.  At minimum, catastophic insurance is absolutely necessary as very few people can afford things such as organ translants or stem cell transplants, and even long term cancer treatment.


Medical procedures would be relatively affordable (and minor ones still are) were there not insurance mandates in most states and the Medicare/Medicaid scams.

Did the more competitive costs of elective plastic surgery and Lasik get by you??


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> > How to Make Health Care More Efficient
> 
> 
> Abolish Medicare/Medicaid, and all of their mandates to state programs.
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

I expect no better from Old Rocksinthehead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 2, 2009)

Sure now, and we need more contaminated peanutbutter. What we really need is the Chinese method of dealing with the people that made the decisions that resulted in people dying from consuming their products.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

So, you're going to use the communist Chinese model as an example of what happens in a free market??

Seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??????


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> So, you're going to use the communist Chinese model as an example of what happens in a free market??
> 
> Seriously?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??????



I think he was referring to imports.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2009)

So, importing a contaminated communistic model for medical services is supposed to be any better than contaminated peanut butter imported from communists in what way??


----------



## jgbkab (Jun 2, 2009)

Dude said:


> So, importing a contaminated communistic model for medical services is supposed to be any better than contaminated peanut butter imported from communists in what way??



Ok, I think he meant importing food from China without FDA oversight. Go.


----------



## editec (Jun 3, 2009)

We Are They said:


> No you can't afford health care for everyone. You need to save your money to buy bombs to drop on people you don't even know or give a shit about. Pretty sad really.


 
Well _of course_ we drop bombs on people _we don't know_.

Dropping bombs on people we _do know_ would be _incredibly_ rude.

Silly man!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2009)

In China, the fellow that headed the company that put the contaminated baby food on the market was summerily shot. We should have done the same for the CEO of the peanunt butter company whose contaminated product killed several people here in the US.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2009)

jgbkab said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > So, importing a contaminated communistic model for medical services is supposed to be any better than contaminated peanut butter imported from communists in what way??
> ...



We had contaminated _*AMERICAN*_ peanut butter with FDA "oversight".

On top of that, did the FDA get sued for approving Vioxx or Phen-Fen??.....Nope.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 7, 2009)

> How to Make Health Care More Efficient



Be careful of whose  definition of &#8220;efficient&#8221; we use; especially if the government&#8217;s definition means in reality &#8220;too much of&#8221;. This seems to  imply that if we spend less on a service, like health care, that then it&#8217;s usage would be more efficient, when in actuality it&#8217;s maximum benefits  would just become less available to the greatest number of users.

On Monday June 1st, 2009 President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers released a report called "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform." The report argues that Americans must curb their consumption of medical care in order to avoid soaring federal deficits, which are unsustainable burdens on family budgets, and damage to the economy. All of these claims are untrue.

Why does the Administration make that calculation?  Federal deficits; the White House report makes the argument that there must be controls on what all Americans spend on health care in order to avoid government programs running huge deficits.  Wow!  How cool is that?

Their theory is that only federal legislation can slow what all Americans spend on health care in order to avoid government programs running huge deficits.  That will be the new model for healthcare, and will be the first justification for rationing, but of course it will not be called exactly that. Instead the euphemism of the day will be _efficiency_. We already know how that rationing will be done; the viability of medical procedures will be calculated on a cost effectiveness basis; that has already been stated.

And how does the government make that calculation?  Personally, I believe one of those calculations will be based on the ability of the patient to be able to pay it back through revenues to the government in the form of future federal income taxes.  One group we know who will not be able to do that will be the old who are already in retirement.  They obviously have little potential for future income.

The other set of individuals will be the severely handicapped; likewise the same standard also holds true for them .  On that basis, who else?  Well we already know the &#8220;very young&#8221; are already expendable; 45 million abortions make that very clear.

How about those who have a low survivability rate?  That standard might well apply to certain cancer victims, like colon cancer, skin cancer, breast cancer and many others fitting that description.  The costs are high and the benefits are calculably limited to their future earnings, which will be less than the costs of treatment.  

As partial proof take one example: take breast cancer, a condition not confined to the elderly:  Under the rubric of making our health care system more efficient, we are actually on the road to making it more like Europe&#8217;s. Almost no one here on this forum would argue with that statement.  But according to the _Concord 2008 Five Continent Study,_ and the _Commonwealth Fund_,  women in the U.S. are more likely to have a regular mammogram so their breast cancer is detected sooner and treated faster resulting in higher survival rates here than there. This is a situation which promotes the growth of cancer until it becomes uncurable, or at least economically inefficient to cure.

So now the _NEW_ first standard for who gets high cost healthcare will be how much harm will produced  to the economy, or, on the other hand how much will it enhance the economy to deny services to certain classes of people?  These are purely economical considerations removed from the hands of the effected individuals and placed in the hands of the federal government.

In reality, all this tinkering has to take into account that any health care reform will have to confront the fact that the biggest single reason costs keep rising is that the American people keep buying more and more health care services.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jun 8, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> caela said:
> 
> 
> > mskafka said:
> ...



The basic point of using the Interstate commerce clause to remove state by state limitations on health ins. policies is that you can also tell them "no denial of service." So, in essence, you are creating one big pool, the United States. If you are health insurance provider, you can either choose to offer health insurance in the United States, or not. You can't choose to whom you offer it.

More later.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jun 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> In China, the fellow that headed the company that put the contaminated baby food on the market was summerily shot. We should have done the same for the CEO of the peanunt butter company whose contaminated product killed several people here in the US.



Care to post the types of people you would like to see taken out and summarily shot?

This seems to be the type of thinking the lefties like to engage in. For all their talk about the "Fascist" right wingnuts, we sure hear an awful lot about all the kinds of people that need to be taken out and shot. 

So, immoral CEOs of food companies. How about the toy company CEOs, the one that let lead paint in on the toys? Them too? How about CEOs of the financial companies? How about CEOs that make over a million dollars? How about all CEOs? Where do we go next, who else is on your list for when the change comes and you get to haul people out of their houses and execute them?


----------



## American Horse (Jun 10, 2009)

Just out on FNC - Sen K. Conrad proposes not for profit cooperative for health care as an alternative to single payer system.  He says several Republicans in the Senate also endorse the idea.  

This would be an appropriate realm for not-for-profit orgs IMHO.  
This would be a nationwide organization that would be able to consolidate the market for health insurance, and the US Government would have no role in its function beyond normal government regulatory compliance.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

Great...The republican turd polishers whip out another dose of bootblack.

Whoopie!


----------



## American Horse (Jun 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> Great...The republican turd polishers whip out another dose of bootblack.
> 
> Whoopie!



Sorry Dude, I should've mentioned that K. Conrad is a Democrat?
But, for a moment would you give your opinion on the idea?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

If it doesn't involve less intervention of gubmint between the patient and provider, I'm against it.

Moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic does nothing for me.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> If it doesn't involve less intervention of gubmint between the patient and provider, I'm against it.
> 
> Moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic does nothing for me.



Sorry once again, Dude, but we are long past an idealistic remake of the system unless we take direct action in that direction.  Do you have any theories how we might accomplish that?

Here are a few of my own:
Constitutional convention
Succession of key states going separately to create constitutional crisis.
Constitutional amendment to re-invoke Federalism as primary US model.

Do you have any to add, or another route to re-establish our root ideals?

Btw 





> If it doesn't involve less intervention of gubmint between the patient and provider, I'm against it.


 Dem. Kent Conrad would seem to accomplish that as an alternative to what we seem imminently faced with.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

We don't need a con-con.

Declaring that state laws which prevent citizens from shopping out-of-state for cafeteria style coverage null and void, via the oft-invoked interstate commerce clause, would do more to cut costs than anything else.

But that simple step does nothing to empower politicians and bureaucrats....Which is what virtually all the supposed "reforms" are all about.


----------



## American Horse (Jun 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> We don't need a con-con.
> 
> Declaring that state laws which prevent citizens from shopping out-of-state for cafeteria style coverage null and void, via the oft-invoked interstate commerce clause, would do more to cut costs than anything else.
> 
> But that simple step does nothing to empower politicians and bureaucrats....Which is what virtually all the supposed "reforms" are all about.



Another would be to find some way to get the Media to actually do their job: inform the public without undue bias.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 10, 2009)

There certainly are a lot of States that are trying to bring health care to everyone.  Check out this index.

Healthcare for all - Google Search

When it comes right down to it we don't have a choice.  The World Health Organization rates American Health Care #37 in the world!  So other than about a third of the doctors, and most of the Republicans, we need to get health care for the 46,000,000 Americans who have no health coverage.  
U. S. Senator Edward Kennedy has dedicated his career to this issue.​


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

Fuck the W.H.O. _*and*_ the U.N.

And the only thing Tanqueray Teddy has dedicated his career to is happy hour.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 11, 2009)

Three months after he was diagnosed with incurable brain cancer, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) vowed in an emotional Democratic National Convention address last summer that health reform would be "the cause of my life." 

Nearly a year later, Kennedy has put that vision to paper in legislation that would provide government subsidies to families buying coverage, place significant responsibilities on employers, create a new long-term-care program for millions of people with disabilities. 

The 170-page bill is by far the most progressive approach to health-care reform being discussed in Washington. The bill would require businesses to provide insurance for workers or pay penalties.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Fuck Tanqueray Teddy, too.

And while I'm up...Fuck you too, punk.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

We Are They said:


> No you can't afford health care for everyone. You need to save your money to buy bombs to drop on people you don't even know or give a shit about. Pretty sad really.


Well said .. thanks.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fuck Tanqueray Teddy, too.



I see bad one-liners all over the Internet from this Dude character.  For the longest time I did not know if he was a hippie, a fascist Repub, or some homeless guy who stole a computer.

I guess the Tangueray remark is supposed to be a cut on Senator Kennedy, but I couldn't figure it out.  When the Senator used to enjoy refreshment his choice was Cutty or Jamison.  So the Tanqueray comment could not have been about him.  You think?

So, my quest began to find Tanqueray Teddy, and I found him.  He is Edward Schiller, CEO of TANQUERAY RESOURCES LTD., Tel: (403) 263-9055.  Tanqueray Resources is in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and they explore for gold, uranium, and nickel.

I am still at a loss for how this relates to American health care or Senator Kennedy.  Maybe it is an attempt at humor.  Maybe it is some kind of made up thing that only Dude understands.

A friendly thought Dude, before you hit your computer keys verify your facts.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 14, 2009)

Go fuck yourself, little boy.

When you dry out behind the ears and start paying some of the freight for your beloved socialistic welfare state, then you can come around singing the praises of a career parasite, like Tanqueray Teddy.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 14, 2009)

Dude said:


> Go fuck yourself, little boy.
> 
> When you dry out behind the ears and start paying some of the freight for your beloved socialistic welfare state, then you can come around singing the praises of a career parasite, like Tanqueray Teddy.



That's the best you've got?  And, your playing the Tanqueray Teddy card for the third time?  "Dry out behind the ears," now that's original.  When you've got something that isn't TRITE find me, and I'll hope for a laugh.  You know the members pity you.

TRITE
1. lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale: the trite phrases in his letter.  
2. characterized by hackneyed expressions, ideas, etc.: The commencement address was trite and endlessly long.  
3. Archaic. rubbed or worn by use.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 14, 2009)




----------



## actsnoblemartin (Jun 15, 2009)

Dude said:


>



youre the reason, people dont like political message boards


----------



## Oddball (Jun 15, 2009)

Myob


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 15, 2009)

The media and political community have made a big deal out of the fact that the U.S. ranks 37 out of 191 countries on the World Health Organization&#8217;s Health Care Ranking System.  Is this tool a credible way to compare quality health care delivered in the U.S. vs the rest of the world?



According to Dr. Richard G. Fessler, a Chicago neurosurgeon who travels the world to perform state of the art surgery for patients who do not have access to what Americans currently enjoy, "When it comes to quality healthcare, the United States Health Care is second to none!"  Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care.  As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 out of 16 of the most common cancers.  Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as &#8220;superior&#8221; to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1



But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created.  WHO&#8217;s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO.  These are:



1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution:25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail

Here's some thoughts on the main topic, perhaps by promoting  more competetion and providing incentives for businesses wishing to enter into the health insurance business ,those Americans wishing to find  affordable health coverage can do so. Still other things that can be done are allowing  individuals , small businesses, and rural farms to form private insurance co-ops so that they can purchase  inexpensive group converage. Still other things that can  be done are  addressing the Illegal Immigration issue to bring down health care costs. There are many many things the Govt. can do and has the power to do to make insurance and health care more affordable for everyone, but yet they choose to use this as a campaign hammer in order to retain power. Here's a good example,  I posted in another thread.  Had the same people in congress who are now shouting to the rafters for  a national insurance option had any noble intentions of healthcare for the masses then they would not have spent  750 billion dollars on a Stimulus package that had in it such things as studying pig gas emissions and  tattoo removal. The facts are Congress  can address the issues of healthcare cost very easily if they wished to do so, but as it does not suit the agenda, I don't see this happening anytime soon.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 15, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Concise and to the point!  He says he lives in a Bowling Alley, but I think it is Alabama.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 16, 2009)

Some idiot took the WHO "rating" seriously in terms of trying to relate it to quality of care in the US...??


BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 17, 2009)

The SOCIALIST - believes that industries should be owned by the people of the nation, not by individuals, and that services like education and health care should be free for everyone. Under socialism, all means of production should be publicly owned. Unlike communists, socialists believe that such things can be achieved through pressure and reform.​


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 18, 2009)

We Are They said:


> No you can't afford health care for everyone. You need to save your money to buy bombs to drop on people you don't even know or give a shit about. Pretty sad really.



Or pass a stimulus bill that is full of pork and has thus far done nothing to stimulate the economy. Or bail out Fannie and Freddie and still allow them to give bonuses while banging the gavel that AIG executives should give their bonuses back.
ALL politicians are power mad with questionable ethics and do NOT have our best interests in mind.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> In China, the fellow that headed the company that put the contaminated baby food on the market was summerily shot. We should have done the same for the CEO of the peanunt butter company whose contaminated product killed several people here in the US.



I take it by that comment, you are ok with waterboarding?


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 22, 2009)

And the point is, Healthcare for all.  Get the corporate greed out of it.​


----------



## oreo (Jun 24, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> And the point is, Healthcare for all.  Get the corporate greed out of it.​




I like that one--it's a good one, & I am certain it happens alot.  But--what if the patient actually needs that test & is denied?

Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.  It's hard for me to imagine them taking over health care.  There has got to be a better solution to our health care problems. I believe it's in the private sector, & government needs to get out of the way--allow interstate competition--& do the hard part--by mandating that all citizens obtain coverage--or pay a fine or higher taxes.


----------



## editec (Jun 24, 2009)

Single payer universal health insurance will work ONLY IF we also limit the amount of money we pay to the HC providers.

If we allow market forces to fix costs then guess what?

Single Payer Universal health insurance will drive up the price of HC until we find ourselves once again unable to afford to give people adaquate HC coverage.

More demand X the same amount of supply = higher prices 

_duh!_


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 24, 2009)

oreo, Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.​
How about these guys?






A letter delivered in a few days, anywhere in the country for a few cents.  GM and Chrysler would still be viable if they could pull off a miracle like that!​


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2009)

oreo said:


> Derek_Plumber said:
> 
> 
> > And the point is, Healthcare for all.  Get the corporate greed out of it.​
> ...



Then you have not done much investigating.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 27, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Then you have not done much investigating.



Then you have never received a letter!


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 27, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Then you have not done much investigating.
> ...



Washington, D.C.Reflecting the continuing shrinkage of direct mail marketing and the changing communication habits of the American public, *the U.S. Postal Service reported a net loss of $677 million for May, bringing to $3.4 billion its total losses in the current fiscal year.*

In addition, the USPS reported it processed 2.8 billion fewer pieces of mail in May, compared with the same month in 2008.



The USPS is on track to lose about $6 billion in its fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Postal Service loses $677 million in May as volume declines :: BtoB Magazine

No thanks I'll send mine through e-mail and if it has to get there  well...

FEDX or UPS

The difference between them is pretty obvious... the Post Office will tell you they don't use  taxpayer funds and are completely on their own. However, that doesn't stop them from going to congress and asking money though....

Washington (AP) - Postmaster General John Potter said Wednesday the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service will run out of money this year without help from Congress.

The only lingering question, Potter told a House subcommittee, is which bills will get paid and which will not. He did say ensuring the payment of workers' salaries comes first. But Potter also said other bills may have to wait.
CNSNews.com - Postal Service Asks Congress for Bailout


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 27, 2009)

oreo said:


> Derek_Plumber said:
> 
> 
> > And the point is, Healthcare for all.  Get the corporate greed out of it.​
> ...



And therein lies the problem.  If you want real competition, then health insurance must be mandated.  It is the only way to make certain those who need and want it can actually get it.  You can't and won't have any real competition if it is not mandated on everyone.  On top of this, when everyone isn't paying into the system, regardless of who is running that system, the ones who are in it subsidize those who aren't.  But then, it also creates a situation where the system actually tries to remove those who actually need it. 

The biggest problem with those who want to leave it in the private sector and get government out of healthcare is that they also don't want it mandated on anyone.  The argument is that if you can't get coverage, too bad; it's your problem, so long as it doesn't effect them.  And that is how we get back to the need for more goverenment involvement.

So pick your poison; more goverenment involvement or mandate health insurance on all and quit basing rates on the health of individuals.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 27, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Derek_Plumber said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The post office is a terrible example.  There is a simple answer for the post office; raise rates on first class mail.  Tell me something; what is the minimum charge that UPS and FED EX charge for a single letter to be go through their systems?  Is it anywhere close to $.42?  Didn't think so......  In fact, I checked the rates.  The Fed Ex rate was $7.52 for three days.  

People don't understand costs in the real world.  Because people are using the mail so much less, it has driven up the cost, so the USPS needs to raise rates.  They are still more than offset by the money saved using E-mail for the majority of what we used to mail.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jun 28, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> People don't understand costs in the real world.QUOTE]
> 
> Absolutely True, and you are one of them.  The USPS has been making profits and cutting costs.  Here is the link,
> 
> ...


----------



## Toro (Jun 28, 2009)

The idea that government can't do anything is simply nonsense.  Most Canadians are happy with their government-run health care.

Now that doesn't necessarily make it better, but bumper sticker slogans doesn't help us increase our understanding.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 1, 2009)

Stop yacking!  Nationalize the Health Care and be done with it!​


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> oreo, Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.​
> How about these guys?
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah....They're so efficient and trustworthy that numerous private carriers have sprung up, charging at least _*twice*_ what the USPS does for overnight service, and are still rollin' in the dough. 

Leave it to a brain dead Fabian socialist to use the Post Office as a model of "success"


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Derek_Plumber said:
> 
> 
> > oreo, Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.​
> ...


Then it seems private insurance should be able to compete with a public plan and make a profit ... don't you think?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2009)

Of course, the USPS has also become a _*HUGE*_ money pit, that hasn't paid for itself in decades.

But you dumbshits g'head and keep on using it as example of "success".


----------



## Maple (Jul 1, 2009)

Yes and many doctors are starting to refuse to see Medicare and Medicaid patients the reimbursement is horrible.


----------



## Maple (Jul 1, 2009)

Good lord, the postal service is run well??????????????? You libs gotta be kiddin or you are just flat stupid.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jul 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> > How to Make Health Care More Efficient
> 
> 
> Abolish Medicare/Medicaid, and all of their mandates to state programs.
> ...



You hit the nail on the head, Dude.  The article says,



> US health care costs are already killing our economy. Prudent people on both the left and the right of the political spectrum worry that universal coverage that further expands these costs may be the final nail in the economys coffin.



But it is not the cost of health care that is the problem, it is the cost of the bureaucracy used for tracking the collection of funds from people a little at a time when they're healthy so those funds will be available when they are sick and need to spend a chunk, a.k.a. 'insurance'.

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jul 1, 2009)

Dude said:


> Of course, the USPS has also become a _*HUGE*_ money pit, that hasn't paid for itself in decades.
> 
> But you dumbshits g'head and keep on using it as example of "success".



Not true.  They receive nada from the taxpayer.  They are self sufficient by law.



			
				USPS Web Site said:
			
		

> 0	Tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service
> 
> USPS - Postal Facts



-Joe


----------



## Oddball (Jul 1, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the USPS has also become a _*HUGE*_ money pit, that hasn't paid for itself in decades.
> ...


Huh???...Doesn't "deficit" still mean that you're paying out more than you're taking in??

Post office losing jobs and money - Business - News & Observer



Post office is $1.9 billion in red - USATODAY.com


----------



## rdking647 (Jul 2, 2009)

but they still manage to get a letter across the country for 43c or whatever it cost now. with these forever stamps I dont even know.


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2009)

> *How to Make Health Care More Efficient *


 
Easy.

Kill and eat the sick.

Works well enough for ants.

You don't see them going broke trying to give everyone health care, do ya?


----------



## roper1975 (Jul 2, 2009)

This topic seems to be going in so many directions.  The problem with the question of private health insurance competing with the government brand is that everyone will have to pay into the government insurance first no matter if you plan on using it.  Doing this will automatically make getting private health insurance unaffordable to those who would like to buy it.  That argument is a moot point because it doesn't ask the two most important questions that I haven't heard enough people ask.

First question is on the constitutionality of national health care.  What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to enact legislation that would bring about national health care?  Before you claim general welfare  or necessary and proper clause are both wrong.  Necessary and proper can only be used when supporting one of the other enumerated powers.  General welfare has been abused for over 80 years to give life to numerous and broad legislation that continually erodes our individual freedom and liberty.  Read John Taylor of Carolines book "New Views of the Constitution" if you want to know what the framers and ratifiers meant.

The second question deals with deregulation.  In buying health insurance, say company A charged $200 a month, company B charged $75 a month, and company C charged $125 a month.  Why is it that if companies B and C were in Indiana and Company A was in Ohio and I lived there I would be unable purchase health insurance from companies B and C?  If the laws that prevent people from buying health insurance were to be repealed, the cost of health insurance would decrease because companies would have to compete in the same way that auto insurance companies compete.

Allow the free market to take its course.  It will work.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 2, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Derek_Plumber said:
> ...



Before you write, try Google.  The USPS has made profits in recent years, and has shown significant reduction in costs.  Overnight services were smart, they identified a need that no one was filling.  USPS was unable to fulfill it.  Let me know what college you went to so that I can knock it off my son's list of choices!


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 2, 2009)

Simple answer, yet it's the only one that will work:

Get rid of the FDA and AMA, sure people will have to *gasp* learn about what they use ... but meh, I did, not that hard.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 2, 2009)

According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks #37 in health care of all nations.

At the same time American health care is the most expensive.

The American Health Care System is dead.







Write your Congressman to Nationalize Healthcare now.​


----------



## Oddball (Jul 2, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



So, I guess these _*very mainstream*_ sources are lying.

Post office losing jobs and money - Business - News & Observer

Post office is $1.9 billion in red - USATODAY.com

And here I thought it was da gubbament schools, not colleges, which were supposed to teach kids to read for comprehension.

I'll be sure to knock them off my list of choices.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 2, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Wait ... what? Babbling is not truth you know. Aside from the great facts Dude posted just before this, you do realize, of course they are cutting costs ... they have no money to spend so they have to. They are obsolete and poorly managed ... the fact that you think they are "doing a good job" ... you are not paying any attention.

Unless you posted sarcasm, you are just dead wrong.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 3, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Wait ... what? Babbling is not truth you know. Aside from the great facts Dude posted just before this, you do realize, of course they are cutting costs ... they have no money to spend so they have to. They are obsolete and poorly managed ... the fact that you think they are "doing a good job" ... you are not paying any attention.
> 
> Unless you posted sarcasm, you are just dead wrong.



Hey, I got it, let's get some fat-cat Wall Street banker to run it.  Then we can be sure it is run efficiently, and for profit.  We can even let the fat-cat and his buddies own it!  Maybe capitalism is the answer - not.

Unless you posted sarcasm, you are just dead wrong.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> In China, the fellow that headed the company that put the contaminated baby food on the market was summerily shot. We should have done the same for the CEO of the peanunt butter company whose contaminated product killed several people here in the US.



that guy KNEW what was going on Rocks....but what about an honest mistake,should he be shot too?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Go fuck yourself, little boy.
> ...


were is your little cartoon Derek?.....with out it we are lost...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Dude said:


>



with the accompanying cartoon im sure he can grasp that....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> The SOCIALIST - believes that industries should be owned by the people of the nation, not by individuals, and that services like education and health care should be free for everyone. Under socialism, all means of production should be publicly owned. Unlike communists, socialists believe that such things can be achieved through pressure and reform.​



such a nice picture....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

oreo said:


> Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.  It's hard for me to imagine them taking over health care.  There has got to be a better solution to our health care problems. I believe it's in the private sector, & government needs to get out of the way--allow interstate competition--& do the hard part--by mandating that all citizens obtain coverage--or pay a fine or higher taxes.



Oreo...next time lets supply a corresponding picture with your post please...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> oreo, Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.​
> How about these guys?
> 
> 
> ...



try working for them Derek and you may have a different opinion...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Washington, D.C.Reflecting the continuing shrinkage of direct mail marketing and the changing communication habits of the American public, *the U.S. Postal Service reported a net loss of $677 million for May, bringing to $3.4 billion its total losses in the current fiscal year.*
> 
> In addition, the USPS reported it processed 2.8 billion fewer pieces of mail in May, compared with the same month in 2008.
> 
> ...



Navy if the US govt. OWNS the Post Office,why should they not give them money if they need it....over say some private Co.?....and let me tell ya Navy, Fed X and UPS screw up plenty of times in their deliveries.....i have seen parcels from both dropped off at the wrong house many a time....and the big one is leaving a package at a house that the person whose name is on the package hasnt lived there for quite a while.....if the USPS had quality managers it would be what Derek is saying,but the ones who are dont get heard very much.....and they have WAY too many middle managers....more than half of them are absolutely useless,and these people make pretty good money to do nothing......AND there is no accountability.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > People don't understand costs in the real world.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Derek_Plumber said:
> 
> 
> > oreo, Over the last 70 years I cannot think of one single federal government run program that has been managed well.​
> ...



sorry Dude but according to the Fed X and UPS guys on my route those guys are hurting just as bad as the PO....routes are being condensed due to diminishing volume....same as the PO....the FedX guy told me that their volume is down 60%....thats a lot....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Of course, the USPS has also become a _*HUGE*_ money pit, that hasn't paid for itself in decades.
> 
> But you dumbshits g'head and keep on using it as example of "success".



well that is true and false....it is a money pit for congress.....but they are mandated to break even,so congress takes any excess and uses it on what they want....so if it hasnt "paid" for themselves....well blame congress for not letting them make a small profit...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Maple said:


> Good lord, the postal service is run well??????????????? You libs gotta be kiddin or you are just flat stupid.



not gonna argue....way to many chiefs....but the mail that is delivered is because of the indians....they do the job in spite of the crappy management....


----------



## Oddball (Jul 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sorry Dude but according to the Fed X and UPS guys on my route those guys are hurting just as bad as the PO....routes are being condensed due to diminishing volume....same as the PO....the FedX guy told me that their volume is down 60%....thats a lot....


That proves nothing.....Everybody's business is down.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Wait ... what? Babbling is not truth you know. Aside from the great facts Dude posted just before this, you do realize, of course they are cutting costs ... they have no money to spend so they have to. They are obsolete and poorly managed ... the fact that you think they are "doing a good job" ... you are not paying any attention.
> 
> Unless you posted sarcasm, you are just dead wrong.



Maggie ...define "doing a good job"....in what part,management or getting the mail out....


----------



## American Horse (Jul 4, 2009)

From the WSJ June 2 - _Why It's easy to steal from Medicare_ 
Here's how the myth of a government run system will look, with the Medicare system  as model:

"The White House made a big show last week about "turning the heat up" on Medicare fraud, as  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put it. The dragnet resulted in 53 indictments in Detroit for a $50 million scheme to submit bills for HIV drugs and physical therapy that were never provided, as well as busting up a Miami ring that used fake storefronts to steal some $100 million. As welcome as this is, the larger issue is what such plots say about President Obama's plans for a new government-run insurance program.

One of the purported benefits of nationalized health care is that it will be more efficient than private insurers since it would lack the profit motive and have lower administrative expenses, like Medicare. But one reason entitlement programs are so easy to defraud is precisely because they don't have those overhead costs -- they automatically pay whatever bills roll in with valid claims numbers.

By contrast, private insurers try to manage care, and that takes money. Not only does administrative spending go toward screening for waste and fraud -- logical, given the return-on-investment incentives -- they also go toward building networks of (honest) doctors and other providers. Medicare doesn't pay for this legwork, so it simply counts fraud losses as more spending. Generally private insurers also attempt to pay for other things that consumers find valuable, such as high quality, while Medicare and Medicaid are forbidden by law from excluding substandard providers, unless they're criminals.

Dead doctors, fake patients, high-school dropouts, fly-by-night businesses and the rest will continue to swindle our sclerotic entitlement system, no matter how far the government turns up the after-the-fact heat. The arrests in Detroit and Miami are another argument against importing to the rest of the health economy the model that enabled these scams."


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > sorry Dude but according to the Fed X and UPS guys on my route those guys are hurting just as bad as the PO....routes are being condensed due to diminishing volume....same as the PO....the FedX guy told me that their volume is down 60%....thats a lot....
> ...



you said they were rolling in dough....post no 62....and new carriers at that....who are they.....i only see the same 4 -5 companies....the smaller ones i used to see ....i dont see them anymore....


----------



## Oddball (Jul 4, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


FedEx and UPS are "new" compared to USPS.

And even their business is in fact off sharply, they're still profitable despite them charging significantly more than the post office.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



well if you call 102 years new...(UPS)....but the guys i talk to Dude who work for the place say they are hurting....and the newer guys have reason to worry....


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 4, 2009)

Dude said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



They don't charge much more, and if you factor in the taxes used for the USPS ultimately you pay about the same, less if you never use mail, for FedEx and UPS.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


what taxes?


----------



## jgbkab (Jul 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 5, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



USPS here gets local taxes when they whine about "going under" ... probably not everywhere, but meh. However since our city is broke and has been for a while they don't get any ...


----------



## jgbkab (Jul 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



KK, the USPS is a federal entity and does not collect local taxes.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



you would have to prove that Kitty.....the PO since 1981 i believe does not take any tax dollars.....i have never heard anything like that....


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 5, 2009)

I read this thread from top to bottom.  It is supposed to be about efficient health care.  A topic that some might consider, you know, kind of important.  Most of the thread is drivel.  Looks like a bunch of air-heads trying to improve their posting stats.

Only three thing matter here:

Obama was elected president.

The Republican Party continues it's own self-destruction.

We are going to have health care, and we don't need Repubs to do it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 5, 2009)

We already have plenty of health care, dickless.

And we don't need the Mulatto Messiah to give it to us.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 5, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> I read this thread from top to bottom.  It is supposed to be about efficient health care.  A topic that some might consider, you know, kind of important.  Most of the thread is drivel.  Looks like a bunch of air-heads trying to improve their posting stats.
> 
> Only three thing matter here:
> 
> ...



the drivel begins when you show up with your pictures...


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 6, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> the drivel begins when you show up with your pictures...



Gosh Harry, I sure am sorry you feel that way.  Looks to me like whomever bought the  USMessageBoard system thought "a picture is worth a thousand words."  The person who said that was advertising man, Fred R. Barnard.  

Mr. Bernard referred to the idea that complex stories can be described with just a single still image, or that an image may be more influential than a substantial amount of text. It also aptly characterizes the goals of visualization where large amounts of data must be absorbed quickly.

This USMessageBoard system did not come cheap. Evidently, the owners wanted the best, and bought it.  That is why we donate to USMB.  In fact, if I was the owner of USMessageBoard I would be disappointed that more people don't use the equipment to it's maximum potential.

So, Harry, I don't know what to tell you.  You are either too lazy to learn the equipment, or you just want to run your mouth.  You don't seem to care about the overall look of your posts.  I wouldn't worry too much about it, Harry.  Nobody is reading your stuff any way.


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 6, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> were is your little cartoon Derek?.....with out it we are lost...



Tell me hack writer, will this suffice?​


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2009)

$1.4million a day to defeat a public option for healthcare.
Think how much good that money could do.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 6, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > the drivel begins when you show up with your pictures...
> ...



.....if they are so bad why are you reading them big boy?.....i know....cause your NOBODY....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 6, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > were is your little cartoon Derek?.....with out it we are lost...
> ...



look at that....aren't you special.....all that just for me.....


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 6, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> .....if they are so bad why are you reading them big boy?.....i know....cause your NOBODY....




I have always tried to inspire people who have no talent.​​


----------



## Derek_Plumber (Jul 7, 2009)

We elected President Obama to make health care more efficient.  
Let's give him a hand doing his job.  
Write your Congressman.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 7, 2009)

Derek_Plumber said:


> We elected President Obama to make health care more efficient.
> Let's give him a hand doing his job.
> Write your Congressman.



my congress lady has already made up her mind....besides she knows whats in our best interest....


----------



## American Horse (Jul 7, 2009)

Here's how the British have made their system more "efficient."  Unfortunately the most efficient system to a bureaucrat is "cost effective" and "least costly" and dying (for some) is the least costly outcome for a government system in search of cost savings.  For some treatments NICE has set a limit of $22,000 as a stopping point.  But if it's known that a treatment would go beyond that pre-determined stopping point, why go forward with treatment at all?

The WSJ July 7, 22009 &#8211;- Of NICE and Men

"How government rations health care: Start with a 'quality adjusted life year.'
Speaking to the American Medical Association last month, President Obama waxed enthusiastic about countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. He's right that many countries do, but what he doesn't want to explain is how they ration care to do it.

Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the *National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence*, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.

The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."

What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS. For example:  Of NICE and Men - WSJ.com 

*Edit: * today I went to my local clinic with a pulled muscle at 12:00 noon.  I was given a prescription to go to a nearby MRI business location, and at 1:15 began an MRI which lasted until 3:45.  There are more MRI machines in Western Pennsylvania than there are in the whole of Canada, and W. PA is a part of _Appalachia._..one of the poorest regions of the U.S.


----------

