Author Topic: Socialized Medicine Pro/Con Piece on ATC yesterday.  (Read 1145 times)

xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Socialized Medicine Pro/Con Piece on ATC yesterday.
« on: July 24, 2008, 03:49:53 AM »
NPR ran a comparison contrast piece on All Things Considered yesterday with US vs. UK health care.  Stories about Americans refusing treatments/followups, postponing procedures, refusing meds to save money (all of which I have done).  Pieces about retirees fondly recalling the days when the employer paid for everything no matter what and bemoaning the $120/month that they have to pay now.  Most of us are familiar with US health care, so you can imagine the slant the piece took coming from NPR.  I'm sure it's available at the National People's Radio website.

The interesting thing was the part on the UK system where costs are something like 40% less, but much of this is achieved through rationing.  In interviewing a cancer survivor, they mentioned that there is a drug that may or may not extend his life by a matter of months, but the system won't pay for it since there isn't documented proof of efficacy.

The guy, a Scotsman, even had a sort of a fatalistic inshallah view of the entire situation.  He was unwilling to spend any of his own money on the drug.

To use my father's (retired pathologist) analogy:  What is the point of health care if it works like a Veterinary clinic where you are the pet and Fed.gov is your owner? 

Dr. Vet:  Sparky's not doing too well.  We can give him some drugs that will fix him up, but it'll cost you a grand.  He's already 13, and it'll probably only extend his life for a year and a half.

Fed.gov:  Ouch.  $1,000?  How much to just put him down?  I'd hate to see him suffer.
If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com