Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.

Topic Review

[*] posted on 7-7-2017 at 11:58
If doctors (f'rinstance) were only paid if a patient got "better" (i.e. "results") then there would be more patients dying because no one would be willing to treat the chronically ill. There is a lot more to "user pays" and "free" health care than just economics. How do you put a price on a person's quality of life? Who should decide what is "affordable" or "economical"? FWIW I am more sympathetic to those who are pushing for VOLUNTARY euthanasia than I am to a Woman's right to an abortion.

[*] posted on 7-7-2017 at 08:15
My future s-i-l is 7 years into his doctor training and at the end of this year will have to specialise. We have a fairly lean system here but as more "entrepreneurs" have successful bids for bits of the NHS in England the less people in England will be able to experience the cradle to grave care envisioned by Bevan, unless they move to Scotland.

[*] posted on 7-7-2017 at 00:58
Originally posted by scholar
...to a pay-for-results model....

A great many diseases are chronic and the clinical interventions are staying alive a bit longer without any at all improvement in the patient's quality of life. Are you saying simply staying alive is a positive result outcome that the physician should be paid for re your model of health care???

[*] posted on 7-7-2017 at 00:32
Originally posted by JackInCT

Shall we bring back a wage and price control economy? [as if any western govt ever really fully implemented such a concept, even in wartime].
Price controls don't work. If the price is set higher than the cost and free market price, then everyone will offer it at the too-high price to get the too-large profit, and there will be little motivation to actually reduce the cost. But--and here is the more important point--if the price is set lower than the cost, then no one can afford to offer the service, or they will be spending their lives draining their own monetary resources when they ought to be making money (to pay back student loans, pay for their offices and the people who work for them, etc.), and the service becomes unobtainable at the controlled price.

A salary mode of income, rather than fee for service, it definitely NOT music to the ears of health care professionals in the USA!!!

A Republican Congressman who is also a physician says that the payment model must change from a pay-for-each-service model to a pay-for-results model. He says that presently, a physician, clinic, or hospital gets paid for each thing it does, so more money comes in if more tests and procedures are ordered. But, if they were paid according to results (e.g. improvement in health), then unnecessary tests and procedures would be avoided, while preventative care (e.g. vaccines, nutritional supplements, directions toward healthy living) would result in better health outcomes and financial rewards.

[*] posted on 6-7-2017 at 13:57
I'm proud to almost share it's birthday. (Though I arrived a few years later).

I also happen to live quite close to the first NHS hospital, too. The staff, there, are wonderful, even though the damned Tories have spent the last sixty-odd years trying to sell it.

God, I abhor those self-centred, selfish "people".

[*] posted on 6-7-2017 at 03:33
"the cost that should be shared by the community part" is really the heart of the controversy/disagreements. In particular the business community tends not to see the "sharing" aspect of it as in a capitalist economy, the costs have to be passed on to the consumer; and when the competition for a product includes identical goods produced in a country without universal health care, the consumer definitely tends to select/purchase the products with the lowest price points. Consumers are not oblivious to the consequences of buying foreign made products, but they really, at least superficially, expect someone else to make up the shortfalls--a kind of "magic" solution to their choices. I'll leave out the graduated tax structure issue aspect of this for some other time, i. e., the time "honored" solution to costs that the rich, and near rich, across the board refuse as a solution---venture capitalists are motivated by profit, NOT by sharing.

Shall we bring back a wage and price control economy? [as if any western govt ever really fully implemented such a concept, even in wartime]. A salary mode of income, rather than fee for service, it definitely NOT music to the ears of health care professionals in the USA!!!

[*] posted on 5-7-2017 at 15:04
Ah! The spirit of 47!

KenOach axe a fil about that and our mates dad - Harry Keen was in it.

[*] posted on 5-7-2017 at 09:08