Socialized Medicine, Leaving Her to Die

[DanaC]

Incidentally, from a study in 2009:

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage

The Harvard study, funded by a federal research grant, was published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health. It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.

An similar study in 1993 found those without insurance had a 25 percent greater risk of death, according to the Harvard group. The Institute of Medicine later used that data in its 2002 estimate showing about 18,000 people a year died because they lacked coverage.

Part of the increased risk now is due to the growing ranks of the uninsured, Himmelstein said. Roughly 46.3 million people in the United States lacked coverage in 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week, up from 45.7 million in 2007.

Another factor is that there are fewer places for the uninsured to get good care. Public hospitals and clinics are shuttering or scaling back across the country in cities like New Orleans, Detroit and others, he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...58G6W520090917



Now, there are times when the NHS fails. There are times when even insured US citizens are denied care. Even taking away the millions of American citizens who have little to no access to routine healthcare or complex care in the event of chronic illness, how many of those who are insured would be covered for almost $300k per year of a drug that is still not totally proven?

[Adak]

Excellent discussion, DanaC!

Your argument against the added expense of a private hospital building being used, (along with an added layer of management for the districts), is exactly what we want to remove from any plan we decide to use.

Reminds me of San Diego, when they had a severe money crisis, they brought in a new financial manager, and elected a new Mayor. Naturally, they both wanted a full accounting of all the city's assets, including real estate.

They were quite shocked to find out that there WAS no list of the city's real estate, and there hadn't been one for at least a decade or three.

Ho hum, just another bureaucratic boondoggle, that has cost the city millions. More likely hundreds of millions.

My problem in this case, is that the drug company was offering the drug FREE ----> FREE! Only for awhile, but still ----> FREE!

There is always the possibility of negotiating a deal later on, and this drug is working quite successfully for this type of cystic fibrosis, and they know it.

Also, there are others in the UK with this same type of CF, and if the NHS decides to ban it, then these patients also, will die - it's not an IF, it's sometime before they're 32 years old.

Clearly, the drug company wants to make some money off this, and clearly the patients want to take advantage of this wonderful drug. Seems like there's common ground for a deal to be reached, that would benefit both the patients and the company.

But if the NHS bans the drug with no negotiating, then these type of CF sufferers, are as good as dead.

Which is just wrong. It's a Health service, not a Death service.