Article

2005-01-21 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Korora 2005-01-21 9:58:22 AM|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No, it's a matter of money. Some years ago, a US state enacted a health care plan based on logic, of all things. They compiled a great list with three columns: what is the medical condition?; what does it cost?; and how effective is its treatment? The purpose was to *ration* public, as in, "free", medical care to the poor. Not private care, which was a different system, left untouched. At the head of the list were conditions like "hairlip", easy and inexpensive to treat, greatly improving the quality of life for the patient, and with a high success rate. At the bottom were a few things like multiple major organ transplants for extrememly premature infants. A single surgery of this type might cost $1M, almost never worked, and even when it did it consigned the infant to a lifetime of extreme and expensive disability. By just outright refusing to perform the bottom five of these procedures, out of thousands of procedures, enough money was saved to preserve the entire system. After a few years, the system was so successful, that thousands more poor people were included in it, without raising the cost to the state. Just eliminating that single $1M surgery freed up enough money to pay for hundreds of poor women to get the pre-natal care they needed--that would help preclude the half dozen infants that needed the surgery each year. By not giving that surgery, you wouldn't *need* to give that surgery. This program was not only generated, vetted and endorsed by everyone they could include in the process, but it was also universally shunned by every other state and the federal government, and receives no special mention in the MSM outside of its state.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-21 11:30:53 AM|| 2005-01-21 11:30:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 OK, so what was the state? Oregon? I thought their rationing plan failed.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-21 11:53:00 AM|| 2005-01-21 11:53:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Yeah, Anonymoose, I want to hear more about this.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-01-21 3:02:39 PM|| 2005-01-21 3:02:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Under Socialism everyone and anyone is a scientific or linear economic production unit - those that don't produce enough [for the State], or can no longer produce, are defective units whom must either be re-worked or discarded. The Party = State is the be-all, end-all producer, consumer, and arbiter-defender - wealth and prosperity is for the Party/State, not the masses nor for individuals whom are not part of the ruling elite or defenders of the Party/State - you know, Lefty UNIVERSAL/PUBLIC UTOPIANISM!?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-01-21 9:35:14 PM|| [http://n/a] 2005-01-21 9:35:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Itâs hardly unusual in this day and age for people to make off-the-wall statements<<
My butcher has problems cutting a good slice of veal .

*chuckle*

Posted by MacNails 2005-01-21 9:42:44 PM|| 2005-01-21 9:42:44 PM|| Front Page Top

23:51 Dishman
23:51 Zhang Fei
23:48 .com
23:46 CrazyFool
23:45 Sobiesky
23:44 .com
23:33 Cyber Sarge
23:31 Alaska Paul
23:30 Ptah
23:30 eLarson
23:30 .com
23:27 Captain America
23:21 Desert Blondie
23:18 Atomic Conspiracy
23:14 Grunter
23:11 Alaska Paul
23:06 Dishman
23:06 Hupereger Clish6229 aka Jarhead
23:04 Dishman
23:02 Mike
22:54 Edward Yee
22:45 Hupereger Clish6229 aka Jarhead
22:45 lex
22:43 Alaska Paul