$20.00
$5.00
$30.00
$15.00
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
WTH UK? Someone care to explain this? You just gave every conservative in the US a boner with that one.

Quote:
Hospital leaders in North Yorkshire said that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above – as well as smokers – will be barred from most surgery for up to a year amid increasingly desperate measures to plug a funding black hole. The restrictions will apply to standard hip and knee operations.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-an...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes folks.

Conservatives pee who get boners because low spending on healthcare means people cannot get operations they need.

Conservatism, letting people suffer so they don't have to go without a second bottle of wine with lunch.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools

Self-inflicted and needless austerity at work. This article captures it well:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/this-nhs-cri...
Quote:
This means that the press and political classes are now discussing a theoretical impossibility. Think about it for a moment, and you realise the NHS can’t go broke. It’s not an endowment with a set pot of cash, but a giant service with a yearly budget. Unlike a business, it doesn’t need to raise money from sales – as taxpayers and voters, we have the final say over how much funding it gets. This panic isn’t economic at all, but politically created.
...
Because the NHS is enduring the sharpest and most prolonged spending squeeze in its history – even while the government pretends no such thing is happening and the public expect the same service. Our health service is where all the paradoxes of austerity come home to roost.
...
One example of NHS austerity’s screwy logic is its sudden reliance on expensive agency staff. This, says Anita Charlesworth of the Health Foundation charity, is a direct result of staff pay freezes and overwork: “If you’re a permanent member of staff and you’ve had no pay rise and you’re demoralised and disengaged you can resign from the NHS, you can go on an agency book, you can pick your shifts, you can pick your wards and you earn more.” The result is that agency staff costs are rising at over 25% a year.
...
This is the paradox of austerity: pretending that you can scrap and scrimp on the services and institutions that make you a civilised country, without making your country less civilised.

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Yes folks.

Conservatives pee who get boners because low spending on healthcare means people cannot get operations they need.

Conservatism, letting people suffer so they don't have to go without a second bottle of wine with lunch.


I think this story gave Slater a stroke.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Yes folks.

Conservatives pee who get boners because low spending on healthcare means people cannot get operations they need.

Conservatism, letting people suffer so they don't have to go without a second bottle of wine with lunch.


I think this story gave Slater a stroke.


If it did he'd better hope to Gawd he's not a smoker or obese or no surgery for him. Although, I'd put money on him being obese.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Yes folks.

Conservatives pee who get boners because low spending on healthcare means people cannot get operations they need.

Conservatism, letting people suffer so they don't have to go without a second bottle of wine with lunch.


I think this story gave Slater a stroke.
No, maybe I just think conservatives are all piss stains who contaminate the world with their vile philosophy of "I'm alright jack".

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Yes folks.

Conservatives pee who get boners because low spending on healthcare means people cannot get operations they need.

Conservatism, letting people suffer so they don't have to go without a second bottle of wine with lunch.


I think this story gave Slater a stroke.


If it did he'd better hope to Gawd he's not a smoker or obese or no surgery for him. Although, I'd put money on him being obese.
I do not live in Yorkshire.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

This is standard procedure in Canada (Quebec, i.e. each province runs its own healthcare service).

As far back as the Hippocratic oath, healthcare is supposed to be non-judgmental, is this not so?! In Israel, injured terrorists are given immediate and full medical treatment because like in all Western medicine, healthcare is deliberately separated from politics and judgment. Should mountain bike riders be triaged differently since they injured themselves doing something inherently dangerous and unnecessary? What about heroin addicts and all their self-inflicted medical problems?

It is interesting that understandably more sickly migrants and refugees now trump long time UK citizens who have and still are paying into the system.

I am a pro-socialized medicine person. But, I know and accept that socialized medicine, everywhere, is far more judgmental than American-style healthcare. It can be by policy as well as on the ground, individually, by healthcare workers. This has been my 50 year experience in Canada.

And, this judgmentalism exactly follows the social justice hierarchy. You're a heroin addict that gave yourself AIDS, to the top of the list. You're an overweight 50 year tax payer, to the bottom.
.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy Richards
Scotland
Allanton
Duns
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I can see that for some operations, it might be necessary for the person to be not obese to avoid complications. However it does seem that in this case, even though the cases aren't life-threatening (allegedly - though delaying an operation is hardly life-enhancing), that the reasoning is not so much medical as financial. There aren't enough resources/money, so some sort of rationing has to happen (goes the argument). Maybe if the well-off start having their treatment delayed they might start thinking about what sort of health care system they want.

I don't think socialized medicine is more judgemental - I can't think of a more judgemental system than "Are you rich enough to afford this treatment? If not, sod off." I would wish the judgements (even about resource allocation) to be made on medical, not political, grounds - what will do the most good to the largest number of people.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
stupid half neasure they have revoked already due to the bad press. It was going to use BMI for gods sake.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
stupid half neasure they have revoked already due to the bad press.


They revoked socialized medicine ? wow ! good for them !
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
no they revoked this policy , but they wouldnt have had to revoke socalised medicine for merkins as you have never reached a level of civilisatation to develope it nor an average iq large enough to understand it is general a good thing of society and individuals and finally your all too obese to qualify.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
We have the same types of problems here in the US. The Republicans cut the funding to the VA (medical services for military personnel) and then point to it as proof that socialized medicine doesn't work since the organization was not able to properly care for military veterans on the reduced budget.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sfox wrote:
We have the same types of problems here in the US. The Republicans cut the funding to the VA (medical services for military personnel) and then point to it as proof that socialized medicine doesn't work since the organization was not able to properly care for military veterans on the reduced budget.


Why would you just plain lie about that? The budget for the VA was passed by a R-controlled congress and it represented a 2.5% increase. Obama threatened to veto the whole thing because he didn't get everything he wanted. In what fucking universe is an increase in funding a cut in funding? In no universe.

I linked a Military Times article that is actual journalism and gives the facts and quotes without any spin. The Dems tried to stop the increase in spending and the proposal by the WH was a trap in order to lie to people that because not everything was funded that the R's wanted vets to die and they cut benefits. BS. Read the article, the bill passed was $1.4B less than Jesus O wanted, out of a $167B budget. And if you look further, part of the reason for not funding every last thing was one Denver facility that was going to come in at $1B more than projected.

This is important stuff because when people just lie, or believe lies the media tells then the losers in this case are the veterans who think they got screwed when they didn't and the winners are the party of lies, the democrats who lied to the veterans to try and get them to vote against their own best interests.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2015/05/01/house...
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
We have the same types of problems here in the US...


... where we create dependence on the government and then scale back funding when we realize we can't make it rain on every handout we have promised.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
sfox wrote:
We have the same types of problems here in the US...


... where we create dependence on the government and then scale back funding when we realize we can't make it rain on every handout we have promised.


Healthcare in the UK is far from totally dependent on the government. If patients are really worried about this kind of rationing, they can join BUPA or one of the other fairly reasonably affordable private healthcare companies. Unless they are very poor of course, then they can't. Fortunately they wouldn't be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.


Doctors in the UK do, in rare cases, tend to favour patients that are more likely to survive if they have to make that choice. Doubly so if the potential problems are self-caused.

For example, it's pretty standard procedure in liver transplant that if there are only n livers available for transplant, and there are n+1 people, then someone who's liver problems were caused by alcohol and is likely to continue to drinking will be put lower down the list than someone who doesn't drink and just had liver failure due to bad luck.

Certainly this could be seen as judgemental, but then it's also just basic long term triage. Little different from giving the liver to someone young rather than someone very old, which also happens.

I certainly prefer this method over simply seeing which of those n+1 people has the least money.

The other options are first-come-first-served or pure randomisation. But that does mean that Isaac's heroin addict that gave themselves AIDS is just as likely to get treatment as a 50 year tax payer, whether overweight or not. These are options that also have downsides. Especially first-come-first-served.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
WTH UK? Someone care to explain this? You just gave every conservative in the US a boner with that one.

Quote:
Hospital leaders in North Yorkshire said that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above – as well as smokers – will be barred from most surgery for up to a year amid increasingly desperate measures to plug a funding black hole. The restrictions will apply to standard hip and knee operations.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-an...


However NHS England has rather politely slapped them down asked them to reconsider. The policy goes against the official NHS England guidelines.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
growlley wrote:
stupid half neasure they have revoked already due to the bad press.


They revoked socialized medicine ? wow ! good for them !

Wanker
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
sfox wrote:
We have the same types of problems here in the US. The Republicans cut the funding to the VA (medical services for military personnel) and then point to it as proof that socialized medicine doesn't work since the organization was not able to properly care for military veterans on the reduced budget.


Why would you just plain lie about that? The budget for the VA was passed by a R-controlled congress and it represented a 2.5% increase. Obama threatened to veto the whole thing because he didn't get everything he wanted. In what fucking universe is an increase in funding a cut in funding? In no universe.

I linked a Military Times article that is actual journalism and gives the facts and quotes without any spin. The Dems tried to stop the increase in spending and the proposal by the WH was a trap in order to lie to people that because not everything was funded that the R's wanted vets to die and they cut benefits. BS. Read the article, the bill passed was $1.4B less than Jesus O wanted, out of a $167B budget. And if you look further, part of the reason for not funding every last thing was one Denver facility that was going to come in at $1B more than projected.

This is important stuff because when people just lie, or believe lies the media tells then the losers in this case are the veterans who think they got screwed when they didn't and the winners are the party of lies, the democrats who lied to the veterans to try and get them to vote against their own best interests.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2015/05/01/house...


Did you actually read this part of the article? (Bold mine for Emphasis)

"But it comes in $1.4 billion under what the White House had requested for VA spending in fiscal 2016, money that department officials say will stymie construction efforts and reduce some medical care access.

On Tuesday, the White House threatened to veto the measure over the shortfall, saying it "fails to fully fund critical priorities." Administration officials also complained more broadly about larger Republican-backed budget plans that would keep Budget Control Act spending caps in place for federal agencies.

VA Secretary Bob McDonald earlier this month said the request cut "will cause veterans to suffer."

In advance of the vote, a host of veterans organizations also protested the move, saying the full White House request is needed to keep department reforms on track, calling the proposal "suffocating the system.""

By the way, it is a shortfall in the Universe where not enough money is allocated for them to adequately take care of our nations veterans.

Your "actual journalism" still manages to under cut your central points quite nicely


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools
DWTripp wrote:

Why would you just plain lie about that? The budget for the VA was passed by a R-controlled congress and it represented a 2.5% increase. Obama threatened to veto the whole thing because he didn't get everything he wanted. In what fucking universe is an increase in funding a cut in funding? In no universe.


Whether a 2.5% increase is actually sufficient is highly debatable. First, with inflation ~1% the increase is actually only 1.5%. The number of enrollees is also steadily increasing. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Utilization/VHAStats_2014.xls... (Not surprisingly with two recent wars just winding down.) Thus, on a per patient basis there was not much if any increase.

The Republican shortchanging veterans is nothing new:

Feb 27, 2014 U.S. Senate Republicans block veterans' health bill on budget worry http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUS...

Washington Post July 22, 2015 The Planned Parenthood controversy may have killed a veterans bill https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07...

June 29, 2010 Even a bill on homeless veterans http://washingtonmonthly.com/2010/06/29/even-a-bill-on-homel...

Contrast that with this passage of the previously cited article:
Quote:
The vote was expected to be a relatively easy start for the Republicans' appropriation process, but was delayed a day after a bipartisan group of fiscal conservatives and Democrats attempted to add an amendment limiting funds in temporary war spending accounts, a move that leadership plans on using to boost next year's defense budget and get around the spending caps.
(emphasis mine)
The Republicans are happy to cite budget worries and missing funds when discussing spending on veterans but have no problems to establish a separate account that is not limited by the agreed-upon budget caps to funnel more money to defense contractors.

Republicans: The party of fiscal conservatives and small government proponents. shake


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
At the health authority level they are squeezed. Income not keeping up with expenditure, and a Health Secretary who has a career to save and damn the consequences. (Or worse.)

So they tried this. Something that either they thought they might get away with, or something they knew would cause a storm and the publicity would help. Or both, or something similar. Not being a mind reader I can't be sure.

It definitely hasn't worked to save money. Whether it works on the publicity front isn't clear, but I suspect not (because they are the ones whom the bad publicity has hit).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Obese patients are routinely denied surgery because of an increase of complications in recovery and anesthesia.

Smokers...IDK about that one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Altair IV wrote:
Obese patients are routinely denied surgery because of an increase of complications in recovery and anesthesia.

Smokers...IDK about that one.


Nonsense. I don't deny your statement. Rather, I'm saying that the alternative of living with the ailment is hardly better. Doctors routinely perform risky procedures and the risks are explained, giving the patient the option. For example, this was the case with a certain cancer treatment my mother was offered and asked to decide upon.

This is just a convenient excuse to mitigate waiting lists.

I am currently waiting on a needed MRI. At the Jewish General Hospital the wait is currently 16 months. At the Montreal General it's a year. I found and signed up at Santa Cabrini where the wait is only 4 to 6 months.

With respect to politics, my point is that the Left disingenuously keeps painting a far too rosy picture of socialized medicine. Yes, American healthcare is expensive, inefficient and not accessible to all. It is also the best quality healthcare in the world.
.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:
Altair IV wrote:
Obese patients are routinely denied surgery because of an increase of complications in recovery and anesthesia.

Smokers...IDK about that one.


Nonsense. I don't deny your statement. Rather, I'm saying that the alternative of living with the ailment is hardly better. Doctors routinely perform risky procedures and the risks are explained, giving the patient the option. For example, this was the case with a certain cancer treatment my mother was offered and asked to decide upon.

This is just a convenient excuse to mitigate waiting lists.

I am currently waiting on a needed MRI. At the Jewish General Hospital the wait is currently 16 months. At the Montreal General it's a year. I found and signed up at Santa Cabrini where the wait is only 4 to 6 months.

With respect to politics, my point is that the Left disingenuously keeps painting a far too rosy picture of socialized medicine. Yes, American healthcare is expensive, inefficient and not accessible to all. It is also the best quality healthcare in the world.
.


Everyone seems to enjoy disingenuously painting a far too rosy picture of their favourite type of healthcare. Members of family only avoided suffering quite a lot due to luck in the American healthcare systems. Never mind a long wait, they simply wouldn't have gotten the treatment they needed while still remaining solvent, if at all.

It's not the best in the world.

Every healthcare system rations. Short of unlimited doctors and medicine it's unavoidable. After that is decided, it's just a discussion of how to do that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:
With respect to politics, my point is that the Left disingenuously keeps painting a far too rosy picture of socialized medicine. Yes, American healthcare is expensive, inefficient and not accessible to all. It is also the best quality healthcare in the world.


...if you can get it in the first place.

Care rationing is a need in virtually every modern healthcare system because there is more demand than there is supply for healthcare. You can either ration care by denying services in a socialized system to high-risk individuals (for example - denying liver transplants to people with a history of alcoholism), or by denying services in a privatized system to people who cannot afford to pay for them. Either way, you're denying services.

As a general rule, socialized systems work better because they provide preventative care early on, which means you end up spending less money on traumatic interventions later on, which means your system provides more care and better outcomes for less money. This has been shown to be the case again and again and we've discussed it here again and again and the numbers simply do not change.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.