National Healthcare at it again. Rationing cancer scans

[russianrocket]

GPs told to ration cancer scans in bureaucratic directive | Mail Online

Can't even handle 50 million people, and everyone wants the same thing in America? Who are we kidding.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

GPs told to ration cancer scans in bureaucratic directive | Mail Online

Can't even handle 50 million people, and
everyone wants the same thing in America? Who are we kidding.

sad. Aint' it??
Then again, we had NO (as in zero, zilch, zip) CT-scans, where I grew up.
Funny thing, we had NO (as in zero, zilch, zip) cancer in our town either.
Hmmm,
what do you think? the real possibility is of connection.
.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

GPs told to ration cancer scans in bureaucratic directive | Mail Online

Can't even handle 50 million people, and everyone wants the same thing in America? Who are we kidding.

I can almost guarantee that rationing cancer scans will lead to better health outcomes overall. Less scans, less unnecessary interventions.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

GPs told to ration cancer scans in bureaucratic directive | Mail Online

Can't even handle 50 million people, and everyone wants the same thing in America? Who are we kidding.

Well my question from a practical perspective is: Just how much money should we spend on a human being in order to keep him alive?

[Asmoday]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Well my question from a practical perspective is: Just how much money should we spend on a human being in order to keep him alive?

This made me remember a study I read back in college -- Economists attempted to tackle this one. If I remember correctly, they determined that the average human being in the US is worth $10,000,000 over the course of their entire working lives. I think that was in 98 dollars.

Even though I can't help but shudder and reflect on how twisted this entire line of thinking is...

[Brutha]

Britain has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in Europe, and experts say late diagnosis is to blame.

That's a very funny statement. It's very revealing by what it ommits.

There a very simple way to solve the problem. I go through the streets of London and randomly diagnos people with cancer.
For most of the it will be a very "early" diagnosis.
For some reason a lot of the people I diagnose with "cancer" don't die from their "cancer".

Afterwards I can truthfully claim that I successfully increased cancer survival rates.
My solution is even cost neutral

[xtremelady]

Been on the receiving end of this - took a month before the doctor sent me for an ultra sound, guess I know why now....In the mean time I was given 3 courses of unneeded antibiotics for an infection I did not have.

In the end it cost them more, not just in the medication that I did not need but with sick pay I claimed and still had a ultra sound and then a MRI when they found something - leading to eventual surgery.

will cutting this actually save money? even for patients getting diagnosed late will require sick benefit and medications - more expensive meds if cancer is advanced. luckily I did not have cancer - there are many other problems that need diagnosis other than that of cancer.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

GPs told to ration cancer scans in bureaucratic directive | Mail Online

Can't even handle 50 million people, and everyone wants the same thing in America? Who are we kidding.

This kind of argument in the healthcare debate always seemed like a red herring to me

Do you believe their isn't rationing now? As far as I can tell this is no different than being in an insurance system as it currently is. Doesn't seem much of a criticism to me.

There will always be rationing of goods and services.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

This kind of argument in the healthcare debate always seemed like a red herring to me

Do you believe their isn't rationing now? As far as I can tell this is no different than being in an insurance system as it currently is. Doesn't seem much of a criticism to me.

There will always be rationing of goods and services.

You get to choose your insurance and you get to choose your doctors, based on the insurance you choose. So yes, I see a BIG difference when it comes to handing over everything to the government. Get rid of scum sucking lawyers ability to sue everyone for everything, make the FDA as easy as it is in other countries, so that pharmaceuticals can put more effort into making a proper medicine, and let the FREE MARKET do it's job. It all goes to crap, when the government sticks is rotten head into it. If an insurance company or a hospital or a doctor does a crap job, then people can go elsewhere, and the company can go out of business. That's how things are supposed to work. Everyone blames the free market for all the woes, even tho there hasn't been a free market in a very long time. It's laws and government intervention, that causes the problems.

Then everyone blames the rich people, and says that rich people have enough money to get any service or any test. Well, isn't that how it's supposed to work? Rich people get all the cool stuff, and then it ends up getting passed on to us "lesser beings" once it gets cheap enough. But if the rich don't put their money into it then there will never be anything to pass down for the normal people. Health isn't a right, and no governments job. The most they should do, is not let big companies rape everyone completely, and even then, I'm only slightly allowing for that situation