This is an old article from The Guardian, but it says the NHS is doing some pretty extreme rationing

[still_one]

Is there validity to this article, and is it still occurring?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/nhs-england-restricts-patients-access-to-cataract-removal

[zooks]

1. The Tories want to privatize healthcare so they are starving it of funds.

This is how rightwing, neo-liberal gov'ts everywhere destroy public institutions.

[still_one]

2. It sounds like it is a major crisis, and a lot of folks are being denied care they need

Here is an older article with a similar theme:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-rations-operations-hip-patients-beg-treatment-cuts-funding-a8453531.html

Why doesn't the populace vote them out?

[zooks]

8. Why do millions of Americans vote for a corrupt sleazy billionaire who doesn't

give a sh*t about them?

[Caliman73]

13. Touche sir, touche.

Funny how we tend to do that isn't it? Well why don't you just fix your system?

Same reason you all are sliding toward fascism...

Sadly, it is a problem with Liberalism and capitalism that has not found an answer, if there is one. There are always those who believe in a strict, defined hierarchy. For England, the Tories and those further right. For the US, the Republicans. Both groups of conservatives have the same ideology, that the wealthy and powerful should be at the very top of the pyramid and rule by right of their awesomeness. I mean, if they weren't so awesome, why would they be so rich? Right? I mean it isn't as if they manipulated the system and likely have passed wealth on through the generations, never really having earned it themselves. No, they are just awesome and we should all submit to what they want.

They use the very tools of democracy and Liberal institutions to break those institutions and then they say, "This institution is broken, we must abandon it and reshape it in a way that I think is best." Sadly, people go along with is because when you scapegoat people who are weaker and have less power than you, it is an easier fight. It's the immigrants, Black people, women. It certainly isn't the insanely wealthy people who stand most to gain from breaking down then acquiring the institutions that you have to be worried about.

[still_one]

16. The Democratic nominee won the popular vote HERE

[zooks]

19. The salient point is that tens of millions of Americans voted for that POS.

[still_one]

23. aided by foriegn interference, Comey's violation of the Hatch Act, along with those wonderful

self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, and encouraged others to do likewise.

It didn't take much either.

In everyone of those critical swing states, the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1%, while Jill f**king Stein received 1% of the vote in those states.

Of course one cannot ignore the role of our illustrious media, when Comey released the letter to the republicans in congress 11 days before the election, and the media promptly said that the email investigation was reopened. THAT WAS A LIE. They then propagated every right wing politician across there outlets propagating that lie, and that wasn't just faux new. MSNBS was right out their with the rest of them propagating that lie. It wasn't just television outlets either, the written media, such as the NY Times was all over this

There were a lot of contributing factors why we are where we are today

[Caliman73]

22. Except we don't elect leaders through the popular vote.

The bottom line is that enough people voted for the idiot, using the system that we have in place, to elect a buffoon. It isn't the first time either.

The point that the OP was making throughout is that asking why people just don't vote out the party that is trying to gut their social welfare system sounds a bit silly coming from us when we have majority Republican governors, an idiot in the White House, and a Republican controlled Senate that blew a trillion dollar hole in our budget giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

California, where I live, delivered almost 3 million more votes to Hillary Clinton in the general, but that is irrelevant.

[still_one]

24. That may be the point, but it ignore the very relevent fact that there was foreign

interference, Comey's violation of the Hatch Act, along with those wonderful

self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, and encouraged others to do likewise.

It didn't take much either.

In everyone of those critical swing states, the Democratic nominee lost by less than 1%, while Jill f**king Stein received 1% of the vote in those states.

Of course one cannot ignore the role of our illustrious media, when Comey released the letter to the republicans in congress 11 days before the election, and the media promptly said that the email investigation was reopened. THAT WAS A LIE. They then propagated every right wing politician across there outlets propagating that lie, and that wasn't just faux new. MSNBS was right out their with the rest of them propagating that lie. It wasn't just television outlets either, the written media, such as the NY Times was all over this

Before Comey's act the Democratic nominee was ahead by 5 points in most every poll.

After Comey's interferences, and the media's distortion of it, that entire lead was wiped out as indicated in the polls

This did not happen in a vacuum, but was added by these elements

[still_one]

15. WE DIDN'T. The Democratic nominee won the popular vote as if you didn't know that

[zooks]

26. 61,943,670 people voted for Trump. Where did I say anything about the popular vote?

You wanted to know why Brits voted for Tories when Tories are hellbent on destroying the NHS and I responded by asking you you why tens of millions of Americans voted for Trump when its against their interest to do so.

[AncientGeezer]

3. What?? Rightwing...neo-liberal....which is it?

This is up there with your Militarized tick post

[Voltaire2]

5. neo-liberalism is a center right ideology.

The 'liberalism' it is reviving (neo) is the classic economic liberalism of the 19th century as updated by right wing economists like Hayek, Friedman and von Mises. Neo-liberalism is the reactionary counter revolution to the Keynesian economists who dominated government policy from FDR through LBJ. They gained dominance with Reagan here and Thatcher in England, and have been the dominant economic policy force in both parties since Clinton.

[zooks]

6. LOL Those who embrace neo-liberal economics are on the Right.

Neo-liberal economics is not to be confused with classic Liberalism. Ever heard of Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagen? Or Milton Friedman, The Koch brothers to name but a few others who embrace neo-liberalism.

snip


"Neoliberalism represents a set of ideas that caught on from the mid to late 1970s, and are famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States following their elections in 1979 and 1981. The 'neo' part of neoliberalism indicates that there is something new about it, suggesting that it is an updated version of older ideas about 'liberal economics' which has long argued that markets should be free from intervention by the state. In its simplest version, it reads: markets good, government bad."

Campbell Jones, Martin Parker, Rene Ten Bos (2005). For Business Ethics. Routledge. ISBN 0415311357. p. 100:




Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not known for its incaution, published a paper questioning the benefits of neoliberalism... The paper gently called out a “neoliberal agenda” for -

- pushing deregulation on economies around the world,

- for forcing open national markets to trade and capital, and

- for demanding that governments shrink themselves via austerity or privatisation.

The authors cited statistical evidence for the spread of neoliberal policies since 1980, and their correlation with anaemic growth, boom-and-bust cycles and inequality.



https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world

[AncientGeezer]

12. 2 questions...

Not in any way gotha's or of ill intent....you use Brit sources often..
1, are you a Brit? That would answer your support for NHS and help me understand your support of it
2, do you really believe the US military weaponized ticks with lyme?

[zooks]

18. I'm Canadian and support our health care system 100%

I posted an article about a Republican who wants questions answered about ticks. Where in th OP do I state my opinion?

That said the US military has repeatedly used its own serviceman and women in harms way countless times whether with the use of Agent Orange or nuclear testing in the 1950s. And for years they have have studied chemical and biological warfare. That is a fact. They also studied the viability of ESP. How rational is that? Have they ever contemplated infesting ticks Lyme disease? I don't know but given their track record why not investigate.

[AncientGeezer]

28. Gotcha....

You have beliefs....deer ticks weaponized...hmmm

[zooks]

35. You're pulling stuff out of thin air. I've stated NO beliefs about weaponizing ticks.

If the military is innocent what's wrong with an investigation? Do you have a vested interest in this?

[AncientGeezer]

36. No..actualy you did..

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016235861#post10
"It the US created and used Agent Orange, I don't know why you so readily dismiss the possibility they worked with ticks. given what the US has done it seems reasonable to investigate."

[PETRUS]

9. Neoliberalism is right-wing economics.

Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, etc. Some contemporary politicians that have embraced it are left-ish on non-economic social issues (e.g. racial and gender equality).

[Hoyt]

4. I'm sure there is "rationing" going on. But, people here have tougher rationing without insurance.

Right now, Medicare has restrictions on when cataract surgery is payable, etc. Although, patients are usually not prevented from getting care.

Honestly, I don't see how a government healthcare program can operate efficiently without restrictions on non-emergency care. But, I'm fine with that as long as everyone gets coverage and the basic care they need.

All the universal systems have some aspects that don't sound fair, or acceptable to those with top tier coverage, unless your rationing is because you don't have any coverage or can't afford copays and coinsurance.

Heck, Canada's system is often touted as what we should have. But Canada does not cover prescription drugs -- individuals have to buy coverage directly for that.

But all that is preferable to millions not having coverage, or afraid they can't afford deductibles and copays.

[pnwmom]

10. Canada doesn't cover drugs but they negotiate prices with the manufacturers so they

are much cheaper than what we have here.

The people I know in Canada are happier with their system than the ones I know in the UK.

[still_one]

17. Cataract surgery is fully covered by Medicare, for monofocal IOL

[Hoyt]

27. You have to meet certain vision issues to get cataract surgery under Medicare rules.

The cataracts have to sufficiently impact Activities of Daily Living. You can look up the coverage criteria. That’s my point.

[still_one]

29. Absolutely correct, however, that is not a outrageous criteria, and it is easily supported

by visual acuity, and other objective diagnostics which are not based on the bias of someone.

That also isn't comparable to the way they are rationing with the NHS. At least from what I have read.

[pnwmom]

7. This is real. They could do better. I don't think the NHS is the best example

of how we could model our system.

[Caliman73]

20. Yes it is real, but it has a reason and the reason isn't the NHS.

There is a concerted effort to undermine the NHS by people who do not want to have nationalized medicine. There will always be problems within any healthcare system, but they can be addressed. The Tories and right wing groups are purposefully kicking the legs out from under the NHS then saying, "Look, the NHS is broken". Yeah you idiot, you broke it.

Same thing that Right wingers are doing with the Postal Service here. An institution that has been pretty much self supporting for over 200 years is suddenly in major trouble. Oh, it's because they were arbitrarily made to cover pensioners expenses 75 years into the future, a burden that NO other organization has ever had to do. Then those same people say, "Look the USPS can't meet its obligations, it is failing, let's privatize it and sell it off. The problem is that no other private organization can scale its services to the level of the USPS with it's price structure so the market can't absorb it.

The US cannot have a nationalized health care system right now, if ever. You are definitely right about that. But the NHS has been functioning fairly well since after WWII despite continual attacks from the right.

[pnwmom]

21. There are countries with universal healthcare that I think have better systems than the NHS.

So in that sense, it IS the NHS -- and how it is set up.

[Caliman73]

25. No argument about other possibilities.

We have to do what is best for us. Like I said, however, it is how the NHS is being deliberately sabotaged not inherently how it functions that is causing the problems.

The ACA, had it been implemented like it was proposed, would likely have bent the cost of healthcare down over several years. More people would be covered and received healthcare creating a healthier populace overall. That is why Republicans IMMEDIATELY started to tear holes in it. They kicked the legs out from under it before it was even fully implemented by challenging Medicaid expansion and eliminating the risk corridors. They they tore its heart out by taking out the mandate.

It wasn't a great system but it was helping people and it would have done more if it had been allowed to exist without interference. That is exactly why it was interfered with and why the NHS is getting interfered with.

[still_one]

30. We are on the same page there pnwmom. I would not trade the way we have Medicare for the NHS.

[matt819]

11. Didn't read

There’s rationing here. Fewer doctors in many parts of the country. Too expensive. High deductibles or just not covered. Medication following surgery is expensive.

Maybe not quite like in the UK or elsewhere but rationing nonetheless.

[AncientGeezer]

14. Imagine how much worse it could get without mutiple options?

[Farmer-Rick]

31. What multiple options?

If you are poor in the US you have only 2 choices. The cheapest crappiest worst health insurance you can find or nothing at all.

[AncientGeezer]

32. The ACA is there....Medicare is there...Medicaid is there..employer provided is there

There is No "nothing at all"...unless someone makes the choice to not participate in a plan.

[Farmer-Rick]

33. Nope

The ACA, which Trump has stripped of most of its cost cutting benefits, gives No One health care or insurance. It did for awhile force some full time employers to provide it but that quickly stopped.

Medicare is only for us old folks.

Medicade in most states only helps the poorest of the poor, poor. Which means most average poor people don't qualify.

Most employers in retail, cleaning services or restaurant work, where the majority of the poor work, don"t provide any healthcare at all. They especially don't provide sick time to visit a doctor anyway.

Oh I stand corrected, if you are poor you actually have 3 choices. Get crappy useless health insurance, get nothing at all, or hurry up and die.