Doctors strike in Great Britain...

[billc]

Well, it seems as if the Doctors in the National Health Service of Great Britain will be going on strike on June 21. Hmmmm...I can't remember the last time American doctors have gone on strike...oh, that's right, they don't work for the government...yet...
Apparently, there are doctors who won't strike that day and will continue to do their job. The striking doctors will create a huge back log of patients and it could take months to clear the back log.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/doctors-in-britain-to-strike/

Doctors in Britain plan to strike on June 21, The Telegraph reports.

The British Medical Association, the union for doctors in Britain’s socialized medical system, says that doctors will postpone non-urgent operations and other nonessential appointments that day, resulting in a “very serious impact on waiting times, not only for the patients on that day but all subsequent patients in the following weeks and months,” according to the Department of Health.
The strike would be the first by doctors in Britain in almost 40 years.
The strike comes in response to the government’s pension proposals for doctors. The Royal College of Nursing also opposes the government’s proposals, but the nurse’s union prohibits strikes that will affect patients, unlike the BMA.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/doctors-in-britain-to-strike/#ixzz1wYuRKnof
​

After 2014, will we eventually see the same thing here in America? Will we have seens of one Doctor performing an appendectomy while three other doctors stand around and watch?

 

[Steve]

Actually, in America, if they worked for the government, they would be legally unable to strike. Just, you know, for what that's worth.

 

[Makalakumu]

Actually, in America, if they worked for the government, they would be legally unable to strike. Just, you know, for what that's worth.

If the government demands that you work and can throw you in jail if you don't, isn't that damn close to slavery?

 

[Steve]

If the government demands that you work and can throw you in jail if you don't, isn't that damn close to slavery?

They won't throw you in jail. They would fire you as Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers when they went on strike in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profes...ollers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike

Federal employees do, however, have recourse in the form of arbitration when there is a labor dispute.

 

[Tez3]

I would point out that they never went on strike when we had Labour governments, it takes special people to make the doctors stirke...a Conservative Prime Minister and Health Minister...this man http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tack-cuts-to-frontline-nhs-staff-7746775.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drew-Lansley-Keep-mean-dreary-views-life.html
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk...ns-90m-nhs-mersey-cash-snatch-99623-31079791/

Yes, you can certainly trust the Tories when it comes to healthcare here...to cut, damage and generally destroy it.

 

[K-man]

Well, it seems as if the Doctors in the National Health Service of Great Britain will be going on strike on June 21. Hmmmm...I can't remember the last time American doctors have gone on strike...oh, that's right, they don't work for the government...yet...
Apparently, there are doctors who won't strike that day and will continue to do their job. The striking doctors will create a huge back log of patients and it could take months to clear the back log.

After 2014, will we eventually see the same thing here in America? Will we have seens of one Doctor performing an appendectomy while three other doctors stand around and watch?

Mmm! I wouldn't be worrying too much about one strike in 40 years. (Actually it's not really a strike anyway, a protest really.) The US system isn't anything to write home about.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.
The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.
"As an American it just bothers me that with all of our know-how, all of our wealth, that we are not assuring that people who need healthcare can get it," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis told reporters in a telephone briefing.

This report is a couple of years old. Maybe that is why Obama is trying to improve the medical services for Americans. :asian:

 

[K-man]

Actually, here's a more recent study.

http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/us-health-care-costs-high-quality-low

[h=2]US Health Care Costs Far Exceed Other Nations; Quality Does Not[/h]It’s no secret that medical care costs more in the U.S. than in other nations. It’s also no surprise that U.S. health care quality doesn’t necessarily match the exorbitant costs. And it may not even be that surprising to you, if you follow the news, that the quality of care in the U.S. is no better than in nations that spend far less. Even so, a new study by the Commonwealth Fund provides a rather shocking view of the extent of the gap between the U.S. and everyone else.
The study compared health care costs in 13 industrialized nations including Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the U.S. The U.S. spends an average of $8,000 annually, per capita, on medical care, compared to $5,000 per capita in runner-up nations Norway and Switzerland. At the bottom of the list, Japan and New Zealand spend a mere fraction of what the U.S. does -- a full two-thirds less.[SUP]1[/SUP]
The higher U.S. health care cost, by the way, doesn’t necessarily indicate that U.S. citizens have more to spend. In fact, U.S. health care costs are way out of proportion to income. According to the Commonwealth report, “Based on national income and health spending in other OECD countries, a linear regression would predict that U.S. health spending would be $4,849 per capita or 11 percent of GDP [gross domestic product].”[SUP]2[/SUP] That’s far less than the 17 percent of the gross domestic product actually spent.
Nor does the higher spending in the U.S. provide citizens with better access to doctors or better health care quality. Rather, the U.S. has fewer practicing physicians per 1000 people than all the nations in the study except Japan. As a result, people in the U.S. had fewer doctor consultations than in almost all the other nations, and there are far fewer available hospital beds in the U.S. than the median. (Of course, that’s not necessarily a terrible thing given the high rate of medical errors in U.S. hospitals, but that’s another topic entirely.) And while the average hospital stay for acute care was shorter in the U.S. than in most nations, the average health care cost was $18,000, compared to $5,000 in France and Germany, or $10,000 in Sweden and Norway.
What’s driving up U.S. health care costs? It’s not senior citizens. The study found that the U.S. actually has a lower percentage of elderly citizens and smokers than the other countries, and so, at first glance, it would appear the U.S. should have lower medical costs, since elderly people and smokers tend to get chronic diseases. In Japan, for instance, 20 percent of the population is over the age of 65, compared to only 13 percent in the U.S., and yet, as pointed out earlier, Japan spends a fraction of what the U.S. does on medical care.
So again, why are U.S health care costs higher in the U.S.? The experts say the high rates of obesity may be at least partially to blame. But also, pharmaceutical costs are stunningly higher. The typical prescription drug costs double the price in the U.S. compared to most of the other countries in the study. Also, costs to see the doctor are far higher, as are the expenses of hospital stays.
In the U.S., for instance, the average fee to see a doctor out-of-pocket is $134, compared to just $34 in France. To get a hip replacement costs almost $4,000 in the U.S., compared to a bit over $1,000 in France. The difference shows up in physician salaries. After adjusting for cost of living, the average orthopedic surgeon in the U.S. nets $442,450 annually, compared to $154,380 in France.
The final factor contributing to the inflated health care costs in the U.S. is the fact that doctors order far more high-cost diagnostic tests than in other nations. For every 1,000 people in the U.S., 227 get a CT scan every year, compared to just 65 people in the Netherlands and 93 in Australia. And in the U.S., the scan costs more than $500, while in Canada, for the identical scan, the price tag is $122. Now, to be fair, it would be worth it if all that scanning actually translated into better health or higher survival rates. But it doesn’t! In fact, Jon Barron has written several times about the serious dangers of CT scans and their overuse in U.S. hospitals.
The key question is whether all that money being spent on medical costs translates into better health, longer lives, and higher survival rates for people in the U.S. And the answer, is a resounding ‘No!’ While the U.S. does enjoy a marginal advantage in survival rates for several diseases like breast and colon cancers, it lags behind other countries in survival rates for other diseases, such as cervical cancer and complications of asthma and diabetes. In most measures of efficacy of medical care, the U.S. ranked as merely average.
On a cynical day, one might say that greed drives the U.S. health system as well as at least some of the key health problems endured by U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens eat too much bad food, which in turn causes them to become obese and contract obesity related diseases, and then they suffer poor health because of it. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical executives get fat paychecks by charging inflated rates…in the U.S that is. (Makes you wonder which Congressional representatives are getting some nice campaign donations for that little perk.) For their part, the doctors charge high rates not only to reap high salaries, but also to pay for their inflated malpractice insurance costs (and you can thank the American trial lawyers lobby for that one[SUP]3[/SUP]), and to pay back the exorbitant, interest-laden loans they took out to go to medical school. The end result is that a number of people pocket a whole lot of money while four out of 10 people in the U.S. have no health insurance whatsoever; and, according to the report, “difficulty paying medical bills contributes to 62 percent of all bankruptcies.”

 

[Sukerkin]

:nods: Aye, it is something I have been bringing up every now and again; mostly when the 'self harmers' (as I mentally call them) bang on about Obama-care i.e. those who reject socialised medicine because it's 'Commie' and so cut off their nose to spite their face.

As Cap'n Bob explained it to me, the proposed revised system was not really an NHS as Tez and I would recognise it and it certainly had some problems buried in the detail but it was a heck of a lot better for the majority of people than the system the American's have suffered under for so long.

 

[elder999]

:As Cap'n Bob explained it to me, the proposed revised system was not really an NHS as Tez and I would recognise it and it certainly had some problems buried in the detail but it was a heck of a lot better for the majority of people than the system the American's have suffered under for so long.

Well, no Mark-it's not a "heck of a lot better at all. It's a huge bone to the corporate entities called "insurance companies." Instead of one choice as an employee, or two or three plans to choose from, I'll soon be confronted with an array of choices, dependent upon what "preexisting conditions" I have that the insurance company now has to cover, or what problems I can expect in the future. For a "perfectly healthy" person, this is not as big a problem, but-speaking for myself-I already spend close to $80 a month on medications that aren't covered by my insurance-I can't imagine navigating all of it as I get older. Luckily, even if I need a procedure like a heart/lung transplant, I can afford to pay out of my own pocket, but most people-especially in the middle class, never mind the poor-are not so fortunate, and the quagmire that "Obamacare" will prove to be will ensure that only the very upper-middle class ,the wealthiest and the poorest will be able to deal with emergent health issues. Even then, I expect that there will be new protocls for what can or can't be done and for whom.

We already had a government sponsored medical coverageprogram here-it's called Medicaid-ostensibly for the very poorest-and the best thing to do would have been to expand it to cover everyone, and do away with insurance companies, if he was going to do anything.......

 

[granfire]

actually, here's a more recent study.

http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/us-health-care-costs-high-quality-low

but it's private!!!!!!

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite agree, mate, given the parameters you describe. That is considerably worse than the picture I had in my memory from previous discussions on the topic.

The reason why I phrased it as "better" is because it was a first step towards a proper universal health care rather than the, to my English eyes, horrible system in place. Now a step in the wrong direction can be a terrible thing but if it gets you moving away from something bad and seeking for something good then it has merits.

 

[billc]

From the American Enterprise institute on healthcare...

http://www.aei.org/article/health/health-care-101-the-truth-about-health-spending-in-america/

Doesn't the U.S. spend too much on health care?
Critics argue that the U.S. spends too much and gets too little especially compared to single-payer systems such as Great Britain's or Canada's. But the U.S. also has the largest gross domestic product (GDP) on the planet. The issue is whether the U.S. spends too much given its much higher GDP per capita relative to other countries. The conventional wisdom says the U.S. spends 60 percent more than it should given its income. But a more accurate analysis of the same data shows that the U.S. spends only 1.5 percent too much. In contrast, France spends 19 percent too much, while single-payer countries spend at least 20 percent too little. This suggests a degree of rationing most Americans would find unacceptable.

But don't other countries better control health spending?
It turns out that they do not. In terms of growth of inflation-adjusted health spending per person, the U.S. is actually right in the middle of the packamong its G7 competitors, and this has been true for nearly five decades. Moreover, the real health spending per capita in Great Britain and Canada has exceeded that of the U.S. since 2000, and these are the same single-payer countries that critics of the U.S. point to as having a vaunted advantage in cost control.

Does this mean that U.S. doctors are overpaid?
Not so fast. Compared to the average citizen, American doctors do appear to be paid more than doctors elsewhere. That is, relative to GDP per capita in their respective countries, U.S. medical specialists and primary care doctors earn about 50 percent more than their foreign counterparts. But U.S. specialists earn only 37 percent more than high earners (95-99th percentile of the earnings distribution), whereas in the rest of the OECD, specialists earn 45 percent more than high earners in their own countries.

Health Outcomes


Doesn't the U.S. have a much higher infant mortality rate than other countries?
Many of the international comparisons of health outcomes are deeply flawed. The U.S. currently ranks 43rd internationally in infant mortality. Unfortunately, no consistent standard exists for reporting infant deaths across countries. Preterm birth (that is, births at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation) is a key risk factor for infant death, yet the United States is one of only eight countries that categorize extremely premature infant births as "live births," despite these babies' very low odds of survival. Specifically, "many nations do not report any live births at less than 23 weeks' gestation, or less than 500 g, despite the presence of vital signs." This may sound like a minor reporting difference, but a Philadelphia study found that when all deaths of infants delivered at 22 weeks' gestation were excluded from its birth statistics, that city's measured infant mortality ratedeclined by 40 percent.

The aggregate statistics also mask this important reality: if we categorize births by length of gestation, the U.S. ranks second, third or fourth as compared to major European countries, in that it achievesthe lowest infant mortality rates for every birth category examined prior to full-term (22-23 weeks, 24-27 weeks, 28-31 weeks and 32-36 weeks). Only Norway and Sweden (whose populations are much more homogenous and physically fit than America's) achieve consistently better results.

Don't Americans have a much lower life expectancy than those elsewhere?
The U.S. ranking of 39th in life expectancy is likewise thoroughly misleading. When life expectancy figures are appropriately adjusted to account for violence-related deaths, the U.S. ranks number one among OECD nations in life expectancy at birth (without this adjustment, the nation ranks 15th). The disproportionate number of U.S. deaths due to violence is the principal reason our nation ranks so low overall. These fatalities include all gunshot-related deaths, all homicides and suicides, and deaths due to automobile accidents or other injuries. Such deaths arise from social causes, lifestyle choices or imperfections in public efforts to reduce such deaths, such as highway safety. These fatality rates nothing about the quality of U.S. medical care.
But doesn't the U.S. have worse health outcomes than its major competitors?
The U.S. does perform worse on so-called avoidable deaths amenable to medical treatment. However, this measure also has many flaws, not the least of which is that such deaths constitute only a fraction of overall deaths. As a general proposition, the U.S. has superior medical outcomes for conditions in which medicine makes a difference.

An article mentioned above showing some of the flaws in healthcare comparison studies...

http://www.aei.org/article/health/h...-how-does-the-us-health-care-system-stack-up/

In fact, if one goes further out on the age curve to age 80 and over, one finds that the U.S. probably leads the developed world in life expectancy.
These differences highlight the U.S.'s focus on subsidizing health care for the elderly, for whom medical interventions are more frequent, costly, intensive, and arguably more beneficial, and to whose future health non-medical factors matter less on the margin. (Their likelihood of voting is also higher&#8230 A study published earlier this month in Demography finds that at age 55 and beyond, Americans are sicker by far than the English, yet older Americans don't die earlier than their British counterparts: Death rates were equivalent for 55-to-64-year-olds, and beyond age 65, Americans had a slightly greater probability of survival. Why is this so? Perhaps because the U.S. health care system diagnoses and treats illnesses (particular among the elderly) more aggressively than does the National Health Service--though, of course, all that extra screening and more intensive treatment costs more money.

Essentially, Richard Cohen's column is an overwrought, highly politicized reaction to the periodically shallow rhetoric of some Republican officeholders who refer to U.S. health care as the best in the world--which, in some respects, U.S. health care is: for instance, in cancer detection and treatment and in a number of relatively sophisticated procedures for life-threatening illnesses. But that's not the point. The real issues are (1) how to improve it, particularly in terms of more consistent quality and greater affordability; and (2) how to refrain from worsening it, along with the economy, through a harmful prescription (Obamacare). Some Republicans have focused more on #2 than #1, which is equally important but more complex, but correcting their emphasis is hardly the most important mission we face.

 

[K-man]

OMG!

Don't Americans have a much lower life expectancy than those elsewhere?
The U.S. ranking of 39th in life expectancy is likewise thoroughly misleading. When life expectancy figures are appropriately adjusted to account for violence-related deaths, the U.S. ranks number one among OECD nations in life expectancy at birth (without this adjustment, the nation ranks 15th). The disproportionate number of U.S. deaths due to violence is the principal reason our nation ranks so low overall. These fatalities include all gunshot-related deaths, all homicides and suicides, and deaths due to automobile accidents or other injuries. Such deaths arise from social causes, lifestyle choices or imperfections in public efforts to reduce such deaths, such as highway safety. These fatality rates nothing about the quality of U.S. medical care.

This opens a whole new can of worms! If the other countries adjust their figures for local influences does that change the figures too? Seems to me, there might be some other areas, other than straight healthcare, that need to be addressed in the US, that perhaps don't have the same effect on longevity in other first world countries. :asian:

 

[WC_lun]

17% of US GDP is spent on healthcare. It is also the leading cause of bankrupcy. An estimated 19 thousand people die each year (2009 figure) because they cannot afford to go to a doc. Many many more are undertreated or wait until a minor affliction becomes a serious one. Those underinsured or uninsured are paid for by hugely inflated charges by many doctors and just about every hospital. The healthcare system is a huge issue and a big drain on our economy.

Like many, from my experience having used America's healthcare system extensively, I think a single payer system would have been better for everyone, but the insurance companies. Instead we have forced policies with private insurance companies. If regulated well, it could work, but it will take much longer to reduce the cost of healthcare. If the current push to reduce regularions succeed, we are going to be in for a rough time. Unregulated insurance companies with the kind of money being talked about will be a nightmare. It does make me chuckle when people call it socialized healthcare, since it is actually the opposite.

 

[Sukerkin]

A very good thumbnail of the situation that makes the inherent issues and problems very clear, WC :tup:.

I had forgotten what a camel the proposed new system was, with all it's canards and compromises - thank you to you and Elder for re-reminding me, for I had fallen back into the trap of thinking that it was the first step towards an NHS type of health care :bows:. I blame the fact that, on the forums, we keep calling it Socialised Medicine, which is a good thing in my view but, as you say, that is not what it is.

 

[Sukerkin]

With my Mentor hat on tho', I must gently guide posters more closely back to the topic of the OP. Please recall that the Study regulations stipulate that serious discussions in this forum must not wander too far from the original point of conversation. I realise that a comparison of the two medical funding systems is related to the topic, I just fear that we shall walk away from that into talking about what is right and wrong in the American health service.

 

[WC_lun]

Oops, sorry!

 

[Makalakumu]

They won't throw you in jail. They would fire you as Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers when they went on strike in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike

Federal employees do, however, have recourse in the form of arbitration when there is a labor dispute.

What if, as in the case for many doctors, you run your own business? Should the government be able to force you to work?

 

[Steve]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. But few doctors own their own practice anymore. It's still somewhat common with dental and vision, but the insurance situation in america (on both the consumer side and the business side) makes it much safer and more lucrative for doctors to work for someone else.

Yes, though. Ifyoure employed by the government, it can force you to work. Police, firefighters, any federal employee... All unable to strike. Teachers too, but they're doubly screwed in that they also have no right to arbitration. This is why teachers end up striking even though it's illegal for them, to do so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapata

 

[K-man]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. But few doctors own their own practice anymore. It's still somewhat common with dental and vision, but the insurance situation in america (on both the consumer side and the business side) makes it much safer and more lucrative for doctors to work for someone else.

Yes, though. Ifyoure employed by the government, it can force you to work. Police, firefighters, any federal employee... All unable to strike. Teachers too, but they're doubly screwed in that they also have no right to arbitration. This is why teachers end up striking even though it's illegal for them, to do so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapata

Doesn't sound like me to be the "Land of the Free". :asian: