Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Single-payer nightmare
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | September 3, 2007 | Editorial

Posted on 09/04/2007 2:08:51 PM PDT by Graybeard58

Advocates of a single, universal government health program had better hope they never develop heart trouble. Otherwise, they might find themselves confronting choices like those under consideration this week by Britain's socialized health care system.

At issue in Britain are drug-lined stents used in angioplasties to help prop open clogged arteries. Recent studies have shown that for some heart patients, drug-lined stents costing $2,300 apiece are no more effective than plain metal stents that cost $700 each. The potential savings of $1,600 per stent has so warmed the cockles of what passes for hearts among the bureaucrats who run Britain's health-care system that they have proposed ending coverage for drug-coated stents in all circumstances.

Britain's medical community is fighting the proposal. The British Cardiovascular Society has said it is "surprised, disappointed and very concerned" by the proposal. The group warned that eliminating use of the stents would force some patients to live with untreatable chest pain. Dr. Gabriel Steg, a spokesman for the European Society of Cardiology, told The Associated Press that drug-coated stents are still the best choice for some patients.

However, under the British system, the final decision is not up to doctors but to government bean-counters, who are more than happy to save $1,600 per stent at the expense of someone else enduring untreatable chest pain.

As the United States heads into another presidential campaign, more than a few of the candidates are offering health-care proposals modeled on the British system. However attractive such proposals may sound in the abstract, the question for voters is whether, the next time they seek treatment from a physician, they'd like to have a panel of accountants passing the final judgment on which treatments they can or can't receive.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: socializedmedicine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 09/04/2007 2:08:52 PM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SICSEMPERTYRANNUS; ECM; cardinal4; ishabibble; rellimpank; kiriath_jearim; Little Bill; mojo114; ...

Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.

If you want on or off this list, let me know.


2 posted on 09/04/2007 2:10:09 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

How long before the bean-counters conclude that it is much better, all ‘round, to just let heart patients die? After all, they are expensive to treat, and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Oh, wait a minute. They are already doing that. That is why there is an 18-month waiting list for heart surgery in Canada...


3 posted on 09/04/2007 2:15:11 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Let's recall John F*ckin's understudy, the Little John, wants to FORCE every one to go to the doctor for a regular checkup. That's what liberals mean by single payer health care.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

4 posted on 09/04/2007 2:22:12 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
How long before the bean-counters conclude that it is much better, all ‘round, to just let heart patients die? After all, they are expensive to treat, and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

This is the ultimate end of government run healthcare. The natural progression of govt healthcare means that euthanasia of the old and neglect of the infirm are guaranteed to happen.
5 posted on 09/04/2007 2:22:33 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

It is no accident that the push for socialized health care and the push for the “Right to Die” are happening at the same time.


6 posted on 09/04/2007 2:24:03 PM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Doctors should avoid drug stents in some heart attack patients, experts say
The Associated PressPublished: September 4, 2007

VIENNA, Austria: Doctors should think twice before using drug-coated stents in some heart attack patients, experts said Tuesday.

Dr. Gabriel Steg presented research at a meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in Vienna showing that patients who received drug-coated stents in an emergency situation were five times more likely to die after two years than those who received bare metal stents.

The tiny, metal-mesh tubes that ooze drugs are used in one of the world’s most common procedures, an angioplasty, which uses a balloon to prop open clogged heart vessels.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/04/europe/EU-MED-Heart-Attacks.php


7 posted on 09/04/2007 2:26:20 PM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Get a backbone people. Tell the government where they can stick it.


8 posted on 09/04/2007 2:44:46 PM PDT by freekitty (May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
People had better open their eyes to find the truth about rising health care costs. Does anyone go to their insurance company for medical treatment when injured, ill or needing an annual physical? Of course not. Health insurance is a method of payment. How a bill is paid has no effect on the cost of a commodity or service. Cost is driven by supply and demand.

Democratic and Republican health care proposals both rely on health insurance. The Democrats would make mandatory participation in health insurance programs. The Republican proposals would offer tax credits for people to purchase their own policies. Both benefit the insurance companies, which are major campaign contributors. Neither addresses the supply of medical professionals and services.

Health insurance itself is part of the problem. People working for health insurance companies do not do so for free.

The government is to blame for the shortage of health care professionals and services. It is the government that limited the number and capacity of medical schools. It is the government that forced hospital emergency rooms to treat patients with no means to pay.

Until government regulations and restrictions are abandoned, the supply of medical professionals and services will be scarce, and costs will continue to rise.

The USA has one of the lowest proportions of doctors to population of all industrialized nations. The number of domestically born and trained medical professionals is alarming.

The answer to rising health care costs can only be found by identifying and changing those factors that effect supply. When these are corrected, even health insurance costs would decline. Not a great prospect for insurance companies or the candidates they buy, but good for the health of the nation.

9 posted on 09/04/2007 2:45:35 PM PDT by backtothestreets (My bologna has a first name, it's J-O-R-G-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I still remember CONSERVATIVE Margret Thatcher making the statement she couldn’t believe the USA didn’t have Socialized Medicine

She also made a speech at a USA HS where she told the students our 2nd amendment was obsolete

My opinion of her DROPPED after those two events


10 posted on 09/04/2007 3:07:25 PM PDT by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
It is the government that forced hospital emergency rooms to treat patients with no means to pay.

And people know it and use the emergency room as a doctor's office
11 posted on 09/04/2007 3:13:21 PM PDT by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Recent studies have shown that for some heart patients, drug-lined stents costing $2,300 apiece are no more effective than plain metal stents that cost $700 each.

The studies apparently indicate that drug-eluting stents can prevent the blood vessel from properly healing around the stent, allowing the stent to become a formation site for blood clots. My mom received a drug-eluting stent last year due to blockage shortly before this news broke. Now she and the rest of us are wondering if she might not have been better treated with medication. She will remain on Plavix indefinitely to reduce the risk of a clot.

But using these studies to drop coverage of drug-eluting stents in all cases makes no sense, except to insurance administrators and bureaucrats who have no business deciding medical policy.
12 posted on 09/04/2007 3:18:45 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

bookmark


13 posted on 09/04/2007 3:20:33 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'd like to FORCE every elected federal, state and local officials to have to take a drug and alcohol test.

That should get rid of about 90% of em.

Friggin bunch of traitors and tyrants!

14 posted on 09/04/2007 3:22:46 PM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Now she and the rest of us are wondering

Time will tell. Medicine is more an art than an exact science in many cases.

I had to undergo repeated heart caths to unblock the stents (including radiation procedures) they placed in the pre-medicated stent days. I just have one of those bodies that does not make use of stents.

Finally I had to have a bypass, albeit a very expensive and fancy one that was minimally invasive.

Insurance companies like "one solution fits all". It saves them money and keeps things easy to follow on a computer display.

15 posted on 09/04/2007 3:29:38 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
How a bill is paid has no effect on the cost of a commodity or service.

Unless it's a third party payer paying with someone else's money.

16 posted on 09/04/2007 3:30:24 PM PDT by groanup (Limited government is the answer. What's the question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
However, under the British system, the final decision is not up to doctors but to government bean-counters, who are more than happy to save $1,600 per stent at the expense of someone else enduring untreatable chest pain.

How is this different than current American HMO's? They second guess prescriptions all the time, and burden dcotors with so much chickensh7t paperwork that I know several who have abandoned their pratices because of it. We have plenty of bean counters practicing Medicine here.

Normally I love to shred the British National Health, but in this instance we are living in a glass house...

17 posted on 09/04/2007 3:39:31 PM PDT by Gorzaloon (Food imported from China = Cesspool + Flavor-Straw™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimmers

My doctor told me that I only had a 1 in 200 chance of dying because of the implant. I said that I’d like those odds alot better in powerball than this death pool.


18 posted on 09/04/2007 4:08:35 PM PDT by brooklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

My druggie stent was two years ago and has performed flawlessly. I was on Plavix for only a short time and learned how leaky the body can be. Having to be on blood thinner more or less permanently would be a totally last ditch thing.


19 posted on 09/04/2007 4:10:59 PM PDT by gcruse (...now I have to feed the dog as if nothing has happened.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Having to be on blood thinner more or less permanently would be a totally last ditch thing.

This apparently is the recommendation from doctors now - my mother's cardiologist has told her that he doesn't plan to take her off Plavix due to the stent for at least another year (and she's been taking it for a year already), and has indicated she might have to stay on it longer.

From an FDA web site:

"Recent research suggests that in rare cases patients may develop clots in their drug-eluting stents that may cause an increased risk of heart attack or death. This can happen many months or even years after they received their stents. Medications are given after stenting to reduce the risk of blood clots, but we do not know the optimal duration of treatment."
20 posted on 09/04/2007 4:25:56 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson