the benefits of obamacare
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
- Boondox681
-
- Posts: 9929
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:08 am
You might like:
Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:21 pm » by Boondox681
Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations
Almost two-thirds of trusts affected as cuts bite
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.
Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.
Examples of the rationing now being used include:
* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.
* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.
* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.
The alarming figures emerged from a survey of 111 PCTs by the health-service magazine GP, using the Freedom of Information Act.
Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working – and how it will affect their relationships with patients.
Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.
Medway had deferred treatment for non-urgent procedures this year while Dorset is "looking at reducing the levels of limited effectiveness procedures".
Chris Naylor, a senior researcher at the health think tank the King's Fund, said the rationing decisions being made by PCTs were a consequence of the savings the NHS was being asked to find.
"Blunt approaches like seeking an overall reduction in local referral rates may backfire, by reducing necessary referrals – which is not good for patients and may fail to save money in the long run," he said. "There are always rationing decisions that have to go on in any health service. But at the moment healthcare organisations are under more pressure than they have been for a long time and this is a sign of what is happening across many areas of the NHS."
According to responses from the 111 trusts to freedom-of-information requests, 64 per cent of them have now introduced rationing policies for non-urgent treatments and those of limited clinical value. Of those PCTs that have not introduced restrictions, a third are working with GPs to reduce referrals or have put in place peer-review systems to assess referrals.
In the last year, 35 per cent of PCTs have added procedures to lists of treatments they no longer fund because they deem them to be non-urgent or of limited clinical value.
Some trusts expect to save over £1m by restricting referrals from GPs.
Chaand Nagpaul, a member of the British Medical Association's GPs committee, said he was concerned about PCTs applying different low-priority thresholds and rationing access to treatments on the basis of local policies.
He said the Government needed to decide on a consistent set of national standards of "low priority" treatments to help remove post-code lotteries in provision. "Patients and the public recognise that with limited resources we need to make the maximum health gains and so there needs to be prioritisation. What is inequitable is that different PCTs are applying different thresholds and criteria," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Decisions on the appropriate treatments should be made by clinicians in the local NHS in line with the best available clinical evidence and Nice [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] guidance. There should be no blanket bans because what is suitable for one patient may not be suitable for another."
Bill Walters, 75, from Berkshire, recently had to wait 30 weeks for a hip operation instead of the standard 18. "I believe that the Government is doing this totally the wrong way," he said.
Case study: 'They changed the rules to save money'
Anne Ball, 71, is a retired business consultant who used to work in electronics
"I have bilateral cataracts and under the original NHS criteria I was entitled to have at least one of mine treated – but then the West Sussex health authorities decided to change the threshold level to save money.
"It's like looking through gauze. Everything is foggy, and I've got quite a large 'floater' in my left eye. The consultant was as distressed as me, having to tell me, and he thought with my eyesight he wouldn't be able to function.
"I've appealed because the cataracts are having a significant impact on my quality of life and it's left me depressed and fearful about my low vision, which will continue to deteriorate. The new guidelines mean that people who fall below the standard set by the DVLA still do not qualify to have surgery. My vision is not good enough to drive at night.
"I'm not a cranky old lady. I'm the chair of a local village charity and I do a lot of computer work that is affected.
"It will just store up costs for future years, putting a strain on resources as more patients will end up in falls clinics. The longer you put it off the more complex the operation becomes and the riskier it is for the patient."
Rob Hastings
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 27268.html
this is what americans can look forward to.
peace
Almost two-thirds of trusts affected as cuts bite
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.
Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.
Examples of the rationing now being used include:
* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.
* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.
* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.
The alarming figures emerged from a survey of 111 PCTs by the health-service magazine GP, using the Freedom of Information Act.
Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working – and how it will affect their relationships with patients.
Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.
Medway had deferred treatment for non-urgent procedures this year while Dorset is "looking at reducing the levels of limited effectiveness procedures".
Chris Naylor, a senior researcher at the health think tank the King's Fund, said the rationing decisions being made by PCTs were a consequence of the savings the NHS was being asked to find.
"Blunt approaches like seeking an overall reduction in local referral rates may backfire, by reducing necessary referrals – which is not good for patients and may fail to save money in the long run," he said. "There are always rationing decisions that have to go on in any health service. But at the moment healthcare organisations are under more pressure than they have been for a long time and this is a sign of what is happening across many areas of the NHS."
According to responses from the 111 trusts to freedom-of-information requests, 64 per cent of them have now introduced rationing policies for non-urgent treatments and those of limited clinical value. Of those PCTs that have not introduced restrictions, a third are working with GPs to reduce referrals or have put in place peer-review systems to assess referrals.
In the last year, 35 per cent of PCTs have added procedures to lists of treatments they no longer fund because they deem them to be non-urgent or of limited clinical value.
Some trusts expect to save over £1m by restricting referrals from GPs.
Chaand Nagpaul, a member of the British Medical Association's GPs committee, said he was concerned about PCTs applying different low-priority thresholds and rationing access to treatments on the basis of local policies.
He said the Government needed to decide on a consistent set of national standards of "low priority" treatments to help remove post-code lotteries in provision. "Patients and the public recognise that with limited resources we need to make the maximum health gains and so there needs to be prioritisation. What is inequitable is that different PCTs are applying different thresholds and criteria," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Decisions on the appropriate treatments should be made by clinicians in the local NHS in line with the best available clinical evidence and Nice [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] guidance. There should be no blanket bans because what is suitable for one patient may not be suitable for another."
Bill Walters, 75, from Berkshire, recently had to wait 30 weeks for a hip operation instead of the standard 18. "I believe that the Government is doing this totally the wrong way," he said.
Case study: 'They changed the rules to save money'
Anne Ball, 71, is a retired business consultant who used to work in electronics
"I have bilateral cataracts and under the original NHS criteria I was entitled to have at least one of mine treated – but then the West Sussex health authorities decided to change the threshold level to save money.
"It's like looking through gauze. Everything is foggy, and I've got quite a large 'floater' in my left eye. The consultant was as distressed as me, having to tell me, and he thought with my eyesight he wouldn't be able to function.
"I've appealed because the cataracts are having a significant impact on my quality of life and it's left me depressed and fearful about my low vision, which will continue to deteriorate. The new guidelines mean that people who fall below the standard set by the DVLA still do not qualify to have surgery. My vision is not good enough to drive at night.
"I'm not a cranky old lady. I'm the chair of a local village charity and I do a lot of computer work that is affected.
"It will just store up costs for future years, putting a strain on resources as more patients will end up in falls clinics. The longer you put it off the more complex the operation becomes and the riskier it is for the patient."
Rob Hastings
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 27268.html
this is what americans can look forward to.
peace
i am responsible for my own words,act and deeds
- Koopatroopa
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:34 pm
Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:36 pm » by Koopatroopa
I'm a bit confused. The title states Obamacare but the article is about NHS which has nothing to do with the United States healthcare system. Also, you are aware that the new health care package is just a bailout for insurance companies. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare or a public option.
Boon why don't you quit bitching about healthcare and look at where all the real money goes, military and corporate subsidies. I don't hear you bitch about these at all. I would PREFER my tax dollars going to the health and education of my fellow citizens including myself rather than spent on inflated defense contracts, useless wars, useless departments ( DHS and DEA ) and loopholes and subsidies for corporations to funnel their money to the top 1% and outside of our country.
I guess any reason to hate on Obama is good enough. I guess we shouldn't blame Congress who was responsible for drafting and passing all legislation, yes legislation those are the laws that are enacted by the LEGISLATIVE branch. The POTUS runs the executive branch which has nothing to do with writing laws. Misdirection at it's finest they have us look in one direction while they accomplish all their hidden agendas. You're just an example of another dumbass American falling for it.
Anyone from the UK want to comment on the NHS because I do not know much about it and the article is written about it?
Boon why don't you quit bitching about healthcare and look at where all the real money goes, military and corporate subsidies. I don't hear you bitch about these at all. I would PREFER my tax dollars going to the health and education of my fellow citizens including myself rather than spent on inflated defense contracts, useless wars, useless departments ( DHS and DEA ) and loopholes and subsidies for corporations to funnel their money to the top 1% and outside of our country.
I guess any reason to hate on Obama is good enough. I guess we shouldn't blame Congress who was responsible for drafting and passing all legislation, yes legislation those are the laws that are enacted by the LEGISLATIVE branch. The POTUS runs the executive branch which has nothing to do with writing laws. Misdirection at it's finest they have us look in one direction while they accomplish all their hidden agendas. You're just an example of another dumbass American falling for it.
Anyone from the UK want to comment on the NHS because I do not know much about it and the article is written about it?
Last edited by Koopatroopa on Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Blondie1w2000
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:33 am
- Location: USA
Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:38 pm » by Blondie1w2000
Yeah, and you know, more companies are about to actually stop their healthcare plans for employees, just like we all knew would happen with this dumbass bill, and more middleclass families will have to buy it out of pocket, for even MORE money. What a f---king nightmare this bill is. The ONLY people who will benefit from it are the people who are ALREADY getting public assistance...you know, the "urban poor."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576462010405702984.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576462010405702984.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
- Boondox681
-
- Posts: 9929
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:08 am
Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:06 am » by Boondox681
I'm a bit confused. The title states Obamacare but the article is about NHS which has nothing to do with the United States healthcare system. Also, you are aware that the new health care package is just a bailout for insurance companies. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare or a public option.
Boon why don't you quit bitching about healthcare and look at where all the real money goes, military and corporate subsidies. I don't hear you bitch about these at all. I would PREFER my tax dollars going to the health and education of my fellow citizens including myself rather than spent on inflated defense contracts, useless wars, useless departments ( DHS and DEA ) and loopholes and subsidies for corporations to funnel their money to the top 1% and outside of our country.
I guess any reason to hate on Obama is good enough. I guess we shouldn't blame Congress who was responsible for drafting and passing all legislation, yes legislation those are the laws that are enacted by the LEGISLATIVE branch. The POTUS runs the executive branch which has nothing to do with writing laws. Misdirection at it's finest they have us look in one direction while they accomplish all their hidden agendas. You're just an example of another dumbass American falling for it.
Anyone from the UK want to comment on the NHS because I do not know much about it and the article is written about it?
your confused because your an idiot.
what does it have to to with obamacare?read the last line.
you are aware that the new health care package is just a bailout for insurance companies. It has nothing to do with universal healthcare or a public option.
this shows how little you know.under obama care,50% of businesses have already said they are going to drop thair insurance benefits.
where are all these people going to go?i wonder...dummass.
Boon why don't you quit bitching about healthcare and look at where all the real money goes, military and corporate subsidies. I don't hear you bitch about these at all. I would PREFER my tax dollars going to the health and education of my fellow citizens including myself rather than spent on inflated defense contracts, useless wars, useless departments ( DHS and DEA ) and loopholes and subsidies for corporations to funnel their money to the top 1% and outside of our country.
blah,blah,blah...tell me something i don't fucking know.
and i could fuckin care less about obamacare.i have insurance
The POTUS runs the executive branch which has nothing to do with writing laws.
you are absolutely correct.obama has no need to write any law,cookie jarvis.....
he'll do like all good progressive presidents do
sign an executive order.
don't forget to fuck yourself now,ya' hear?
Last edited by Boondox681 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
i am responsible for my own words,act and deeds
Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:10 am » by Demobe
[youtube]cgWCAhytQuA&feature[/youtube]
Truth is The Only Weapon That The Wicked Fear,Most People Who Know The Truth Are Afraid,To Tell it,To spread it,Because They Fear Consequences,Anybody Here Is Not Gonna Die?So What The Hell Are You Afraid Of?STAND UP LIKE A MAN AND SAVE YOUR COUNTRY!
Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:18 am » by Tuor10
The NHS is still a great organisation.
I won't say a bad word about it.
It saved my daughters life.
We also pay for our health service. It is called national insurance contributions.
The NHS was a reward for fighting two world wars.
People in Britain were not going to let things go back to the way they were after fighting the Germans, and basically squandering the countries riches in the process.
It won't work in America though. America has a different ethos where such things are concerned.
I won't say a bad word about it.
It saved my daughters life.
We also pay for our health service. It is called national insurance contributions.
The NHS was a reward for fighting two world wars.
People in Britain were not going to let things go back to the way they were after fighting the Germans, and basically squandering the countries riches in the process.
It won't work in America though. America has a different ethos where such things are concerned.
æðeling ond árwurþung
- Boondox681
-
- Posts: 9929
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:08 am
Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:22 am » by Boondox681
tuor...thanx for your input,bro.
i appreciate the first hand info.
i appreciate the first hand info.
i am responsible for my own words,act and deeds
Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:24 am » by Tuor10
boondox681 wrote:tuor...thanx for your input,bro.
i appreciate the first hand info.
My pleasure, buddy.
The NHS has a lot of problems with over spending. But that is mainly because of the wage structure within the NHS. Basically, there were to many managers getting paid ridiculous amounts of money. This has all changed now; NHS trusts have to compete for finance, which means that all trusts are having to get their acts together, and justify their spending. The general public can now also view which trusts have the best recommendations etc, so people can choose.
I think such a system will greatly improve the overall care people receive.
æðeling ond árwurþung
- Koopatroopa
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:34 pm
Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:11 pm » by Koopatroopa
your confused because your an idiot.
what does it have to to with obamacare?read the last line.
Thanks for clearing this up. I thought I was the one having grammar problems...
this shows how little you know.under obama care,50% of businesses have already said they are going to drop thair insurance benefits.
where are all these people going to go?i wonder...dummass.
I'm sure they are. Since we are providing greater tax incentives for businesses to provide healthcare. The result of this bill is more businesses will be in the pool thus making insurance more affordable for all. I guess since you only made it through eighth grade made you didn't cover this law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
blah,blah,blah...tell me something i don't fucking know.
and i could fuckin care less about obamacare.i have insurance
this shows how little you know.under obama care,50% of businesses have already said they are going to drop thair insurance benefits.
Interesting contradiction. Good story bro.
The POTUS runs the executive branch which has nothing to do with writing laws.
you are absolutely correct.obama has no need to write any law,cookie jarvis.....
he'll do like all good progressive presidents do
sign an executive order.
Obama Executive orders - 93
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... obama.html
George W. Bush - 291
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... wbush.html
Bill Clinton - 364
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... inton.html
George Bush - 166
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... /bush.html
Ronald Reagan - 381
http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... eagan.html
It's hard arguing with people that don't back up their statements with facts. Boon I only have one piece of advice for you. Stop name calling and start educating yourself.
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2011 Mumbai Blasts - Who Benefits?
by phaeton » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:52 pm - 0 Replies
- 430 Views
- Last post by phaeton
Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:52 pm
- 2011 Mumbai Blasts - Who Benefits?
-
- obamacare...
by thepriceisright » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:31 pm - 2 Replies
- 169 Views
- Last post by illuminated
Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:50 pm
- obamacare...
-
- Repeal Obamacare
by disorganizer81 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:10 am - 0 Replies
- 150 Views
- Last post by disorganizer81
Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:10 am
- Repeal Obamacare