The UK Has Medical Bankruptcies In Spite of NHS

[Veritas]

Does Britain Have Medical Bankruptcies? Yes. - Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog - A Conservative Blog

The idea that single-payer systems don’t have medical bankruptcies is based on the fact that health care is “free” at the point of service in such systems. After all, if people don’t have to pay for health care (at least not directly), how could they have a bankruptcy due to medical bills?

Britain’s National Health Service estimates that, as of June, at least 3 million patients were waiting for treatments such as surgery, while over 15,600 operations were cancelled at the last minute in the second quarter of 2014. Another 809,000 patients were waiting for a diagnostic test. With so many people waiting for care, and some of those people unable to work because of it, some bankruptcies are inevitable.

BTW, we don't really know how many American's file bankruptcy due to medical reasons since the figures are all over the board from 17%-60%. It all depends on which side of the political spectrum the group performing the study is on. However, we do know that the vast majority HAD health insurance. With the new Obamacare "10 Essential" policies along with much higher deductibles and co-insurance amounts, medical bankuptcies are likely to increase.....the opposite of what we were told.

 

[Paradoxum]

In that percentage, how many of those illnesses are treatable? Some might not be, so you can't blame the NHS for that.

The NHS has to treat everyone (and that's a good thing), but that can mean queues.

The plumber example seems to be an anomaly. The guy in the link even says that he's never heard of it happening to anyone else. When I broke two bones in my wrist, I had an 'operation' the next day.

When I went in for a minor issue, I was unexpectedly treated straight away that day. I know some people have problems, I'm just saying that the NHS has never been anything but good to me.

 

[Joykins]

Bankruptcies related to poor health (with attendant job losses, often) are not exactly the same as bankruptcies related to medical bills.

Plenty of studies don't make the distinction.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Good evidence against a single payer system.

 

[Oafman]

Britain’s National Health Service estimates that, as of June, at least 3 million patients were waiting for treatments such as surgery, while over 15,600 operations were cancelled at the last minute in the second quarter of 2014. Another 809,000 patients were waiting for a diagnostic test. With so many people waiting for care, and some of those people unable to work because of it, some bankruptcies are inevitable.

Treatments 'such as surgery'? And what else? There are only around 50m people in England & Wales. Are you hoping we'll believe that 1 in 16 of them are desperately waiting for delayed surgery, before getting on with their lives? Also, how long have these people been waiting for? Probably anything between hours and weeks/months. Which is why this snapshot statistic is worthless, in terms of supporting the point you're attempting to make. And there are of course other reasons why treatment might be delayed, as the report in question mentions (patient choice, co-operation (or lack thereof) and clinical exceptions).

Operations were cancelled? The report which your article linked to gives more details. It turns out that only 1 operation in every 125 was cancelled, and only 1 in every 20 of those few which were cancelled was not rescheduled and executed within the following month.

Whilst there's always room for improvement, this really doesn't look to be as bleak a picture as you would like to portray.

"Another 809,000 patients were waiting for a diagnostic test." The report linked to explains that the average wait is 2 weeks, and less than 1% had to wait longer than 6 weeks. Have a look at the graph in the report. And there is of course a range or urgency included in this; some tests related to issues requiring immediate attention, other things are much more minor, and include those issues which do not have a significant affect on the patient's quality of life.

Basically, this is fact mining, and pretty poorly done fact mining at that. On the whole, things are good, but there is always more work that can be done.

Now, on the point of bankruptcy, even after decades of neoliberalism, we still have a welfare system capable of helping the long term sick. The CAB give a good summary of what is available.

 

[HorsieJuice]

The report doesn't specify whether it was the medical bills that drove these people to bankruptcy or their inability to work.

 

[kermit]

Treatments 'such as surgery'? And what else? There are only around 50m people in England & Wales. Are you hoping we'll believe that 1 in 16 of them are desperately waiting for delayed surgery, before getting on with their lives? Also, how long have these people been waiting for? Probably anything between hours and weeks/months. Which is why this snapshot statistic is worthless, in terms of supporting the point you're attempting to make. And there are of course other reasons why treatment might be delayed, as the report in question mentions (patient choice, co-operation (or lack thereof) and clinical exceptions).

Operations were cancelled? The report which your article linked to gives more details. It turns out that only 1 operation in every 125 was cancelled, and only 1 in every 20 of those few which were cancelled was not rescheduled and executed within the following month.

Whilst there's always room for improvement, this really doesn't look to be as bleak a picture as you would like to portray.

"Another 809,000 patients were waiting for a diagnostic test." The report linked to explains that the average wait is 2 weeks, and less than 1% had to wait longer than 6 weeks. Have a look at the graph in the report. And there is of course a range or urgency included in this; some tests related to issues requiring immediate attention, other things are much more minor, and include those issues which do not have a significant affect on the patient's quality of life.

Basically, this is fact mining, and pretty poorly done fact mining at that. On the whole, things are good, but there is always more work that can be done.

Now, on the point of bankruptcy, even after decades of neoliberalism, we still have a welfare system capable of helping the long term sick. The CAB give a good summary of what is available.

I see that once again Veritas makes use of the Fallacy of Large Numbers.

My boss's daughter tore her ACL over the weekend. She will have surgery in 2-3 weeks. Technically she is waiting for treatment. In a nation of 300+ million people I can only imagine how many people are waiting for treatment in such a way.

 

[DaisyDay]

Good evidence against a single payer system.

Not at all.

 

[Veritas]

Treatments 'such as surgery'? And what else? There are only around 50m people in England & Wales. Are you hoping we'll believe that 1 in 16 of them are desperately waiting for delayed surgery, before getting on with their lives? Also, how long have these people been waiting for? Probably anything between hours and weeks/months. Which is why this snapshot statistic is worthless, in terms of supporting the point you're attempting to make. And there are of course other reasons why treatment might be delayed, as the report in question mentions (patient choice, co-operation (or lack thereof) and clinical exceptions).

Operations were cancelled? The report which your article linked to gives more details. It turns out that only 1 operation in every 125 was cancelled, and only 1 in every 20 of those few which were cancelled was not rescheduled and executed within the following month.

Whilst there's always room for improvement, this really doesn't look to be as bleak a picture as you would like to portray.

"Another 809,000 patients were waiting for a diagnostic test." The report linked to explains that the average wait is 2 weeks, and less than 1% had to wait longer than 6 weeks. Have a look at the graph in the report. And there is of course a range or urgency included in this; some tests related to issues requiring immediate attention, other things are much more minor, and include those issues which do not have a significant affect on the patient's quality of life.

Basically, this is fact mining, and pretty poorly done fact mining at that. On the whole, things are good, but there is always more work that can be done.

Now, on the point of bankruptcy, even after decades of neoliberalism, we still have a welfare system capable of helping the long term sick. The CAB give a good summary of what is available.

You're missing the point. Single payer does not mean people don't suffer nor go bankrupt....which is what proponents in the US try to claim. In spite of how much you might love your system, you need to read a variety of sources about how much trouble it's really in.

The report doesn't specify whether it was the medical bills that drove these people to bankruptcy or their inability to work.

What difference does it make?

 

[Veritas]

In that percentage, how many of those illnesses are treatable? Some might not be, so you can't blame the NHS for that.

The NHS has to treat everyone (and that's a good thing), but that can mean queues.

The plumber example seems to be an anomaly. The guy in the link even says that he's never heard of it happening to anyone else. When I broke two bones in my wrist, I had an 'operation' the next day.

When I went in for a minor issue, I was unexpectedly treated straight away that day. I know some people have problems, I'm just saying that the NHS has never been anything but good to me.

It's not about blaming the NHS itself but a system that has significant problems being swept under the rug by it's cheerleaders.

 

[kermit]

You're missing the point. Single payer does not mean people don't suffer nor go bankrupt....which is what proponents in the US try to claim. In spite of how much you might love your system, you need to read a variety of sources about how much trouble it's really in.

So the OP was a strawman then....

No one is making the claim that there are no cases of people going bankrupt as the direct or indirect result of a medical issue under single payer systems. The claims have been (which your OP supports) is that the rate is much, much lower.

 

[HorsieJuice]

What difference does it make?

Is this a rhetorical question or do you seriously not understand what difference it makes?

Single-payer protects people from being saddled with insurmountable medical bills. It doesn't protect them from being disabled and unable to work - other programs are designed for that. Making the argument you made while failing to make the distinction between bankruptcies cause by medical bills and those caused by a disability means you're either being less-than-honest or you don't understand what you're talking about enough to even be talking about it.

 

[USincognito]

What difference does it make?

To people only interested in attacking the NHS, perhaps none. To people interested in a full accounting of the facts, it makes all the difference.

Just because a single payer health system prevents someone from going bankrupt due to their medical bills, does not mean they won't go bankrupt due to long term effects of any injuries suffered.

 

[Veritas]

So the OP was a strawman then....

No one is making the claim that there are no cases of people going bankrupt as the direct or indirect result of a medical issue under single payer systems. The claims have been (which your OP supports) is that the rate is much, much lower.

Actually, they have. And if you're going to accuse me of "strawman", then according to the new posting rules, you must prove it or remove it.

Is this a rhetorical question or do you seriously not understand what difference it makes?

Single-payer protects people from being saddled with insurmountable medical bills. It doesn't protect them from being disabled and unable to work - other programs are designed for that. Making the argument you made while failing to make the distinction between bankruptcies cause by medical bills and those caused by a disability means you're either being less-than-honest or you don't understand what you're talking about enough to even be talking about it.

Extensive waits for treatments that cause disability and lead to bankruptcy are no different then the bills for treatment leading to bankruptcy. The bankrupt person is still in the same position. Treatment delayed in some cases means treatment denied. And please, Horsie, don't make this about me through insult. Be intelligent enough to leave me out of it, ok?

 

[USincognito]

Actually, they have. And if you're going to accuse me of "strawman", then according to the new posting rules, you must prove it or remove it.

Please show us where that is in the rules. Last I saw it was being considered but hadn't been formalized. And did you miss the part in bold?

So the OP was a strawman then....

No one is making the claim that there are no cases of people going bankrupt as the direct or indirect result of a medical issue under single payer systems. The claims have been (which your OP supports) is that the rate is much, much lower.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Actually, they have. And if you're going to accuse me of "strawman", then according to the new posting rules, you must prove it or remove it.

First of all, they pulled the Strawman Rule after its biggest target complained about it.

Second, Kermit DID explain why your OP was a straw man - you even quoted the section where he provided that explanation.

Do you know what a straw man is?

Extensive waits for treatments that cause disability and lead to bankruptcy are no different then the bills for treatment leading to bankruptcy. The bankrupt person is still in the same position. Treatment delayed in some cases means treatment denied.

The truth is that you have no idea what caused those bankruptcies. This report doesn't provide the level of detail that you're pretending it does.

And please, Horsie, don't make this about me through insult. Be intelligent enough to leave me out of it, ok?

You asked a question that implied that you were either engaging in dishonesty or had no idea what you were talking about. If someone is being dishonest, I'm going to call them out on it. If someone is grossly ignorant on a topic on which they're making proclamations, I'm going to point out their ignorance.

Stop making stuff up and stop using straw men to make your points and maybe you'll have less trouble.

 

[Veritas]

First of all, they pulled the Strawman Rule after its biggest target complained about it.

Second, Kermit DID explain why your OP was a straw man - you even quoted the section where he provided that explanation.

Do you know what a straw man is?



The truth is that you have no idea what caused those bankruptcies. This report doesn't provide the level of detail that you're pretending it does.



You asked a question that implied that you were either engaging in dishonesty or had no idea what you were talking about. If someone is being dishonest, I'm going to call them out on it. If someone is grossly ignorant on a topic on which they're making proclamations, I'm going to point out their ignorance.

Stop making stuff up and stop using straw men to make your points and maybe you'll have less trouble.

See, you just can't help yourself. You have to make it about me. Frankly, I'm not the one having trouble here. It's you who finds it difficult to address the post and not the poster. We call that flaming. Try not making it personal. It would help if you would stick to the substance of the post and not attack the other member.

 

[HorsieJuice]

See, you just can't help yourself. You have to make it about me. Frankly, I'm not the one having trouble here. It's you who finds it difficult to address the post and not the poster. We call that flaming. Try not making it personal. It would help if you would stick to the substance of the post and not attack the other member.

The substance is that the report doesn't support your claims. This entire thread is nonsense.

 

[Paradoxum]

Good evidence against a single payer system.

How so? Because poorer people will be treated, so those with more money will have to fairly wait their turn? How terrible.

There being problems with something doesn't mean it isn't good.

It's not about blaming the NHS itself but a system that has significant problems being swept under the rug by it's cheerleaders.

It has problems (like all institutions), but I'd think that many British people would say it's one of our greatest institutions. Nothing is perfect.

 

[Oafman]

You're missing the point. Single payer does not mean people don't suffer nor go bankrupt....which is what proponents in the US try to claim. In spite of how much you might love your system, you need to read a variety of sources about how much trouble it's really in.

No, it doesn't mean that nobody goes bankrupt, but it does mean that nobody goes bankrupt due to medical bills.

As for the variety of sources, do you have any good ones? Ideally, sources which aren't quite as easy to pick apart as the example in the OP?