National health care will k? nnte a disaster, because of the cost and complexity? t. A system controlled by the government also creates qu? Loin moral dilemmas (? About the treatment of the eyes are ruling below to read). Nevertheless, despite my opposition to it, I can see that there is a real M? Possibility, and soon. Keeping this in mind, here is what we can do k? To work some of the inh? Pensions problems l? Sen and the system better. What’s Your Qualys result?
Who gets what health care? The w re? F a difficult decision? R us all, but some argue k? Nnte that the B rokraten? In the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are pretty good. You are to evaluate and approve f treatments? R the National Health Services Administration in Great Britain (their national health systems B? Rokratie). After all, the life expectancy in Great Britain about the same as in the United States, and the government are less f? R the healthcare, w? While f? R all B? Rger.
Such decisions nat? Not to some interesting problems f Natural lead?. An example: In 2002 NICE recommended that a particular treatment f? R macular degeneration in one eye – the one to be less affected by the disease. What about the other eye? It’s probably allowed to go blind. They came to this decision, adding “Qualys” or Quality-Adjusted Life Years.
How does this approach f? R measuring the value of the treatments work? Let’s look at a few examples. An operation that gives you an average of ten years of life better than one of you f nf?, And so h? Here on the scale of Qualys. Years, the life care, but the quality is so? T of those years. Suppose you k? Charges may be saved by treatment, but are in a coma? F r six years, w? While another person could be saved and healthy f? R six years by a different treatment. If the resources are limited (they are not always?), W? Rde this be approved.
Now let’s look again treated in the case of the eye. The score f? R f Qualys is high? R first glance, there was probably obtained? The quality? T of life? About ht blindness. But increase since the second eye is not the quality of life? T nearly as much, is not it?
We do not need the complexity? T of the system to get to understand the logic. Life issues, but also quality of life? T agree to questions, an idea that most of us. But f? Leads to some unpleasant conclusions, right?. For example, a person with a swear corresponding disease or disability likely to lower scores in Qualys, if f? R a lebensverl? Considered ngernde heart surgery. We k? Nnten it? Mountain are in favor of sep tapes person w rde? More after the Qualys G? Benefit Coast.
The real truth, usually ignored, is that f is a financial limit? Plan r all national health systems. As a result, we have the choices can be sure to make uncomfortable and sometimes downright mean? Rend. What happens when one million U.S. dollars k? Thousand people from nnte always a t? Dliche disease, or that same million nnten k? For the treatment and healing meters? Glicherweise twenty persons, to prevent already? About the disease TEN. If we allow that to die twenty or prevent the deaths of ten thousand?
Nat? Natural, it is easy to say we should f the twenty and cure? Lead the Pr ventionsprogramm?. This may even m? Be possible, and we k? Nnten f surely? Pay r both eyes to be treated in the event of macular degeneration. On the other hand, k? We can not really everything. Honesty compels us to admit that this is blind in one eye may not ann? Close to such tragic as in the two eyes to lose, and if the treatment f only one eye? R a patient saves enough money to another patient’s heart problem with a new procedure that saved his life may treat m? we have to this type of decision.
Whatever we do, utopian theories, will be made difficult decisions at a particular time when we decide on national health systems. We need a value? About the life, or come in different quality? Ten of life, at least. be yes, we even amputated saved to a value in one eye versus two, or at the sight versus limbs? en, which otherwise might have taken. In a market system of medical service providers compete to offer better treatment f? R diabetes, but these are part of a system where your diabetes is competing with someone Migr? Ne or broken nose. National Health Care – Some Suggestions
If we have secured a market economy for the Gesundheitsf? rsorge f? r the government-exist with a system k? can, k? we nnten to pay at least to the other eye. The rich are nat? Natural better care, but I do not think that we are such a petty jealous people that we are against such a dual system just because of this vote w? Rde. The health of the rich does not hurt the rest of us. Even w RDEN?, We all have at least the hope of money f? Click here now what additional healthcare we w? Affordable Auction. So let the market still exists.
It is also the problem of demand. Free h? Here demand, nat mean? Natural. At the moment I have a few Z? Teeth that I have a dentist look at this week, when was the investigation and treatment free k? Nnte, but since it does not I’ll wait a bit. Often delay? Gerung treatment because of cost, but they also seek and find cheaper alternatives. The w rde? In? Change if we had free national health systems.
It is a big increase in demand to be en. Nat? Agritourism, cuts, bandages are h? Gene more often? Ht, when the service cost to k? Nnten. Headaches or neck pain, which usually bear w? Rde perhaps a free trip to the hospital or clinic to understand. Unfortunately, w? RDEN that use government health care money that otherwise f? Pay for r the research or treatment nnten k f? S life-threatening illnesses, which is more difficult decisions.
As k? We can to alleviate this problem from? Berforderung? Design a system that is not free. After all, the problem is not that we f? R health care have to pay m? Because we f a way? Pay of Food to find clothing and cable TV without government handouts. The problem is the high price and the unpredictability of expenditure f? R health care. An occasional? Surprises is one thing, if it is a few hundred dollars, but a few weeks in a hospital can eat up a lifetime of savings.
To resolve this problem, instead of encouraging the people’s unwillingness to budget f? r unexpected surprises, but affordable? How? A M? Possibility is the national health insurance f? R all have, but with a $ 500 j in year abzugsf? Hig. If a person can not afford it (it concerning? Gt to $ 42 per month), it is usually a hint to a budgeting issue, not a problem? Berteuerten care.
If any person 20% of all costs beyond the deductible and pay up to $ 1,000 ($ 5,000 cost). This w RDEN? People from walking up to the doctor or hospital f? R keep every little thing. This encourages them to look for cheaper effective treatments, so that the system does not destroy you, the Ren? Usual incentive (money)? F r this creative process of improving the Gesundheitsf? Rsorge.
Prescription drugs should not be covered, the cost goes up? About the $ 500 j in year deductible, and even then the patient should pay its 20%. find people (even poor people in this country) one way, f? r gr? ere pay expenses in life, and this w rde? to keep the system from abuse. What if some people are really too poor to afford even this? Address this problem by the general welfare programs, instead of f paying for prescriptions? R tens of millions who can easily afford k?.
I’m not thrilled with the idea of a national health system. On the other hand, if it does happen in any case, we can at least make it sustainable and open more options f? R us all. That’s what make the system w? Rde hopefully outlined above.