This is what Obamacare is going to do to our lives

[Gazumagi]

Who recommended that? lol

Anyway...

The plite of the small business owner in the U.S. is something I know about. They get hammered in two ways; laws written by special interest groups that make it hard to compete with the big boys, and laws written by the wealth redistribution folks. Both equally devistating but in the end, the poor or bottom end of the society ends up loosing the most.

Well, if you want sweatshop jobs to come back to America, you're going to need better sweatshops no?

And as for your paragraph about the plight of the business owner, I can definitely believe that they get hammered by special interest groups and wouldn't be too surprised if they get hurt by wealth redistribution, though I would like to see some proof for that, and I really, really doubt they do as much damage as SIGs...

 

[arora]

I like Jerry's idea. Pool your resources, might make for some happier employees short term and who knows it could grow the business and their success, ultimately being able to pay more and afford good health care for the lot. Even better if by the time they get built up all these ridiculous harmful laws could be reformed.

Well, if you want sweatshop jobs to come back to America, you're going to need better sweatshops no?

No. You aren't focusing on the type of regulations that drive those jobs over seas.

And as for your paragraph about the plight of the business owner, I can definitely believe that they get hammered by special interest groups and wouldn't be too surprised if they get hurt by wealth redistribution, though I would like to see some proof for that, and I really, really doubt they do as much damage as SIGs...

The proof is right under your nose, just think a moment what the healthcare bill is and exactly what the point of this thread is.

 

[Gazumagi]

I like Jery's idea. Pool your resources, might make for some happier employees short term and who knows it could grow the business and their success, ultimately being able to pay more and afford good health care for the lot. Even better if by the time they get built up all these ridiculous harmful laws could be reformed.


No. You aren't focusing on the type of regulations that drive those jobs over seas.

The proof is right under your nose, just think a moment what the healthcare bill is and exactly what the point of this thread is.

So enlighten me to these devastating regulations.

Healthcare =/= wealth redistribution, and even if it was, one example is sure a ton of proof...

 

[arora]

If Obamacare is not redistribution then why is there a mandate?

I'll let these speak for themselves with whatever merit you choose.

regulatory uncertainty hurts American competitiveness as innovative device companies are moving jobs overseas

does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of potential effect of the proposed rule of economic productivity economic growth employment job creation or international economic competitiveness.

as we have heard from timberland forcing jobs overseas when overbearing regulations stifle the market place

Not to mention the crazy tax code and regulations of, you can google some of that yourself if you choose, look up what Steve Jobs had to say about it maybe. I bet just the cost of hiring full time corporate attorneys to decifer and maintain compliance is enough to drive some to China lol

 

[Gazumagi]

First video: Make things safe, or make things cheap... I don't doubt that it is a complicated process for approval at the highest level of meditech or drug-based medication, but my feeling from http://www.webcitation.org/5NkCrjdpd and http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=227466 is that the FDA just doesn't have the resources to do its job well. I don't really want to say raise taxes to pay for it more (perhaps take a little bit of military funding or something), but the fact that the FDA is taking the easiest routes to approve devices and then having to recall 100+ devices because they could kill people... Not so good.


Second video: He's debating if greenhouse gases are bad for the environment, and talks over the guy that is replying to him, and his final talking point is that companies don't want to spend money if they don't have to... Sorry if it's a wee bit expensive to make sure that your grandchildren's grandchildren have a planet to live on. Valid point, dumb way to argue it, and completely ignoring the fact that greenhouse gases damage the environment and will thus detract from the environment that we 'gift' to future Americans

Third video: What is this supposed to prove? He has no testimony, he's just stating objectives for a committee-find regulations that have the least impact on jobs. That 'provable, objective science' dig really doesn't help his case either...

As for the steve jobs thing, are you referring to the part where he said teachers shouldn't have any job security, schools should be forced to be open for 10 hours a day, and the shocking revelation that the chinese have less regulation than america?

 

[arora]

I'll respond one more time but this should be in the U.S. thread I think, or somewhere not here as you do not want to discuss health care.

First video: Make things safe, or make things cheap... I don't doubt that it is a complicated process for approval at the highest level of meditech or drug-based medication, but my feeling from http://www.webcitation.org/5NkCrjdpd and http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...ticleid=227466 is that the FDA just doesn't have the resources to do its job well. I don't really want to say raise taxes to pay for it more (perhaps take a little bit of military funding or something), but the fact that the FDA is taking the easiest routes to approve devices and then having to recall 100+ devices because they could kill people... Not so good.

Wrong, he is saying things are safe but that was not the point. Point being Jobs are going overseas because of the regulation.

Second video: He's debating if greenhouse gases are bad for the environment, and talks over the guy that is replying to him, and his final talking point is that companies don't want to spend money if they don't have to... Sorry if it's a wee bit expensive to make sure that your grandchildren's grandchildren have a planet to live on. Valid point, dumb way to argue it, and completely ignoring the fact that greenhouse gases damage the environment and will thus detract from the environment that we 'gift' to future Americans

Well let me put it to you this way: Mother earth does not care where the pollution comes from does she? So we don't pollute and loose jobs overseas where the pollution takes place? How does that help?

Third video: What is this supposed to prove? He has no testimony, he's just stating objectives for a committee-find regulations that have the least impact on jobs. That 'provable, objective science' dig really doesn't help his case either...

Did you read the quote I put above it? That was the proof.

As for the Steve jobs thing, are you referring to the part where he said teachers shouldn't have any job security, schools should be forced to be open for 10 hours a day, and the shocking revelation that the Chinese have less regulation than america?

Um no, I'm pretty sure I was talking about taxes and regulations not education.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You pay the same number of people, but they work less and, i'd wager, work for less as well.

I have no idea why you would say this. We won’t be cutting anyone’s hourly rate. It is people with your commie attitude that elected this guy and have put business it this bad situation to begin with.

I'm guessing the $700 per week is mainly down to the tips they get gained from working the longer hours?

If so, here's a solution;

Get together with your main competitors (who are also cutting hours) down the street and simply share employees. 20 hours at your gaff and 20 hours at theirs. The result will be the waiters get to work their normal hours, thus don't lose out, and both companies weasel their way out of their obligation, thus saving money.

It's a win win. 👍

We are a restaurant company, not an employment agency. They will most likely do this for themselves – but everyone is needed on Friday and Saturday nights and very few are needed on Mondays.

They are going to have to find part time jobs that will let the off (so they can work for us) on Fridays and Saturdays. I wish them all the luck in this (obamacare weakened) economy.

Again, I find it very very sad that in The United States of America the federal government can come in and tell you what benefits you must give to your employees.

Before obamacare, healthcare and other benefits were offered by employers to attract new employees.

This is not freedom- not liberty- not justice- This is tyranny.

 

[Famine]

And your reasoning would be that people should be allowed by the nation to hurt the nation by being selfish?

My reasoning would be that it is no individual's obligation to help anyone or anything else. They should choose to - and this concept is magnified when it comes to whether the action helps or hurts the individual doing it. Moreover it becomes impossible to "do good" if you are required by law to do so - and you're automatically guilty of doing wrong if you're obliged to help everyone as soon as someone you haven't helped comes to harm.


The notion that folk should be legislated to help the nation is the same notion that outlaws drugs, cigarettes, certain kinds of food, pornography, light bulbs, saying naughty words and, eventually, voting.

What you do to or with your body is your business, not anyone else's and this extends from what foods you eat through what narcotics you put into it and how much you value aspects of its continued function.

 

[Omnis]

And your reasoning would be that people should be allowed by the nation to hurt the nation by being selfish?

Dude, you have no concept of economics.

A chinese company making a million do-bobs for $0.10 when American-made do-bobs cost $1.00 is saving me 90% of my money. Moving those hundred-or-so $20k/yr jobs to China lost America 2 million dollars for just that small group, but it saved EVERYONE 10 million dollars. That's an 8 million dollar benefit to our economy.

 

[bevo]

If you were in the UK and I was one of your long term employees and contracted to do more hours then you are now allowing me, I would proceed with a claim for unlawful deduction of wages.

It would really be a smack in the mouth to have my hours cut and to see more staff being taken on to fill the hours that you've taken away from me. I'm guessing you guys don't see your long term employees as an asset. Time to find different job I think.

Would you rather the business shut down completley and everyone lose their jobs? I was part of a family business for years, and we had to layoff and cut hours alot in the last few years. Most employees thought we were doing it to make more money, but really we had been losing money for a few years. We were trying to do whatever we could to figure out how to keep people their jobs. Most small business owners really do value thier employees and want to do whats best for them.

Our company had been open since 1984 and had people who had worked their since it had opened. Those people understood what was going on and knew they would rather have some job then no job. We even had to do the opposite of obamacare and cut insurance completely to try and survive. The ones that complained had no idea what it was like to try and manage fairly large amounts of money in an economy like the current one. We finally shut down our business in Janurary of this year. It was a very hard decision but had to be done. A little over 50 people lost their jobs because of this. There is no way we would have been able to even think about staying open the entire time we have been in business with obamacare. I don't see how anyone will be able to now and have any full time employment. Most small business is just scraping by right now.

I can't imagine how obamacare is going to work. It seems to me like it will criple all but the largest companies out there. Maybe I don't understand how it works, but if it is anything like people are saying it is, then welcome to a country were everyone carries multiple jobs, and has nothing excpet what the government gives them.

 

[bevo]

What if my profit margins are tight and I really can't keep current prices? I'm a business, man, I'm not going to risk going under over health insurance. What I'm going to do is look for inefficiencies in my system, and since employee costs/payroll is probably my biggest expense by a wide margin I'm going to cut inefficiencies from that first. That means getting rid of less productive people at less productive locations.

With the economy how it has been for the last 5 or so years, don't you think owners have been trying to streamline their production as much as possible. There is only so much you can do to cut costs and make up for new expenses. Look at what our business was. It was a sawmill with a little over 50 workers. We produced rough cut lumber. We can't just raise prices or cut costs. Our prices are pretty much set by a price index that comes in biweekly from the NHLA. The housing market is what determines what we get out of our lumber. For us there was no way to do anything else to lower costs, or make an attempt to raise prices. We can't pay less for logs because we have been for the last 5 years and loggers have just stopped logging because there is not enough money in it.

I just can't imagine the government being able to force companies to offer health insurance and make the company pay for part of the insurance. We had to pay an average of 800$ a month for the people we covered. Out of our 50 or so workers only around 10 of them received insurance. That's 800$ a month we payed for them to have insurance on top of workers comp, unemployment, insurance for work vehicles, gas they use etc.

I really don't think most people have any idea how expensive it is to pay a worker. The pay check they receive is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how much money is being spent for them to work there. Add mandatory insurance for everyone to that, and how could anyone stay open. Not all companies have CEOs making hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Those places will be fine, it's the small places that have done everything they could for the last 5 years to make themselves as efficient as possible to survive the economy that are going to be destroyed by obamacare.

I don't know how I screwed that quote up. I also wasn't meaning to attack the person I quoted, I was just citing their reference to cost cutting.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I don't know how I screwed that quote up. I also wasn't meaning to attack the person I quoted, I was just citing their reference to cost cutting.

the end bit needs to read [/QUOTE]

 

[Danoff]

Still waiting for someone to say they think this is a good idea....

I bet many of you did not know that Obamacare directly discourages medical device invention through a new medical device tax:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578012281306687070.html

Who thinks it's a good idea to add a specific tax directed at medical devices? Anyone? Nobody? Didn't think so.

Also, anyone reading this thread raise your hand if you knew Obamacare passed a tax on home sales*. I'm looking for a show of hands, anyone? How many of you think it's a good idea to put a tax on the already burdened housing market? Anyone? Show of hands...


*Before you panic, this won't affect you. It screws the minority, not you.

 

[Joel]

I forgot about the "medical device" tax. What could that possibly help? The idea of the bill is allegedly to provide health care for the uninsured, and they put in a damaging tax that punishes innovation. Ludicrous.

I just don't understand how people can support this. Obama campaigned on universal health care, and then...this bloated and ridiculous half ass bill comes out.

 

[Adamgp]

We had to pass it to find out what's in it.

 

[arora]

Here is a brakedown of the various new and increased taxes. This site has the bill's full text as written and also a few other tools. It's pretty funny/sad reading the official document, makes you realize how convoluted the whole thing is.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html

This title will be implemented by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

TITLE IX--REVENUE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Revenue Offset Provisions

Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W-2.
Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.
Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.
Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements.
Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals.
Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care.
Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.
Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses.
Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.
Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations.
Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

Subtitle B--Other Provisions

Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments.
Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses.
Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit.

TITLE X--STRENGTHENING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS

Subtitle H--Provisions Relating to Title IX

Sec. 10901. Modifications to excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.
Sec. 10902. Inflation adjustment of limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.
Sec. 10903. Modification of limitation on charges by charitable hospitals.
Sec. 10904. Modification of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers.
Sec. 10905. Modification of annual fee on health insurance providers.
Sec. 10906. Modifications to additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers.
Sec. 10907. Excise tax on indoor tanning services in lieu of elective cosmetic medical procedures.
Sec. 10908. Exclusion for assistance provided to participants in State student loan repayment programs for certain health professionals.
Sec. 10909. Expansion of adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

H.R. 4872. Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010

Subtitle E--Provisions Relating to Revenue

Sec. 1401. High-cost plan excise tax.
Sec. 1402. Unearned income Medicare contribution.
Sec. 1403. Delay of limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans.
Sec. 1404. Brand name pharmaceuticals.
Sec. 1405. Excise tax on medical device manufacturers.
Sec. 1406. Health insurance providers.
Sec. 1407. Delay of elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to medicare part D subsidy.
Sec. 1408. Elimination of unintended application of cellulosic biofuel producer credit.
Sec. 1409. Codification of economic substance doctrine and penalties.
Sec. 1410. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

I bolded Danoff's concerns.

This is a pretty good article about it, and with a little bit of work you can find each concern of tax directly in the official bills text.

http://moneymorning.com/2012/08/05/warning-hidden-obamacare-taxes-will-cost-you-more-than-you-think/

EDIT: I forgot to mention section 10907, 10% tax if you want a tan

 

[Danoff]

Oh wow, just found out there's a dividend/capital gains tax too. This is unbelievable...

 

[arora]

Oh wow, just found out there's a dividend/capital gains tax too. This is unbelievable...

It's just grand ain't it? Don't forget there is no redistribution in the plan. Anyway here we go with some good stuff 👍

Go Liberty U! I gathered all the information below from scotusblog.com, good to see not everyone is folding yet.

The Supreme Court on Monday arranged for a Virginia university to go forward with new challenges to two key sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and employer mandates to have insurance coverage. The Court did so by returning the case of Liberty University v. Geithner (docket 11-438) to the Fourth Circuit Court to consider those challenges. The Court last Term had simply denied review of Liberty University’s appeal, but on Monday wiped out that order and agreed to send the case back to the appeals court in Richmond for further review.

Liberty University v. Geithner

The petition:

1. Whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) bars courts from deciding the limits of federal power to enact a novel and unprecedented law that forces individuals into the stream of commerce and coerces employers to reorder their business to enter into a governmentmandated and heavily regulated health insurance program when the challenged mandates are penalties, not taxes, where the government argues Congress never intended the AIA to apply, and where the Petitioners are currently being forced to comply with various parts of the law and thus have no other alternative remedy but the present action.

2. Whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by enacting a novel and unprecedented law that forces individuals who otherwise are not market participants to enter the stream of commerce and purchase a comprehensive but vaguely defined and burdensome health insurance product, and if so, to what extent can this essential part of the statutory scheme be severed.

3. Whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by enacting a novel and unprecedented law that forces private employers into the health insurance market and requires them to enter into third-party contracts to provide a comprehensive but a vaguely defined health insurance product to their employees and extended beneficiaries, and if so, to what extent can this essential part of the statutory scheme be severed.

Why is the administration telling the court anything? lol

The Obama Administration did not oppose the action announced Monday. However, it did tell the Court that it thinks that none of Liberty’s remaining challenges has legal merit and that, in any event, its challenge to the employer mandate was blocked by the Anti-Injunction Act. Presumably, the Administration will renew those arguments in the Fourth Circuit.

Has congress changed their stance on whether the mandate is penalty or a tax? What is the deal with the aia argumement at this point, I ask because it's obvious the supreme court already heard the case and said the aia did not apply, they are also the ones that kicked the Liberty University case down to Circuit Court. It's a dirty trick imo to say "nope you can't bring suit because if the aia" especially when the administration told us for years that the bill was NOT a tax.

Something I learned digging around. That is a pretty high percentage, not sure why I thought it was lower.

... a sweeping regulation of the health insurance market, which makes up 17 percent of the nation’s economy.

All my interwebings on this issue started from this point.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/liberty-university-v-geithner/

 

[ScouserInExile]

I know a guy, his car broke down and now he has no way to get to work. Why should he have to pay for it, he didn't ask for his water heater to break down. I know a guy, his water heater broke, and now he has no hot water, he didn't ask for his car to break down. I know a guy, his roof got damaged in a storm, he didn't ask for that, why should he have to pay for his roof to get fixed?

See how that works?

That's a whole load of weak argument.

If you car breaks down, you have options. You can walk, you can get the bus, a friend can give you a lift.
If your water heater breaks, you have options. You can wear a thicker jumper and shower at a friend's house, you could light a fire, you could learn to live with the cold.
Damaged roof? Buy a bucket, fix it yourself, throw a tarp over it. Options.

If you get cancer, the options you have are get treatment or die. How rich you are shouldn't influence which option you get.

 

[Famine]

Why is all illness and disease suddenly cancer now?

 

[Dennisch]

Why is all illness and disease suddenly cancer now?

Because going bankrupt over a ingrown toenail sounds so silly.

 

[Danoff]

If you get cancer, the options you have are get treatment or die. How rich you are shouldn't influence which option you get.

This is why we have insurance - so that how rich we are doesn't influence which option we get. Note that subsidizing antibiotics or a doctor's visit to have your cough checked out is NOT why insurance exists.

Health insurance is not, and should not have become, health care.

 

[arora]

Health care in the U.S. would be affordable on it's own if; insurance companies did not have a crooked crony arrangement with the government, it was not over regulated, the trial attorneys had an once of integrity, and the populous did not abuse the system out of spite and greed. It goes without saying but, free market and Competition lowers the price of anything and increases the quality. We've shot ourselves in the foot.

And yes there will always be people that cannot afford it, luckily we are a charitable people as a whole, the barbaric practices of the people in charge has forced us into a scroodge mentality, not to mention some of us have lost all perspective. For instance, I can't tell you how many people I have seen in a grocery line using food stamps yet yapping on their iphone 5 as they fumble to find the ebt card. Entitlement and greed go hand in hand and it's taught by both the politicians pandering for votes and media sensationalism.

 

[Joel]

Why is all illness and disease suddenly cancer now?

If you get sick, you get cancer. No options.

And as danoff said, the point was that we expect and assume people have insurance for all of those things.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's a whole load of weak argument.

If you car breaks down, you have options. You can walk, you can get the bus, a friend can give you a lift.
If your water heater breaks, you have options. You can wear a thicker jumper and shower at a friend's house, you could light a fire, you could learn to live with the cold.
Damaged roof? Buy a bucket, fix it yourself, throw a tarp over it. Options.

If you get cancer, the options you have are get treatment or die. How rich you are shouldn't influence which option you get.

If you think you might have cancer you also shouldn't have to wait weeks or months to get tested which is not uncommon in our gov't funded healthcare system. Be nice if we had the option to pay for the test and jump the que or the option of a private system operating alongside the public system, but we don't.

Universal health care is does not mean you get the exact system you have now, only publicly funded. The system will change in direct response to the amount of government intervention associated with the system. The more government involvement there is, the less efficiently the system will operate, a universal fact of dealing with the government. The government cannot allocate resources as efficiently as the free market.

 

[ScouserInExile]

If you think you might have cancer you also shouldn't have to wait weeks or months to get tested which is not uncommon in our gov't funded healthcare system. Be nice if we had the option to pay for the test and jump the que or the option of a private system operating alongside the public system, but we don't.

Universal health care is does not mean you get the exact system you have now, only publicly funded. The system will change in direct response to the amount of government intervention associated with the system. The more government involvement there is, the less efficiently the system will operate, a universal fact of dealing with the government. The government cannot allocate resources as efficiently as the free market.

Here in the UK, the nhs has the "two week rule". Suspected cancer must be diagnosed within two weeks. Confirmed cancer must have first definitive treatment within two weeks of diagnosis. So it is never months before diagnosis and / or treatment. More often than not, it's days, not weeks as well.

You're right about the inefficiencies though. Both my wife and I work for the nhs and we are both constantly driven mad by the wastes of time and money we see every day. Mostly down to the "that's the way we've always done it" attitude. Though I will say, I don't think this is that different to any large, private organisation (the nhs is, evidently, the world's third largest employer. Only beaten by the Indian railways and the Chinese Red Army)

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here in the UK, the nhs has the "two week rule". Suspected cancer must be diagnosed within two weeks. Confirmed cancer must have first definitive treatment within two weeks of diagnosis. So it is never months before diagnosis and / or treatment. More often than not, it's days, not weeks as well.

You're right about the inefficiencies though. Both my wife and I work for the nhs and we are both constantly driven mad by the wastes of time and money we see every day. Mostly down to the "that's the way we've always done it" attitude. Though I will say, I don't think this is that different to any large, private organisation (the nhs is, evidently, the world's third largest employer. Only beaten by the Indian railways and the Chinese Red Army)

A two week rule on diagnosis and then two weeks on treatment would be more effective don't you think? I don't know of a two week rule here, but treatment also starts quickly, once you're diagnosed. However it could take weeks or months to get into to see certain specialists and sometimes, after waiting months, even getting treatment the next day could be too late.

 

[Danoff]

Here in the UK, the nhs has the "two week rule". Suspected cancer must be diagnosed within two weeks. Confirmed cancer must have first definitive treatment within two weeks of diagnosis. So it is never months before diagnosis and / or treatment. More often than not, it's days, not weeks as well.

Just gotta keep your fingers crossed that it's cancer and not some other disease that doesn't have a specific arbitrary bureaucratic requirement to address the most obvious result of nationalized healthcare - too much demand.

There's a reason it takes months to get diagnosed with some problems under national healthcare systems, and passing a rule that says "push people who might have cancer to the front of the line" doesn't address it in the slightest.

Though I will say, I don't think this is that different to any large, private organisation (the nhs is, evidently, the world's third largest employer. Only beaten by the Indian railways and the Chinese Red Army)

...beaten only by government employment....

 

[ScouserInExile]

Just gotta keep your fingers crossed that it's cancer and not some other disease that doesn't have a specific arbitrary bureaucratic requirement to address the most obvious result of nationalized healthcare - too much demand.

There's a reason it takes months to get diagnosed with some problems under national healthcare systems, and passing a rule that says "push people who might have cancer to the front of the line" doesn't address it in the slightest.

For everything other than cancer, the UK has an 18 week RTT (Referral To Treatment) rule. Everyone has to be seen, diagnosed and have their treatment started within 18 weeks of the referral being received.

One of the big advantages the NHS has is that budgets aren't centralised, each trust operates as an individual business. Everything is done on Payment By Results - the trust gets a certain amount of money for the activity it carries out. What this means is that it can tailor it's services to meet local demand and maximise it's income. There are also stiff penalties for missing waiting times targets.

The biggest issues facing the NHS when it comes to demand is A&E (ER). Since it's free at the point of care, people will go to a&e when it is neither an accident nor an emergency, but they can't get a GP appointment so went to their nearest hospital instead. Unfortunately, the rules say that everyone who goes to a&e has to see a doctor, so they will waste the time of the triage nurse, the doctor and everyone who has a real emergency need.

The other big problem is health tourism. People will come to the UK with the express purpose of getting treatment for free. One hospital I used to work in was right next to a major airport and had massive problems with this. They would regularly send ambulances to take people off an aeroplane that had just come from some third world hole to a lovely, free bed with lovely, free treatment. Said person would spend however long getting their free treatment and would then get back on a plane home and never have to spend a penny and the hospital would have to foot the bill.

 

[Sphinx]

...beaten only by government employment....

Not if you include McDonald's and Walmart. They also employ more than the NHS. Oh, and the US Department of Defense (government employment).