This very issue is known in Britain as the "little old lady problem". Resources are limited, and society needs to decide who gets care first. There are many life-threatening conditions, but arthritis in the hips and knees isn't one of them.
Consequently, if you can pay, you get to the front of the line, and if you can't you'll get one eventually, but you won't die.
They always roll out the little old ladies in wheelchairs when it comes to healthcare reform.
"Consequently, if you can pay, you get to the front of the line, and if you can't you'll get one eventually, but you won't die."
That's such a great comfort when you are in excruciating pain and can't walk. I think that should be the motto of the NHS "at least you won't die". Aim high.
Actually it's not the little old lady problem. I did a documentary on healthcare in the UK. One of the patients suffered from severe rheumatoid arthritis, a serious autoimmune disorder, she was told it would take 6 months to see a rheumatologist. She had the means to pay for private care and saw the same doctor within a week. You see arthritis which you probably don't have and obviously don't understand comes in many for from the less complex osteoarthritis to forms that have many nasty sequelae such as lupus or psoriatic arthritis.
I have worked in healthcare for 20 years and my wife about the same but she has worked more internationally. In countries with state run healthcare many times newer treatments such as cancer drugs are not available.
Flawed though it may be I will stick with US medicine.
One of the patients suffered from severe rheumatoid arthritis, a serious autoimmune disorder, she was told it would take 6 months to see a rheumatologist
Again: rheumatoid arthritis does not kill you.
many times newer treatments such as cancer drugs are not available
Good that you say that. In many countries to gain approval the manufacturer needs to show a benefit over what is already on the market. Whatever was there was new, but it didn't prolong survival or improve quality of life. Why should the public pay for something very expensive (because it's still under patent) when something equally good is available for much less as a generic?
Hmmm...I guess all those other academic papers showing that the greatest percentage of healthcare dollars go to end of life care defined as final 2 years but especially final 6 months. I am also pleased to see this analysis was in part conducted by, "we'll tell you what you want to hear as long as you pay us" BCG. Or as I know them BSG. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing because people are making a lot of money. Look back to '76 or so when the people who pushed for changes to the laws allowing for the creation of HMOs and promised enormous savings. That didn't happen. Any time you have a major consulting company telling you how to reduce healthcare costs the sound your actually hearing is money dropping in their pockets. It would be fun to skewer the article point by point but not worth the time.
Adobe's Creative Cloud scheme is anti-consumer and anti-competitive. Adobe is essentially attempting to leverage the monopoly that Photoshop has in the professional market to lock customers into the whole suite of Adobe products. A lot of people who have to use Photoshop are going to use the rest of the CC products because they are bundled not because they want to. It's quite a burden to thing of 600.00 in adobe charges and then piling on a Media Composer purchase or upgrade. The move to CC calls into question the long term viability of the DNG format and leaves photographers with few good choices for archival storage of RAW files.
Oh well, New Coke was a big hit so why not Creative Cloud.
