[geeks] nVidia 8800GT for Apple Mac Pro

[Mike Meredith]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:15:50 -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> No, it isn't, because that is not what it meant by rationed health
> care.

I think we'll have to disagree on the "rationing" issue. Personally I
think that that a monetised system would be "unrationed" if everyone
had an unlimited ability to pay or had an insurance policy that had no
limit on the cost of treatment. Last I heard the US wasn't like that.

The problem with using "rationing" in association with socialised
health care is that it gives the impression that one queues up in front
of a government office to get assigned a GP who dictates the form of
treatment you get. If you need a hospital operation you get assigned to
a queue and have to wait ages until a slot is available.

It's not quite like that. I can change my GP simply by walking into my
preferred surgery (and I really must ... my current surgery is now
"attached" to an alternative health centre). Treatments are a matter
for discussion. There may be slightly less choice, but there is
_sufficient_ choice.

As to waiting times, the only unsatisfactory experience in my family is
when my grandmother had to wait a few months for a cataract operation.
And that was partially her "fault" for insisting on going to her local
hospital which had a waiting list and not going to another which would
have given her the operation within days.

> > Many people find the thought of people profiting from ill-health
> > distasteful.
>
> That's pretty silly, given that it is impossible not to profit
> unless medical personnel work for free.

The word there is "salary" not "profit".

> Socialized medical care is just as for-profit as the market systems,
> and in some cases more profitable since so many of them are heavily
> gamed.

Eh?

> The US system was far cheaper before it started socializing.

Well refusing expensive treatment to a large percentage of your
population is a pretty dire way of keeping things cheap.

> You just agreed with me but phrased it as a contradiction.
> Interesting.

Hmm. I phrased it poorly. The NHS will sometimes fund private health
treatment where local waiting times are unacceptable, or possibly make
reciprocal arrangements with other socialised health care systems.

> Of course, Norfolk also is an R&D facility, so there are things here
> not available elsewhere, so that's part of the draw.

That's probably the whole reason to go there. There's a great deal of
specialised treatment on the "bleeding edge" or for very rare disorders
which is only available in certain parts of the world. And not just the
UK.

I think if I scream enough and my psoriasis looks bad enough I can get
a free trip to the Dead Sea to get smeared with mud. Sounds fun; I
might try it if the suppurating sores break out again :)

> There is no need for me to do that, it's well covered in the news.

I just dislike anecdotal evidence.

> I've never read anything which says people go to Canada, and people
> I know in Canada are not aware of that happening either, so I
> seriously doubt it is.

Actually I have ... from Wikipedia :-

"Canada

"Canada has entered the medical tourism field. In comparison to US
 health costs, medical tourism patients can save 30 to 60 percent on
 health costs in Canada.[41] Canada's quality of healthcare is cited by
 the World Health Organization as equal to if not better than that of
 the US in most categories.

Not that I entirely believe it (two sources minimum).

> There are some US hospitals or individual wards that treat more non-
> resident patients than US residents because of their proximity to
> airports or the Canadian border.

Same happens over here. The West Middlesex hospital (serves Heathrow)
saved B#700,000 one year by insisting that "health tourists" (actually
mostly people taken ill in transit) either pay up or just get
stabilised and shipped back.

--
Mike Meredith (http://zonky.org/)
  One test is worth a thousand opinions.