# Socialized Medicine and Single Payer Systems **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644 "2012-08-06T18:58:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/161 "2012-08-22T12:03:02Z")
And since we have observed a cult mentality and most will refuse to believe it due to the source, here it is straight from the horse’s mouth: > **[Michael Rawlins: playing fair on treatments](https://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/michael-rawlins-playing-fair-on-treatments/5047276.article)** > > A few weeks ago, Steve Winyard, head of policy and campaigns at the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), asked to see me. Section 2a of the NHS Constitution states: “You have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, if your doctor says they are clinically appropriate for you.” Moreover, a direction to the NHS dated 11 December 2001 made it clear that NHS bodies are required to make such treatments available not more than three months after a positive NICE guidance technology appraisal has been published. Dexamethasone intravitreal implants should therefore have been available to all NHS patients by - at the very latest - November 2011. In February this year RNIB contacted the 125 hospital trusts in England with eye health services, asking whether they were providing dexamethasone intravitreal implants for patients with retinal vein occlusion. Of the trusts that responded, 45 were providing a full service and 37 were providing either a restricted or no service. Quite clearly numerous trusts are acting unlawfully. They are denying patients an innovative and cost-effective treatment, recommended by NICE, that significantly improves their quality of life. The reason, of course, is that trusts do not wish to use their resources in this manner. Although they know they are required to make NICE-approved products available, they introduce delaying tactics. Hospital trusts may claim that the additional treatment costs of the new product are not covered by the contracts with their local primary care trusts. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/162 "2012-08-22T13:10:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In the US,a doctor recommends a treatment ,the insurance company then denies it. In the NHS, the doctors just don’t recommend treatment at all if it’s not covered. You never find out what could have saved your life. And even if they do know, if they have to meet their bottom line: > The head of the government’s drugs rationing body has claimed that a number of NHS trusts are “breaking the law” by denying patients access to approved treatments and drugs to save money. > > Sir Michael Rawlins, the chair of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), said there were many examples of primary care and NHS hospital trusts using “delaying tactics in order to circumvent the legal obligations they have to provide treatment and drugs recommended by Nice within three months”. Rawlins urged doctors to “show leadership” by naming primary care and hospital trusts they believe are “breaking the law” by denying patients treatments to which they are entitled. Set up by the government in 1999 as an independent organisation, Nice decides which drugs and treatments are available on the NHS in England and Wales. Rawlins claimed there were “numerous” trusts stalling to allow them to spend money on other things. > > [http://www.nhs-exposed.com/nhs-trusts-breaking-the-law-by-denying-access-to-treatment/](http://www.nhs-exposed.com/nhs-trusts-breaking-the-law-by-denying-access-to-treatment/) …do you really understand what that cite is saying? Do you know who Michael Rawlins is and what NICE does? So did it take two weeks to find that cite did it? A website that doesn’t even have an “about me” page so we can see who is running it? Why don’t you do us all a favour and report back to us when you find out what NICE does and what Michael Rawlins job is. Because you are citing stuff just because you think it makes the NHS look bad: but it actually makes the NHS look good. You show a complete ignorance of how UHC works and once again that ignorance comes out with each and every post that you make in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/163 "2012-08-22T13:23:06Z")
The holy book is never wrong! You just don’t understand it! Yes, I know what NICE is. It’s the agency that decides what drugs you can have. And even when they are generous enough to give you access to a drug, it doesn’t mean the NHS trusts will pay for them. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/164 "2012-08-22T13:23:16Z")
We all know and accept health care is a limited resource. Especially when a right-wing government is trying to privatise it by stealth. But not 1 in 10 million NHS ‘customers’ would rather this rationing be done by insurance companies trying to minimise their outlays by hook or by crook. Or by denying equal access to health care to the ‘uninsured’. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/165 "2012-08-22T13:23:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And since we have observed a cult mentality and most will refuse to believe it due to the source, here it is straight from the horse’s mouth: > > [Michael Rawlins: playing fair on treatments | Comment | Health Service Journal](http://www.hsj.co.uk/opinion/columnists/michael-rawlins-playing-fair-on-treatments/5047276.article) > > Section 2a of the NHS Constitution states: “You have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, if your doctor says they are clinically appropriate for you.” > > Moreover, a direction to the NHS dated 11 December 2001 made it clear that NHS bodies are required to make such treatments available not more than three months after a positive NICE guidance technology appraisal has been published. Dexamethasone intravitreal implants should therefore have been available to all NHS patients by - at the very latest - November 2011. > > In February this year RNIB contacted the 125 hospital trusts in England with eye health services, asking whether they were providing dexamethasone intravitreal implants for patients with retinal vein occlusion. Of the trusts that responded, 45 were providing a full service and 37 were providing either a restricted or no service. > > Quite clearly numerous trusts are acting unlawfully. They are denying patients an innovative and cost-effective treatment, recommended by NICE, that significantly improves their quality of life. > > The reason, of course, is that trusts do not wish to use their resources in this manner. Although they know they are required to make NICE-approved products available, they introduce delaying tactics. Hospital trusts may claim that the additional treatment costs of the new product are not covered by the contracts with their local primary care trusts. …would you stop with that “cult mentality” rubbish: if you want to prove cult mentality you need to cite evidence of cult mentality. And the posters in this thread aren’t suffering from cult mentality either: if you want to continue that line of attack you should take it to the pit. A link to an opinion piece by Michael Rawlins is not evidence of “cult mentality”: its a sign that your argument is so weak that you have to keep resorting to that strawman. Seriously though: with all that time away from the thread is this really the best you could find? The head of NICE telling trusts to stop breaking the law? Surely this is a feature of the NHS: not a flaw? I bet you can’t tell us what NICE does nor their role in the NHS without resorting to google. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. The game is up. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/166 "2012-08-22T13:24:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And since we have observed a cult mentality and most will refuse to believe it due to the source, here it is straight from the horse’s mouth: > > [Michael Rawlins: playing fair on treatments | Comment | Health Service Journal](http://www.hsj.co.uk/opinion/columnists/michael-rawlins-playing-fair-on-treatments/5047276.article) > > Section 2a of the NHS Constitution states: “You have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, if your doctor says they are clinically appropriate for you.” > > Moreover, a direction to the NHS dated 11 December 2001 made it clear that NHS bodies are required to make such treatments available not more than three months after a positive NICE guidance technology appraisal has been published. Dexamethasone intravitreal implants should therefore have been available to all NHS patients by - at the very latest - November 2011. > > In February this year RNIB contacted the 125 hospital trusts in England with eye health services, asking whether they were providing dexamethasone intravitreal implants for patients with retinal vein occlusion. Of the trusts that responded, 45 were providing a full service and 37 were providing either a restricted or no service. > > Quite clearly numerous trusts are acting unlawfully. They are denying patients an innovative and cost-effective treatment, recommended by NICE, that significantly improves their quality of life. > > The reason, of course, is that trusts do not wish to use their resources in this manner. Although they know they are required to make NICE-approved products available, they introduce delaying tactics. Hospital trusts may claim that the additional treatment costs of the new product are not covered by the contracts with their local primary care trusts. So what? Yes, some Trusts are rationing treatment in ways they shouldn’t but what has this got to do with the merits of UHC or even the comparative merits of the UK v US healthcare systems? Trusts are responsible for balancing services provided against local needs and quite often their decisions aren’t welcomed by everyone but there is not an unlimited pot of money so everybody can’t be satisfied. But this is not news to anyone in Britain - the papers are always screaming about the “post-code lottery” where a treatment available in one place is not available in another. In fact NICE is a prime example of openness in the nationalised system. NICE is a public body specifically set up to determine the cost effectiveness of treatments. Their methodologies and results are open and subject to public scrutiny and debate - can the same be said for the decisions made by American Health Insurers? I doubt there are many people in the UK who would claim the NHS was or is perfect but whether you like it or not most people prefer it to the alternative - if the alternative is anything remotely like the American situation. > [@](#): > > First, it is outmoded. No one uses that model except for Cuba and North Korea other than Britain. It was a purely ideological idea at a time when leftist ideas were in vogue and as we’ve seen at the Olympics, it’s basically a cult. I’m not sure by what conceivable definition the British support for the NHS could be described as a cult. Calling it a cult essentially implies there is no rational reasoning behind the support but upthread several people have given you perfectly valid reasons - the overwhelming one being that nobody in the UK fears that they or their family will either be bankrupted by unexpected illness or, even worse, unable to afford treatment. This reason alone is sufficient for most people to support it. OK, we understand this is not a position you agree with but nobody is asking you to. The British electorate support a universal health care system in the form of the NHS for what to them seem good reasons. Perhaps you are right and it is an outmoded model. Maybe we would not set it up like this is we were starting again but but the one thing everybody would agree on would be not to set up anything like the system in the States. The outcomes are not perfect (although I note that overall they are often better than in the States) but most people accept they are “good enough” for what we - as a nation - pay. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/167 "2012-08-22T13:32:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The holy book is never wrong! You just don’t understand it! > > Yes, I know what NICE is. It’s the agency that decides what drugs you can have. And even when they are generous enough to give you access to a drug, it doesn’t mean the NHS trusts will pay for them. …what holy book would that be? And you are wrong about NICE. But that isn’t a surprise. When a position, like yours, isn’t evidence based, it isn’t a surprise that you don’t know all the facts. Check out their website > **[What we do](https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do)** > > The role and responsibilities of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence > **[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence)** > > The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is an executive non-departmental public body of the Department of Health and Social Care. > As the national health technology assessment body of England, it is responsible for judging the cost-effectiveness of medicines and making them available on the NHS through reimbursement, with its judgements informing decisions in Wales and Northern Ireland. It also provides a range of clinical guidance to the NHS in England and Wales, which a... > [@](#): > > NICE publishes guidelines in three areas. The use of health technologies within the NHS (such as the use of new and existing medicines, treatments and procedures), clinical practice (guidance on the appropriate treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions), and guidance for public sector workers on Health promotion and ill-health avoidance.[4] These appraisals are based primarily on evaluations of efficacy and cost-effectiveness in various circumstances. NICE has a much bigger role than “just deciding what drugs you can have.” So why don’t you do some study, find out what NICE does and how the Trusts work, and then you can come back to the thread and actually participate in the discussion rather than toss wild unsubstantiated claims. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/168 "2012-08-22T13:33:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The holy book is never wrong! You just don’t understand it! What on earth was this in response to? Nobody in this thread is arguing that the NHS in particular or UHC in general is some sort of god given perfection. It is a huge and imperfect system set up an run by human beings, the argument is whether it is better than certain alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/169 "2012-08-22T13:43:42Z")
That’s fine. But don’t portray it as something fundamentally different from private insurance companies. People are still denied access to treatment. And the idea that UHC does mean that no one is ever denied treatment is taken as an article of faith by many. Which is why I poke fun at it. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/170 "2012-08-22T13:50:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s fine. But don’t portray it as something fundamentally different from private insurance companies. People are still denied access to treatment. > > And the idea that UHC does mean that no one is ever denied treatment is taken as an article of faith by many. Which is why I poke fun at it. What you don’t seem to grasp is that the NHS provides more treatment, with better results, and far less rationing than the US system. At half the cost. Rationing is far more severe under the US system, and you are much, much more likly to be denied treatment. Treatment gets denied in the UK when it is medically inadvisable. In the US it gets denied when it is financially advisable. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/171 "2012-08-22T13:54:17Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I wonder if Nava vanity searches her name. She’s lived in several different countries and could give you some points of comparison. Maybe I should PM her. But then, she may have had her fill of this argument in the big giant health insurance threads of 2010. I don’t, but I’ve been reading the last couple of pages as the thread happens to have jumped back to the top and was thinking that **adaher** should get a stamp: “I agree, but\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” It seems to be the structure of pretty much every post of his, at least in this thread. He gets points for occasionally varying the actual phrasing. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/172 "2012-08-22T13:54:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s fine. But don’t portray it as something fundamentally different from private insurance companies. People are still denied access to treatment. …who are you talking to? And NICE is fundamentally different from private insurance companies. Lets take Citizen’s Councils for an example. How many insurance companies[do this?](http://www.nice.org.uk/mediacentre/factsheets/citizenscouncil.jsp) > [@](#): > > And the idea that UHC does mean that no one is ever denied treatment is taken as an article of faith by many. Which is why I poke fun at it. No its not. And if you want to be taken seriously in a debate you should “stop poking fun at things” because your already weak arguments look decidedly weaker when you do this. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/173 "2012-08-22T13:58:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s fine. But don’t portray it as something fundamentally different from private insurance companies. People are still denied access to treatment. > > And the idea that UHC does mean that no one is ever denied treatment is taken as an article of faith by many. Which is why I poke fun at it. No - people are not ‘denied access to treatment’. As your own cite shows (pro-tip - read your own cites). People may not get a specific treatment, particularly if it is high cost, low effectiveness. They get other treatments. They do not get turned away. Rationing is unfortunate. Rationing based on local priorities by an organisation whose business it is to deliver the best health care within its financial constraints is one thing. Hard decisions on how to spend a budget will always have to be made. But the budget gets spent and not converted into private gain. By hook or by crook rationing based on management bonus and shareholder dividends is not acceptable. And that’s just for those who have insurance. And health care that isn’t free at the point of delivery to all who need it is barbaric and unchristian. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/174 "2012-08-22T14:06:42Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > What you don’t seem to grasp is that the NHS provides more treatment, with better results, and far less rationing than the US system. At half the cost. Rationing is far more severe under the US system, and you are much, much more likly to be denied treatment. > > Treatment gets denied in the UK when it is medically inadvisable. In the US it gets denied when it is financially advisable. THat is wrong, on all counts. Britain is last in cancer survivability, way behind the US. The only way Britain’s system looks better is on stats that are affected by other factors more than the quality of health care. And Britain does deny treatment based on financial considerations. It’s not profit, but it doesn’t really make a difference to the patient. Ask breast cancer patients who fought long and hard to get Herceptin approved. That was denied primarily based on cost. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/175 "2012-08-22T14:08:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And the idea that UHC does mean that no one is ever denied treatment is taken as an article of faith by many. Which is why I poke fun at it. That is a textbook example of a straw-man. You have fun dancing around it. In UHC people have access to treatment regardless of ability to pay. UHC is not a magic money tree. Choices on how to spend public money always have to be made. Spend it on Health Item X, Y or Z. As opposed to: Spend it on health or convert it to private profit. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/176 "2012-08-22T14:11:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The holy book is never wrong! You just don’t understand it! [This](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KgmwK_Hb2rY/T8fNJWF9uHI/AAAAAAAAAVo/uVPRn_c7bys/s1600/atlas-shrugged.jpg)holy book? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/177 "2012-08-22T14:14:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Ask breast cancer patients who fought long and hard to get Herceptin approved. That was denied primarily based on cost. Yea. Let’s ask [little Kyler](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=228_1269633831) here shall we? > [@](#): > > Ten weeks ago, routine follow-up tests indicated that Kyler’s cancer had returned. This time, his treatment options are few, since recurrent neuroblastoma brings with it an entirely different set of medical considerations than the ones associated with an initial diagnosis. > > Kyler’s CHOP oncologist, Stephan Grupp, says that Kyler needs a treatment called MIBG therapy, in which a radioactive drug, delivered intravenously, travels to tumor sites, slamming them with radiation. > > Depending on how Kyler responds, he may need up to three rounds of MIBG to knock his cancer back into remission. > > MIBG is “less toxic than chemotherapy, and is usually tolerated well by patients,” says Grupp, a world expert in neuroblastoma, thanks to CHOP’s status as a national referral center for kids with the rare disease. MIBG therapy is the only effective treatment available to Kyler at this stage of his illness. Without it, he won’t live to see his sixth birthday. > > Unbelievably, Kyler’s insurance carrier, Harrisburg-based HealthAmerica, has denied coverage for the treatment, which it considers “investigational/experimental” because there is “inadequate evidence in the peer-reviewed published clinical literature regarding its effectiveness.” > > The therapy is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, another criterion that HealthAmerica requires. > > “It’s considered experimental because not enough kids with recurring neuroblastoma live long enough” to become candidates for MIBG, says Paul VanNocker, 44, a heavy-industrial-equipment salesman (Maria, 37, is a homemaker). “So, really, all treatment at this stage of Kyler’s disease is considered experimental.” > > “It’s considered the standard of care in Europe and the United States for recurrent neuroblastoma,” says Grupp. “It’s not an unproven treatment with no basis in medical science. Actually, the results are often very good.” ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/178 "2012-08-22T14:21:15Z")
And let’s look at [Insurance companies in action](http://www.allenandallen.com/insurance_companies_deny.html). [Claims Denied.](http://www.allenandallen.com/assets/files/AAJReport09News.pdf) Here is a snapshot of the report in the Executive Summary: > [@](#): > > "The U.S. insurance industry has trillions of dollars in assets, enjoys average profits of over $30 billion a year, and pays its CEOs more than any other industry. But insurance companies still engage in dirty tricks and unethical behavior to boost their bottom line even further. > > The current economic turmoil affecting the insurance industry on Wall Street has only made the outlook bleaker for consumers living on Main Street. Insurance companies are likely to demand huge rate hikes and refuse more claims than ever. Some of America’s most well-known insurance companies-the same ones that spend billions on advertising to earn your trust-have endeavored to deny claims, delay payments, confuse consumers with incomprehensible insurance-speak, and retroactively refuse anyone who may cost them money. > > This report describes some of the most egregious ways the insurance industry attempts to make money at the expense of consumers. These are some of the tricks of the trade: > Denying Claims > > Some of the nation’s biggest insurance companies- Allstate, AIG, and State Farm among others-have denied valid claims in an attempt to boost their bottom lines. These companies have rewarded employees who successfully denied claims, replaced employees who would not, and when all else failed, engaged in outright fraud to avoid paying claims. > Delaying Until Death > > Many insurance companies routinely delay claims, knowing full well that many policyholders will simply give up. Some have gone so far as to lock paperwork away in safes. Undoubtedly, the most shameful use of delay tactics has been by long-term care insurers, who often take advantage of their policyholders’ age and ill health. In the words of one regulator, “the bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims…They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.” You really want to play the ‘let’s dig up rival horror stories’ game? Because if you do: I Win. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/179 "2012-08-22T14:24:59Z")
I never tried to make the case that US health care is better. I was actually trying to point out that the multipayer systems of continental Europe are superior to the NHS model. Good luck trying to deny that continental Europe has better health care than Britain. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644/180 "2012-08-22T14:30:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I never tried to make the case that US health care is better. I was actually trying to point out that the multipayer systems of continental Europe are superior to the NHS model. > > Good luck trying to deny that continental Europe has better health care than Britain. …well you didn’t manage to prove that either in any of your posts in this thread. But I asked you before: why are you singling out the NHS? The thread is about socialized medicine and single payer systems. Why is the NHS of importance to you, and why do you need to prove that it is better or worse than other socialized systems? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/socialized-medicine-and-single-payer-systems/630644.md?page=10)