Forum menu
flashheart, please explain the difference between
free for all, and freely available to all?
I appreciate it isnt free, ie a % of taxation pays for it....
Brilliant
It's not about profit, it just actually is
Tesco have low profit margins per unit sale, so they're not there for the profit, they're actually Britain's biggest charity shopI would have read the rest of your post, but there's just so much stupidity I can take in one go
I f*cking love winding you strokers up.
A typical health insurance plan will be written with 5% profit
I'd be looking at the state of American education rather than healthcare; the stupids seem to be in the ascendant.
I think that is really rather unfair. Yes American society (specially it's media) leaves many of it's citizen ill-informed and ignorant, but the evidence suggests that the 'stupids are not in the ascendant'.
After 8 years of having a half-wit idiot of a president, the American people threw out the Republican Party and it's crazy right-wing Christian fundamentalist policies from the presidency, choosing instead to elect a mixed race president who is somewhere to the left of New Labour.
We on the other hand during the same period of time, have freely elected to power, a party whose sycophantic leader has freely and repeatedly acted like the half-wit idiot's lapdog. And we now poised in a few months time, to elect a government even more right-wing than the present one.
Furthermore, whilst the American people appear to be making impressive and historic inroads into overcoming prejudice and bigotry, we are witnessing the first ever significant electorate breakthrough for neo-nazi racists in Britain.
I don't reckon we've got anything to be smug about.
and if the people trying to promote a left wing alternative weren't such dull, tedious fekwits, maybe the BNP wouldn't be making inroads into mainstream politics
..and,as for America
tommorrow, I go for an interview with the US Embassy Consular section in belfast to explain some of my youthful indiscretions. The rules are no electronics in the building, no mp3 players, pdas, mobile phones, etc. Today, they sent me an email reminding me that anyone carrying an mp3 player, pda, laptop, mobile phone or other fancy electronica would not be allowed into the building and would be be denied their visa interview. AND, large baggege such as suitcases, rucksacks, or backpacks would also be denied access. Helpfully, they suggest that any such large items of baggage can be left at a "local transport depot", which I assume means bus or railway station. Which makes sense because there's a plethora of places in [b]BELFAST[/b] where you can leave luggage. I mean, it's not like there's any recent history of fekkin terrorism there is there?
Still, going [url= http://www.crownbar.com/about_crown.html ] here[/url] for tea tomorrow night
Finbar, sorry to hear about your story- for what it's worth my grandma received similiarly terrible care from a BUPA hospital. It's not simply an NHS problem.
As for the NHS- I owe them my leg, I owe them the fact that I can run for a bus or ride a bike. And my diabetes care has been beyond reproach. It's not perfect but it does some pretty amazing things, as well as occasionally some very bad things. There's not a lot of things I'd genuinely fight for, this is one.
from the bbc
[i]an editorial at the Investors Business Daily (IBD) launched an attack on the British National Health Service (NHS), as a warning against what could happen if the US adopted such a model.
The article's author went on to assert that "people such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Prof Hawking was born in the UK, and has lived and worked there for his entire life.
And UK newspapers the Guardian and Daily Telegraph reported Prof Hawking as saying that he "wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS". [/i]
absolutely ****in brilliant
> elect a government even more right-wing than the present one.
Really, is that possible 😉 ?
people such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK
Presumably kimbers, it didn't even occur to the Investors Business Daily that the world's most famous theoretical physicist might not be American.
Despite my comment a few posts up there ^^^ that [i]"American society (specially it's media) leaves many of it's citizen ill-informed and ignorant"[/i] I am quite frankly shocked that a publication who's readers presumably rely on for reliable and factual information, should be so ill-informed and clueless.
I wouldn't be best pleased if I was an American investor who had just taken out an annual subscription with the Investors Business Daily.
.
allthepies - it is ........ but only just 😐
apparently the editorial has been doing the right wing blog rounds
to be fair his computerized voice has an american accent
and an iq below 50 and right wing american goes together like peanut butter and jelly
to be fair his computerized voice has an american accent
What, don't they realise that it's not his real voice then ? 😕
Anyways......I don't reckon his accent sounds american - listen to the answer phone message he left me [url= http://lorry.org/Chatup/cline016.wav ]here.[/url]
I saw a response on one site "The NHS only made an exception in Hawking's case because he's famous. They wouldn't do it for anyone else". Complete cobblers but people are actually buying it. I may never tell the truth again, lying just works better 🙁
I'll refer you back to my earlier post: it would be hard to recieve worse healthcare than that
You could receive equally bad healthcare and have to remortgage your house to pay for it... Would that be better?
How can you have a right to something when you contribute absolutely nothing?
Those who disagree - are you saying that if 25,000 people from sub saharan Africa turned up next month and then again for the following 6 months just to be treated at our (uk taxpayers) expense you would not feel a just a little bit uneasy about it?
Human rights is very much 'from the eye of the beholder type argument' I guarentee that most of you on this forum would choose for people to die in Africa rather than people in this country if you were forced out of your comfortable safe lives and it was a you or them scenario. I know I would - it's simple human instinct you look after your own first the rest is a luxury. In fact we all probably do - how many times do the chuggers in the streets tell you that £10 a month would feed a family in Africa? You wouldn't donate that if it meant taking food out of your families mouths and most of you probably don't regularly donate to any charities that work out side of the UK anyway - I don't. My money goes to UK charities first. Admit you are all as selfish as me despite all the supiority attitudes on here mocking the Americans.
Anyway;
I'm surprised no one on the STW massive has commented on one obvious point behind all this. In the UK the NHS is the single biggest expense to the government. In the US the military is. This profits mostly US companies twice over - those that supply the military and then the medical/insurance companies. If the US government put in an extact replica of the NHS both military and medical insurance companies profits would fall and both are massive in the states. Another point that won't be lost on many a US citizen is that the inception of the NHS occured just as Britain stopped being the worlds dominant power...
A typical health insurance plan will be written with 5% profit
And in the USA, typically significantly more of it is taken by the massive legal / administrative burden if you break it down (something like 25-40% or something ridiculous).
Joe
Another point that won't be lost on many a US citizen is that the inception of the NHS occured just as Britain stopped being the worlds dominant power...
OK, thats an interesting point of view. I think that the UK was not the worlds dominant power in 1946, and had not been for some decades. I also think that the financial state of the UK in 1946 might have had more to do with 6 years of world war 2 than the inception of the NHS. Am I wrong?
are you saying that if 25,000 people from sub saharan Africa turned up next month and then again for the following 6 months just to be treated at our (uk taxpayers) expense
What an utterly ridiculous, absurd, and completely preposterous comment........ well done ! Surely worthy of some sort of award ?
The issue being discussed here, is whether the United States should provide universal healthcare for all it's citizens.
The right to medical care is an internationally recognised human right. Indeed the United States is a signatory the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which in Article 25, as I have already mentioned, clearly states that each country has an obligation to provide medical aid to [i]all[/i] it's citizens.
The United States has an obligation to comply to international treaties to which they have freely signed. The obligation to provide medical care to all it's citizens is now over 60 years overdue.
Having now actually watched what Hannan said, rather than read the Pravda style reports on the BBC, Whilst the bloke interviewing him was clearly the TV equivalent of a right wing shock jock, I personally couldn't disagree with any of the points that Hannan himself made:
Basically, that the waiting lists and survival rates of the NHS show that its far from the perfect model of a social healthcare system!
Having also read "the plan" its clear that he does not think that the american model is one to emulate either, and that he thinks that universal provision free at the point of delivery is vital - however the current NHS model is failing for many, and could be improved - I think Cameron would have been better saying "we'd like to improve on what we've already got"
BigEaredBiker wrote, "Another point that won't be lost on many a US citizen is that the inception of the NHS occured just as Britain stopped being the worlds dominant power... "
This really is complete toss.
BigEaredBiker wrote, "Another point that won't be lost on many a US citizen is that the inception of the NHS occured just as Britain stopped being the worlds dominant power... "This really is complete toss.
Is it really? All Americans know their country is the worlds current superpower and many believe that GB fullfilled that role before them. India became independent shortly after the NHS was established and within 10 years Britain could no longer act unilaterally on the world stage. Mark my words the same sort of nutters that said Stephen Hawking would be dead if treated by the NHS would say that a country that provides free universal healthcare can no longer afford to also be a 1st rate military power.
If they wish to use this warped logic the stats are there to help them this year the government will spend approx £110 billion on healthcare and £42 billion on defence. Add the other £50 odd billion spent on welfare and this country spends almost 4 times on 'socialist' areas than things that can be put to good use invading other countries and scaring ascending powers.
The argument raging in America isn't really about what may or may not be true but about what people percieve it to be.
Mark my words the same sort of nutters that said Stephen Hawking would be dead if treated by the NHS would say that a country that provides free universal healthcare can no longer afford to also be a 1st rate military power.If they wish to use this warped logic the stats are there to help them
Ah right .......... you were only playing the Devil's advocate then.
Because of course you on the other hand, realise the suggestion that the creation of the National Health Service brought about the collapse of the British Empire, is complete toss.
😉
I have never had anyone agree with me so forcefully before 
When I've worked in the states and have got to know guys over there, this conversation always pops up at some point. The general American has a stereotype that Brits recieve very poor healthcare and will often use our teeth as a good example (my teeth are less than excellent so it gives them a good starting point). What the vast majority appear to be unaware of is that I can have a medical problem and effectively recieve free treatment for that problem for the rest of my life, that bit is a real eye opener for them.
Once the NHS system is described to them, they almost always nod and accept that it's a great idea.
I for one having being treated many times by the NHS, and having watched my father be treated for a long time for terminal cancer have absolutely nothing but praise for the system as a whole. Yep, there's a few crap areas in there, but the people on the front line are as a rule, freaking excellent.
government will spend approx £110 billion on healthcare
As is necessary, obviously.
£42 billion on defence
Mostly wasted, better spent on the NHS.
this country spends almost 4 times on 'socialist' areas than things that can be put to [b]good use[/b] invading other countries and scaring ascending powers.
You are a very good troll, I'll give you that.
Once the NHS system is described to them, they almost always nod and accept that it's a great idea.
Well it's a shame in that case that what Barack Obama is offering the American people, isn't a National Health Service.
As I understand, the medical provisions which Barack Obama would like to see implemented, are much more similar to the Canadian example. Which I believe is (70%) publicly funded, and privately provided.
BTW Canada, like the US, spends a higher percentage of it's GDP on healthcare than Britain.
Basically, that the waiting lists and survival rates of the NHS show that its far from the perfect model of a social healthcare system!
No - they show it's far from the perfect [b]execution[/b] of a healthcare system.
As for the defence arguments - it seems to me that a scarily large number of American men think that intimidation the proper, moral, normal and decent way to conduct negotiations. Most of the arguments against Obama during the election were saying that he wouldn't be strong enough militarily. That view seems to be carried through to day to day life for a lot of people. So that could explain why bossing people around gets so much money allocated to it and helping ill people gets less, maybe?
"The main issues with the NHS IMO ? IME are:
Demoralised overworked shop floor workforce.
Inadequate and poor quality management ( we need more and better skilled and trained managers)
Political interference"
I couldn't agree more. I moved from private sector to NHS just over 1 year ago to a management position (non clinical). The things that have surprised me the sheer number of middle managers which leaves an upside down type organisational structure, and all these managers do not appear to know what they are supposed to achieve as the government has so many targets and goals, instead of one or two clear goals for the whole organisation to achieve. Added to this people just appear to work in isolation, championing their own area, I find it unbeleivable how little teams communicate with each other. However having said that there are some very good managers, but they continually prop up the bad ones, work very long hours and get very little thanks o reward for it.
As to the shop floor, all I can say is that Doctors are getting more and more shafted, expected to do more in less time, and without adequate training.
finbar - I'm sorry to hear about your experience of the NHS. You should seriously consider making a formal complaint. Trust and government need to realise that they can not keep pushing front line staff so hard as it does affect patient care.
As to those who say why should I pay for healthcare twice ie NI and BUPA. Fine, just try using BUPA and not NHS Healthcare. BUPA is great for getting you quick access to fairly minor treatments, but if you become seriously ill BUPA will just pass you back to the NHS, or if during an op at a private hospital some thing goes wrong they will just dial 999 and get an ambulance to take you to an NHS hospital.
Is the NHS the best system? No probably not, its such a large organisation and has grown over so many years that some elements of it are not as good as they could be, but is it below standard? Certainly not, IMO it is one of the best 'free' healthcare systems in the world.
I started Dialysis in May this year. It costs at least £20 a day every day. My equipment gets delivered by the most efficient delivery service I have come across, they will put it wherever I want in my house (roughly 1 tonne of kit) every month. I have 24 hour support from my Dialysis unit should anything go wrong and I have has hundreds of hospital appointment and blood tests over the years. Even holiday insurance for 2 weeks costs nearly £300 so the thought of Private Health insurance should I get accepted doesn't bear thinking about.
I have also had private treatment (through work) for a prolapsed disc in my spine which was excellent and speedy.
Sure, the NHS is not perfect but the alternative does not bear thinking about for me.
BigEaredBiker wrote, India became independent shortly after the NHS was established
I think you'll find Indian independence pre dated the NHS by about a year
I also think that the financial state of the UK in 1946 might have had more to do with 6 years of world war 2 than the inception of the NHS. Am I wrong?
Not entirely, but quite a substantial part of our financial demise has been to do with paying the Yanks back for Lend/Lease for the next 60 years after WW2. So not only did we manage to fund the biggest war in the history of mankind, we also managed to put in place a state health service the like of which had never been seen before, and rarely is even to this day.
Let Darwinism take its course. they'll die out soon enough.
Not entirely, but quite a substantial part of our financial demise has been to do with paying the Yanks back for Lend/Lease for the next 60 years after WW2.
Sorry, I don't understand. I agree with what you say about lend lease, but the effect of that was felt mostly after 1946, no? I think what you say in the second sentence was what I was saying, but with less irony?
Just pointing out that if the Yanks feel so patronising to us, they might like to consider the implications of making money out of the war, yet we're the people that don't have to pay for health care at the point of delivery.
I am an American and I am not really smart, or really in tune even. I am 39, married with 4 kids, a part of the middle class taxpayer roles, never missed a vote, and never ever would not take one of my kids to a doctor because I didn't have the money.
I think any parent would sell what they have or do whatever they have for their kids.
I supported this bill but because in the US its the middle class taxpayer that gets the shaft regularly. Its very easy for any country to say they have the answer to an average person's needs, but no country really does. However, what happened in the US was a massive embarrassment and I am so very sorry that your system was debated and trashed by people who have absolutely no clue what your system even is.
The healthcare bill would have given the middle class taxpayers a hand that is sorely needed. Healthcare is not a gamble, but here it is if you are not in the poverty level, or among the wealthy. It is okay and affordable as long as you don't come down with a longterm disease of any kind.
I am just going back to college at 39, and have been a housewife for the last decade. I am not religous, and I am an undeclared voter. So you can take me apart, lord knows you should. But I knew the minute this bill came down that the insurance companies would go all out to attack everything and everyone that could threaten their profits. Why they chose you I do not know. I know that those who were scared to death of this bill were also the same people who needed it.
And I know why those taxpayers were afraid of it. Its impossible to get people to understand until they have been there. The middle class taxpayer in the US makes up the largest percentage of the Federal revenue. These are people that make enough to meet their mortgage payments, the same people who go off to fight wars and die unnoticed, who raise kids in failing school systems that their taxes go to fund, who pay out to a retirement plan that they privately fund while at the same time losing a large portion of their income (nearly equal to their federal tax withholding) to social security for RETIREMENT that most of us will never see, and those that do see it do not get enough to live on literally, and then the Fed comes down and claims that once again these people should TRUST them.
It doesn't happen because the Fed can not be trusted. They can be democrat or republican, it doesn't matter, the fact is they don't care enough about their primary tax base to be trusted, and the middle class taxpayer here knows that. The Fed (Congress and President) take money out of the social security for retireds account everytime they need money. Social Security for "disability" is so overrun with fraud and abuse that we are losing money to it, and it alone costs the taxpayers close to 3 trillion a year.
On top of that our insurance companies spent a large amount of money on their campaign. They fed the feelings of resentment and fear because they knew just what to say to do it.
In the past it has been Canada's system that was trashed, and the Canadians hate us for it too. But I beg you to take into account that many of those "in the know" even senators couldn't differentiate the UK from say England's system. They couldn't tell you how your system works. They couldn't tell you what the UK is. They couldn't tell you what Great Britain is. They couldn't tell you WHERE England is.
They couldn't tell you or us what a doctor in your country has to do to be a doctor, and they could never tell us or you what a doctor in your country makes.
They know nothing about your system. Nothing at all. No more than they can honestly say they know how the US system works for the very people who are paying for it.
My husband is a cardiac cath/ep tech in the US. No healthcare worker or doctor was against this bill. They didn't even debate it. The only people who were against it were in the health insurance end of the industry.
Thanks for your post, mafitz. An interesting read.
I think reading through this thread has actually changed my mind. In principle I think the NHS is a great idea, in practice I've had some pretty bad experiences with it, and the waste and large number of people in it doing non-jobs (and I'm not just talking about the managers either, there are loads of 'nursing staff' doing very little as well) makes me very angry at times. I can also understand the tax payers in America being very worried, in reality they are likely to end up paying twice, for private and state health care which is really what's happening in the UK too.
However the bit that's made me change my mind is the fact that despite massive, cost private health care does not cover you for everything. There are many exclusions and payout have ceilings.
I think what we need to do in the UK is hang onto the health service but start to accept realities too:
1. Health rationing exists, lets be honest about it and ensure that it's rationned properly based on clinical need rather than luck.
2. Maybe certain things shouldn't be free for everyone, already happens with prescriptions and to some extent dentistry. Let's be honest about it, why should someone on a low income miss out on a dentist when someone who can afford to go private takes up and NHS place (I pay to private by the way).
3. Staff - lets tackle one of the big taboos of the NHS. There are some excellent people working at all levels in the NHS, there are also large numbers of jobsworth, work shy muppets wasting billions. Look at the recent press stories about sick levels in the NHS vs the private sector, and no the NHS is not a special case. Point in fact the NHS has been critised for the health of many of it's employees.
4. Unions and work practices, there are still many things that need sorting, not funding but basic operating procedures. IT systems that don't work because the staff (unintentionally) sabotage them clinging to old working practices. I've got personal examples of this.
As I said at the beginning of these ramblings having thought about it, I'm actually rather more pro than anti NHS and am glad I live in a country where it exists. But these knee defences of the NHS by our politicians don't help either. Trouble is sorting out the ingrained working practices, waste and self interest the NHS is plagued with is going to take much bigger balls than any of our current politicians have. In fact they are a large part of the problem, always promising us more, refusing to admit rationning etc. exists, not allowing people to top up medicene costs for the more expensive medicenes that NICE have correctly deemed not value for money all to preserve the myth of universal health care at the point of use, never has existed and never will.
Thanks for your post, mafitz. An interesting read.
Ditto
I was particularly surprised with this : [i]"No healthcare worker or doctor was against this bill."[/i] Because although I was aware that the medical profession in Latin America has a long history of pretty radical politics (apart from the obvious ones such as Che Guevara and Salvador Allende, I have personally known several Argentine doctors who were very radical, including ones who came to the UK as political refugees during the time of the last junta) I had always assumed that the medical profession in the US was probably very conservative.
Certainly it is fairly conservative in the UK - and was even more so in the past. The British Medical association was very much opposed to the creation of the NHS, fearing that it would reduce the role of doctors to nothing more than that of 'civil servants'. As a consequence the government was forced to grant them a fair amount of concessions. They did embrace the NHS eventually, and now the BMA is a very strong supporter.
So having a 'radical tendency' within the medical profession, is fairly widespread throughout the Americas ...... cool 8)