How good is the NHS?

[JohnSmith]

I am curious to know how satisfied the Brits out with the NHS. I hear it is underfunded but I an interested in knowing! I know Stephen Hawkings says good things about it.!:)

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I noticed they work the phrase "everyone was lovely" into any story that mentions it, but the ending is always something like "died of cancer".

[YeshAtid]

It counters classic liberal entirely but it's founded on good intentions nonetheless. Its funding structure needs to be significantly reformed- people who contributed nothing in the way of taxes are entitled to treatment :picard2:

[JohnSmith]

I noticed they work the phrase "everyone was lovely" into any story that mentions it, but the ending is always something like "died of cancer".

I do know Britain does have quite a high mortality rate when it comes to cancer. It could have to do with wait times I guess.

[Fortis in Arduis]

We pay tax, they provide, and it is reasonably good. I am not very well-informed, but I would say that the main problem is when it becomes an International Health Service. There was a case of a rich Nigerian flying to the UK just to have her baby delivered for free.

Other members might have more to say about it. There are waiting lists for some operations and treatments, and cuts have affected some services, but my experience has been that if I dislike the service in one place, I can just go elsewhere. I can find another GP if I do not like my current GP, for example.

[DeaththeKid]

Lets just say try not to get injured or ill on a Sunday :)

[Fortis in Arduis]

A British mother has been left to bring up her daughter alone after her American husband was kicked out of the country - because he had cancer.
Lorraine Marx, 56, of Chidham, West Sussex, nursed her partner, chemical engineer Ralph Marx, also 56, when he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.
But the former Royal Navy chief petty officer watched helplessly as he was escorted onto a plane, and deported against medical advice. He was a burden on the taxpayer, the Home Office decided.
Mr Marx chose not to apply for residency status when he married Mrs Marx in 2001 - meaning he was only allowed to stay in Britain for up to six months at a time before leaving and coming back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578149/Mother-forced-bring-daughter-US-husband-asked-leave-UK-cancer.html

A sad story, but, at least he got some free treatment. Not a perfect system.

[Catkin]

I like the NHS. I can't imagine not being able to get healthcare just because I couldn't afford it. Years ago I had to have an operation on my shoulder. It wasn't urgent, so I was on the waiting list for maybe a year until the NHS (I guess to meet their targets) sent me to a private hospital to have the op. The NHS also employs half my family.

[Caismeachd]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578149/Mother-forced-bring-daughter-US-husband-asked-leave-UK-cancer.html

A sad story, but, at least he got some free treatment. Not a perfect system.

As sad as it is, it's good that they scrutinise that way. America will be ever worse for him to try and get treatment however. But maybe this story will help him find someone to donate.

BTW. I was at Job Centre the other day and a woman was denied JSA as a foreigner and also told she needs to learn to speak English. The system here is pretty nice. Protection for British citizens is important and is taken seriously.

[Fortis in Arduis]

As sad as it is, it's good that they scrutinise that way. America will be ever worse for him to try and get treatment however. But maybe this story will help him find someone to donate.

BTW. I was at Job Centre the other day and a woman was denied JSA as a foreigner and also told she needs to learn to speak English. The system here is pretty nice. Protection for British citizens is important and is taken seriously.

As as side-note. Who actually finds a job at JobCentral?

[Caismeachd]

As as side-note. Who actually finds a job at JobCentral?

That's true. The selection they have isn't very good but it's better to go through the system here.

[Longbowman]

I am curious to know how satisfied the Brits out with the NHS. I hear it is underfunded but I an interested in knowing! I know Stephen Hawkings says good things about it.!:)

Very. The NHS has saved my life, the life of my mother, and the life of my cousin, all for less than half the price (when you include tax) of American average health insurance.

I love the NHS. Any errors you hear about are one-off human errors; not unlike those you'd get elsewhere.

Bear in mind our life expectancy is better than yours ;)

Good question though!

[Longbowman]

It counters classic liberal entirely but it's founded on good intentions nonetheless. Its funding structure needs to be significantly reformed- people who contributed nothing in the way of taxes are entitled to treatment :picard2:

I contributed nothing until I left school. Certainly, when I actually needed treatment (when I was 7) I had contributed nothing. Life is a right, not a privilege. The system here is still about 40% as expensive as it is in America.

[JohnSmith]

Very. The NHS has saved my life, the life of my mother, and the life of my cousin, all for less than half the price (when you include tax) of American average health insurance.

I love the NHS. Any errors you hear about are one-off human errors; not unlike those you'd get elsewhere.

Bear in mind our life expectancy is better than yours ;)

Good question though!

All this may be true but the UK's cancer survival rates are actually quite bad. The USA is much better at treating cancer. I read the NHS policy and if it is true what it said about it can take almost 18 weeks to see a doctor that would explain why cancer survival rates are so bad. Some cancers can kill you in 18 weeks. But if you are an average middle class or working class, the NHS probably provides better care that if you lived in the USA.

Here is a quote from their policy:

What are maximum waiting times?

"You have the legal right to start your NHS consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral, unless you choose to wait longer or it is clinically appropriate that you wait longer."

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtimes/Pages/Guide%20to%20waiting%20times.aspx
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-24938886

[JohnSmith]

Here is some additional stats.

http://www.pop.org/content/cancer-survival-rates-far-worse-great-britain-us

[Longbowman]

All this may be true but the UK's cancer survival rates are actually quite bad. The USA is much better at treating cancer. I read the NHS policy and if it is true what it said about it can take almost 18 weeks to see a doctor that would explain to cancer survival rate being so bad. Some cancers can kill you in 18 weeks. But if you are an average middle class or working class, the NHS probably provides better care that if you lived in the USA.

Here is a quote from their policy:

What are maximum waiting times?

"You have the legal right to start your NHS consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral, unless you choose to wait longer or it is clinically appropriate that you wait longer."

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtimes/Pages/Guide%20to%20waiting%20times.aspx
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-24938886

If you're rich, we do have private practises too, you know. BUPA being a famous one. I have insurance there (my dad's job gives it away for some reason). If you want plastic surgery, you have to get it done privately. The NHS (normally) won't fund that sort of thing.

Within 18 weeks. Normally it's the day they find it. I've had 3 relatives suffer cancer in the past 2 years.

Our health system is by any measurable comparison better and cheaper than yours.

[Graham]

It's good but understaffed. If it's not an emergency, could take about 2 weeks to see a Doctor. When I had an Asthma attack, was in Hospital for 4 days. Put me on the mend. :P But they are short staffed.

Edit: 18 weeks haha. You can't even book a doctor 1 month in advance. If it's an emergency you'll be seen that day. Come on DD.

[JohnSmith]

If you're rich, we do have private practises too, you know. BUPA being a famous one. I have insurance there (my dad's job gives it away for some reason). If you want plastic surgery, you have to get it done privately. The NHS (normally) won't fund that sort of thing.

Within 18 weeks. Normally it's the day they find it. I've had 3 relatives suffer cancer in the past 2 years.

Our health system is by any measurable comparison better and cheaper than yours.

It may be better in many ways but it certainly is not better at treating cancer. At least according to the statistics.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

If you're rich, we do have private practises too, you know. BUPA being a famous one. I have insurance there (my dad's job gives it away for some reason). If you want plastic surgery, you have to get it done privately. The NHS (normally) won't fund that sort of thing.

Within 18 weeks. Normally it's the day they find it. I've had 3 relatives suffer cancer in the past 2 years.

Our health system is by any measurable comparison better and cheaper than yours.

Don't want to get into it again but this is bullshit. You guys basically get force fed propaganda about how bad american system is. Obama car is big step back, not forward.

[Longbowman]

It may be better in many ways but it certainly is not better at treating cancer. At least according to the statistics.

We'll work on that. Still, we'll outlive you, even with our dreadful cancer rates. And we'll do it without spending tens of thousand of pounds per year per head, and it will be available for poor people, too. Our system is better. Hands down.

[JohnSmith]

It's good but understaffed. If it's not an emergency, could take about 2 weeks to see a Doctor. When I had an Asthma attack, was in Hospital for 4 days. Put me on the mend. :P But they are short staffed.

Edit: 18 weeks haha. You can't even book a doctor 1 month in advance. If it's an emergency you'll be seen that day.


That may be all true but cancer usually starts as a non-emergency and requires many test to diagnose which is expensive and I could see how that would be an issue for a underfunded government system. I know first hand how underfunded government agencies are.

[Longbowman]

Don't want to get into it again but this is bullshit. You guys basically get force fed propaganda about how bad american system is. Obama car is big step back, not forward.

Dude, our life expectancy is longer than yours. End of. And NHS hospitals are great!

Your health services really don't get mentioned here, there's no propaganda.

Also, remember, I'm a US citizen. My dad grew up there. I know what it's like.

[Longbowman]

That may be all true but cancer usually starts as a non-emergency and requires many test to diagnose which is expensive and I could see how that would be an issue for a underfunded government system. I know first hand how underfunded government agencies are.

You're right, we need to divert a bit more money to the NHS! Still, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any other health service. Remember, you can still go private in the UK if you want to - there's no one stopping you!

[JohnSmith]

You're right, we need to divert a bit more money to the NHS! Still, whilst it's not perfect, it's better than any other health service. Remember, you can still go private in the UK if you want to - there's no one stopping you!

Sounds expensive.

[Longbowman]

Sounds expensive.

It is, like in America. However, for non-emergencies, it is faster and better. If you want a scan or anything, just because, you can pay the private guys to do it - the NHS won't, obviously, unless you need it.

[JohnSmith]

What is interesting is that France and Italy I believe are ranked # 1 and #2 in the world for Healthcare systems.

[Graham]

Many Brits die in the North, because they have an unhealthy lifestyle. Smoke too much, drink too much, eat wrong food, don't exercise. I'd blame the culture & not the hospitals.

[Catkin]

It may be better in many ways but it certainly is not better at treating cancer. At least according to the statistics.

But those cancer statistics don't take account of factors like how readily Brits and Americans go to the doctors to get something checked out. If Americans are more likely to go sooner then obviously they are more likely to get cured of something that gets worse the longer you leave it. This is just one factor- but it shows you can't just take cancer survival rates as an indication of quality of health care available.

[JohnSmith]

Many Brits die in the North, because they have an unhealthy lifestyle. Smoke too much, drink too much, eat wrong food, don't exercise. I'd blame the culture & not the hospitals.

Meat and Potatoes and Beer certainly not the best diet in the world. Rots your teeth. I must say I love meat and Potatoes and Beer myself for godsakes I am part British myself.

[Longbowman]

What is interesting is that France and Italy I believe are ranked # 1 and #2 in the world for Healthcare systems.

They both have National Health Services ;)

[JohnSmith]

But those cancer statistics don't take account of factors like how readily Brits and Americans go to the doctors to get something checked out. If Americans are more likely to go sooner then obviously they are more likely to get cured of something that gets worse the longer you leave it. This is just one factor- but it shows you can't just take cancer survival rates as an indication of quality of health care available.

I know that, I am just terrified of cancer since it can easily be terminal.

[JohnSmith]

They both have National Health Services ;)

They do but their diets are much healthier, which may contribute to their health.

[Longbowman]

They do but their diets are much healthier, which may contribute to their health.

That doesn't relate to the qualities of the healthcare providers, that relates to life expectancy and the like. Don't try to worm your way around it; the best healthcare providers are social healthcare providers.

[JohnSmith]

That doesn't relate to the qualities of the healthcare providers, that relates to life expectancy and the like. Don't try to worm your way around it; the best healthcare providers are social healthcare providers.


I agree. I think a hybrid system is best and France is a hybrid system. They have private and public insurance. Italy is like the UK's system single payer however Italy is going bankrupt and France is not far behind.

[Longbowman]

I agree. I think a hybrid system is best and France is a hybrid system. They have private and public insurance. Italy is like the UK's system single payer however Italy is going bankrupt and France is not far behind.

Nope. Like I said, the UK has private hospitals too. There's no country, to my knowledge, that doesn't have private hospitals - maybe North Korea.

[Graham]

The Uk has 'Bupa' that is private, my mum went their when she had skin cancer, through her work.

[Vermicious Knid]

Anyone who thinks the NHS is good is kidding themselves. You're lucky if you get seen within 6 hours at A&E, you have to wait up to and over a year for basic procedures, and the whole system is so inefficient it boggles the mind.

[Catkin]

Anyone who thinks the NHS is good is kidding themselves. You're lucky if you get seen within 6 hours at A&E, you have to wait up to and over a year for basic procedures, and the whole system is so inefficient it boggles the mind.

What would you suggest as a better alternative?

[Graham]

If you're in A&E you get seen that day. When I had my Asthma had to crawl downstairs, nearly worst night of my life. Was driven down and seen in like 20 minutes. When I had the panic attacks(didn't know what it was at time) was seen on the same day, within an hour of call.

[Vermicious Knid]

What would you suggest as a better alternative?

Huge reform of the NHS. The problem has been swept under the carpet for far too long.

It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because everyone in England sucks off the NHS and can't stop talking about how amazing it is 24/7 even though it's a pile of shit

NHS net expenditure increased from £57.049 billion in 2002/03 to £105.254bn in 2012/13. That's almost half of our deficit right there.

[Catkin]

Huge reform of the NHS. The problem has been swept under the carpet for far too long.

It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because everyone in England sucks off the NHS and can't stop talking about how amazing it is 24/7 even though it's a pile of shit

NHS net expenditure increased from £57.049 billion in 2002/03 to £105.254bn in 2012/13. That's almost half of our deficit right there.

So not getting rid of it as a system, just reforming and improving it. I can agree with that. But I don't think you can write it off as rubbish when people here are genuinely reporting that they have received good treatment and benefit from it. It's not perfect, but no system is, in any country.

[Graham]

With Private health. All we're doing is shifting debt from the state to the people. There's no limit to what people would pay on health. The cost of drugs would rise.

You know in my work, we buy x-ray film to extract silver. The NHS was on a potential silver mine, if they haven't sold it. :P

[Vermicious Knid]

So not getting rid of it as a system, just reforming and improving it. I can agree with that. But I don't think you can write it off as rubbish when people here are genuinely reporting that they have received good treatment and benefit from it. It's not perfect, but no system is, in any country.

Waiting over 6 hours in A&E (unless it's an immediate emergency) is not good treatment, and waiting over a year for a basic 5 minute operation (which I have personally experienced) is not good treatment

There's a difference between being "not perfect", and being laughably inefficient, it's comparable to the Navy where they spent £200 on a toilet seat and nobody even questions it

Every Brit on average pays almost £1500 a year towards the NHS, and that includes every person regardless of their age or employment status, so the average working person is paying somewhere around £5000 a year for a run down pile of shit, that is indefensible

[Catkin]

Waiting over 6 hours in A&E (unless it's an immediate emergency) is not good treatment, and waiting over a year for a basic 5 minute operation (which I have personally experienced) is not good treatment

There's a difference between being "not perfect", and being laughably inefficient, it's comparable to the Navy where they spent £200 on a toilet seat and nobody even questions it

Every Brit on average pays almost £1500 a year towards the NHS, and that includes every person regardless of their age or employment status, so the average working person is paying somewhere around £5000 a year for a run down pile of shit, that is indefensible

But these experiences are not necessarily typical and are not unique to the UK. There could certainly be improvement but it is a complete over-exaggeration to describe the whole NHS with all it's modern technology, advanced procedures and highly trained staff as 'a run down pile of shit'. I have no idea if those figures are correct. I certainly don't pay £5000 a year to it though.

[Vermicious Knid]

But these experiences are not necessarily typical and are not unique to the UK. There could certainly be improvement but it is a complete over-exaggeration to describe the whole NHS with all it's modern technology, advanced procedures and highly trained staff as 'a run down pile of shit'. I have no idea if those figures are correct. I certainly don't pay £5000 a year to it though.

http://www.nhsconfed.org/priorities/political-engagement/Pages/NHS-statistics.aspx

I was actually wrong it's just under £2000 per capita that's spent on the NHS which is even worse

No doubt we have much better healthcare than most countries, but we're in a shitload of debt and the NHS needs to be sorted out, I personally would rather just opt out of paying for it and go private to get better service for a fraction of the cost, but of course no politician would give people the choice to do that because this country's full of delusional kunts who suck off the NHS 24/7

[Longbowman]

Anyone who thinks the NHS is good is kidding themselves. You're lucky if you get seen within 6 hours at A&E, you have to wait up to and over a year for basic procedures, and the whole system is so inefficient it boggles the mind.

Well, you have a UKIP avatar, so I had thought I'd end up disregarding your political opinions.

Ultimately our longevity is testament to the success of our health system.

[Longbowman]

http://www.nhsconfed.org/priorities/political-engagement/Pages/NHS-statistics.aspx

I was actually wrong it's just under £2000 per capita that's spent on the NHS which is even worse

No doubt we have much better healthcare than most countries, but we're in a shitload of debt and the NHS needs to be sorted out, I personally would rather just opt out of paying for it and go private to get better service for a fraction of the cost, but of course no politician would give people the choice to do that because this country's full of delusional kunts who suck off the NHS 24/7

Why yes, full private is a fraction of the cost. Oh wait, no, it's over twice as expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP )_per_capita

No way, the US spends more on healthcare than any other country! Shocking. 17.7% of GDP per capita? What's ours? 9.4%? That is super weird. Because it suggests - and here you were saying the opposite, mind - that in fact social healthcare is cheaper than the full-capitalist version! Gosh.

What's even stranger is our unemployment rates are the same! So we're both paying - per head - for the same amount of 'scroungers' and all that and they STILL pay almost twice as much. Oh, and that's just as a percentage of their GDP. They make about 40% more money than we do, per head, so overall costs will be much higher.

But you go on and push your Daily Mail-inspired populist ignorance.

If we paid less than 9.4%, the unemployment rate would go up, because of course most of that money goes to paychecks (and thus we recover a lot of it via taxes) which fuel the economy. So your cockamamie idea would either kill a lot of poor people and cost the rich people a lot of money, or, 1 chance in 10,000, it would change very little but damage the economy and our tax revenue.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00410/127256860_Farage_410438b.jpg

[1stLightHorse]

What is the NHS? National healthcare?

[Longbowman]

What is the NHS? National healthcare?

National Health Service, yes.

[Aunt Hilda]

fairly good, there are better ones in Europe but it's certainly better than america.

[JohnSmith]

fairly good, there are better ones in Europe but it's certainly better than america.

Not for cancer treatment.

[Longbowman]

Not for cancer treatment.

But overall, yes, it is.

Stop defending your terrible health system!

[JohnSmith]

But overall, yes, it is.

Stop defending your terrible health system!

I am not defending it it is definitely terrible for the poor, but if you are rich it is great. Just stating the fact if you have breast cancer or lung cancer your survival rates in the uk are awful compared to the USA.

[Longbowman]

I am not defending it it is definitely terrible for the poor, but if you are rich it is great. Just stating the fact if you have breast cancer or lung cancer your survival rates in the uk are awful compared to the USA.

If you're rich you could go private here too, just saying.

[Aunt Hilda]

Not for cancer treatment.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-6-2014/third-world-health-care---knoxville--tennessee-edition

[JohnSmith]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-6-2014/third-world-health-care---knoxville--tennessee-edition

It certainly is not that good for the average citizen however if you are wealthy and can afford expensive healthcare treatment it would be great for you. I would make an argument that Israel might have some of the best hospitals in the world.

[Graham]

Migla you seen the new Hopsital in Glasgow being built? fucking massive. Biggest Hospital campus in Europe & one of the most advanced. All the beds will be single rooms in the adult hospital wards.

Was in Govan a month ago. Not sure on design. But It dominates the place!

http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/content/mediaassets/images/sghc_concept_aerial_overview_800.jpg
http://www.dunne-group.com/media/107325/New-Glasgow-South-Hospital-Main-Building-Dunne-Building-36.jpghttp://www.nhsggc.org.uk/content/mediaassets/images/sghc_concept_adult_hospital_atrium_800.jpghttp://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx330/Glaswegian13/P1190017_zps443e4fbc.jpghttp://www.futureglasgow.co.uk/Other/South3.jpg

[Vermicious Knid]

Ultimately our longevity is testament to the success of our health system.

Which is why it needs huge reform



No way, the US spends more on healthcare than any other country! Shocking. 17.7% of GDP per capita? What's ours? 9.4%? That is super weird. Because it suggests - and here you were saying the opposite, mind - that in fact social healthcare is cheaper than the full-capitalist version! Gosh.

I am not suggesting we should abolish public healthcare, I am saying that the NHS needs huge reform and that private healthcare is something that should be made more available to people who are disaffected with the current state of the NHS

Also, you've made a very silly oversimplification. You don't take in to account:

- The fact that most Americans pay for both private and public healthcare, because they have no choice
- The fact that America's public health service is quite similar to ours
- The fact that for most people their employers pay for the healthcare so it doesn't come directly out of their pockets
- The fact that increasing government involvement in the healthcare industry is what's driving the prices up

[Vermicious Knid]

I am not defending it it is definitely terrible for the poor, but if you are rich it is great. Just stating the fact if you have breast cancer or lung cancer your survival rates in the uk are awful compared to the USA.

It's better for middle-class people too, and private healthcare treatment in America is far superior to what you can get on the NHS here

As pathetic as this sounds, it is a huge taboo in this country to criticise the NHS for any reason, which is why it has been allowed to degenerate in to the state it's in now. 8 hour A&E waiting times, year-long queues for minor operations, people dying in hospitals at higher rates than ever, unbelievable amounts of money being wasted, billions being spent on managers who aren't needed, the whole system is riddled with inefficiency.

[Graham]

How does extreme longevity at this point help anyway, when the government has to increase retirement age? Work till you drop.

Bump off all the old folk overnight, & the economy is solved. I kid I kid.

[JohnSmith]

It's better for middle-class people too, and private healthcare treatment in America is far superior to what you can get on the NHS here

As pathetic as this sounds, it is a huge taboo in this country to criticise the NHS for any reason, which is why it has been allowed to degenerate in to the state it's in now. 8 hour A&E waiting times, year-long queues for minor operations, people dying in hospitals at higher rates than ever, unbelievable amounts of money being wasted, billions being spent on managers who aren't needed, the whole system is riddled with inefficiency.

To say USA private insurance is good for the average middle class depends on many things overall I am not so sure about that. Private insurance can still and they often do deny paying claims or deny needed treatments for people who require them

[Graham]

When's Robert going to enter the thread?

[Vermicious Knid]

How does extreme longevity at this point help anyway, when the government has to increase retirement age? Work till you drop.


This is the difference between left-wing and right-wing logic summed up in a single sentence.

Leftists say that the evil Tory government is getting old people to work til they drop

Right-wingers are saying that life expectancy is rapidly increasing and birth rates are dropping, and thus funding the pensions of all over 65's will become a serious problem in the near future

[JohnSmith]

This is the difference between left-wing and right-wing logic summed up in a single sentence.

Leftists say that the evil Tory government is getting old people to work til they drop

Right-wingers are saying that life expectancy is rapidly increasing and birth rates are dropping, and thus funding the pensions of all over 65's will become a serious problem in the near future

Then you have to bring up immigration cause that is becoming the only way to get the population to fund the older pensioners because no one is having children. This is however very unpopular.

[Vermicious Knid]

Then you have to bring up immigration cause that is becoming the only way to get the population to fund the older pensioners because no one is having children. This is however very unpopular.

Yup. And it's very saddening to know that there are people out there who actually believe that mass immigration is the answer to this problem.

It's the Leftie logic of just covering up the problem rather than striking it at the root cause.

[JohnSmith]

Yup. And it's very saddening to know that there are people out there who actually believe that mass immigration is the answer to this problem.

One of two things, immigration or cut fringe government benefits. The Chinese and Japanese bond holders will not fund this system forever. It is math.

[JohnSmith]

Holders of uk debt

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1407/economics/who-owns-government-debt/

[Vermicious Knid]

One of two things, immigration or cut fringe government benefits. The Chinese and Japanese bond holders will not fund this system forever. It is math.

No.

Firstly, you raise the age of retirement. The current age is outdated because life expectancy has increased significantly and is rising faster than ever before.

Secondly, you increase the birth rate. Reducing unemployment and lowering the cost of living will effect this, and there are many other simple measures one can take to stimulate an increase in the birth rate.

[JohnSmith]

No.

Firstly, you raise the age of retirement. The current age is outdated because life expectancy has increased significantly and is rising faster than ever before.

Secondly, you increase the birth rate. Reducing unemployment and lowering the cost of living will effect this, and there are many other simple measures one can take to stimulate an increase in the birth rate.

Those things might work but no politician has the political will to do them, lol. Raise the retirement age there goes your political future.

[Longbowman]

Which is why it needs huge reform



I am not suggesting we should abolish public healthcare, I am saying that the NHS needs huge reform and that private healthcare is something that should be made more available to people who are disaffected with the current state of the NHS

Also, you've made a very silly oversimplification. You don't take in to account:

- The fact that most Americans pay for both private and public healthcare, because they have no choice
- The fact that America's public health service is quite similar to ours
- The fact that for most people their employers pay for the healthcare so it doesn't come directly out of their pockets
- The fact that increasing government involvement in the healthcare industry is what's driving the prices up

-Wrong
-Wrong
-Wrong and irrelevant
-Wrong

[JohnSmith]

-Wrong
-Wrong
-Wrong and irrelevant
-Wrong

Your are right employers in the USA are increasing paying less and less for health insurance. It. Is not uncommon for Americans to have 3,000 to 4,000 dollars deductibles or more out of pocket. The USA healthcare system is pretty terrible. The deductibles under Obamacare are outrageously high and this new system is a shame to give more money to the insurance companies.

[Vermicious Knid]

-Wrong
-Wrong
-Wrong and irrelevant
-Wrong

They are all correct. If you have a problem with any of those statements please feel free to point out why you think that they are wrong.

[Vermicious Knid]

The deductibles under Obamacare are outrageously high

Try living here and having the equivalent of $10,000 of your wages each year going to the NHS

I mean it'd be semi-ok if the NHS was actually any good

[Longbowman]

They are all correct. If you have a problem with any of those statements please feel free to point out why you think that they are wrong.

Why not actually post evidence yourself instead of asking it of us? I already provided statistics that clearly demonstrated the colossal expense of the US system.

[Longbowman]

- The fact that most Americans pay for both private and public healthcare, because they have no choice

Do you mean, 'American taxes go to Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Programme, and the Veterans' Health Administration, in addition to having to pay for private healthcare?'

If so, well then obviously yes, Medicare comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.

However, only 3% of US healthcare spending goes on those projects.


Of each dollar spent on health care in the United States, 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician/clinical services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 4% to dental, 6% to nursing homes and 3% to home health care, 3% for other retail products, 3% for government public health activities, 7% to administrative costs, 7% to investment, and 6% to other professional services (physical therapists, optometrists, etc.).

http://kff.org/health-costs/How%20is%20the%20U.S.%20health%20care%20dollar%20s pent?

And of course, you don't have to be insured. In fact, many people aren't, because they can't afford it.


Recent evidence demonstrates that lack of health insurance causes some 45,000 to 48,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

I mean, it's a huge financial burden, 18% of your pre-tax earnings:


In 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses. A 2013 study found that about 25% of all senior citizens declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses, and 43% are forced to mortgage or sell their primary residence.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11606-012-2199-x


- The fact that America's public health service is quite similar to ours

In what way, exactly?

It's more expensive and less efficient.


- The fact that for most people their employers pay for the healthcare so it doesn't come directly out of their pockets

The only demographic for which this is true are workers and it's decreasing rapidly.


The percentage of non-elderly workers with employer-sponsored coverage has been falling, from 68% in 2000 to 61% in 2009


http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/72528shadac201106.pdf

Naturally non-workers - children, the elderly, students, the unemployed - nearly half the population - have not got this coverage.


- The fact that increasing government involvement in the healthcare industry is what's driving the prices up

The rise in the cost of healthcare in the US is exponential. Government 'interference' is not marked by any significant rise in costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/health-insurance-cost_n_4958592.html?ir=Business

for all Libertarian fearmongering.

Of course, as proven, if the Government just stepped in and introduced social healthcare, prices would be slashed by about 50%.

Even though you hypocritically demanded I provide sources without you having done the same, I've acceded to your request. Your play, Libertarian.

[JohnSmith]

Medicare is not that great either. Hospitals like to quickly release Medicare patients from the hospital because private insurance reimburses the hospitals more. I still think you need a competitive climate to make healthcare work more efficiently. I really do not think the UK's system is very competitive. The NHS does not compete with private insurance. So the NHS will suffer from underfunding and lack of resources until the people that go for private insurance in the UK become confident in the NHS. But having healthcare of life threatening diseases such as cancer in the hands of government bureaucrats is not a good idea either.

[Longbowman]

Medicare is not that great either. Hospitals like to quickly release Medicare patients from the hospital because private insurance reimburses the hospitals more. I still think you need a competitive climate to make healthcare work more efficiently. I really do not think the UK's system is very competitive. The NHS does not compete with private insurance. So the NHS will suffer from underfunding and lack of resources until the people that go for private insurance in the UK become confident in the NHS. But having healthcare of life threatening diseases such as cancer in the hands of government bureaucrats is not a good idea either.

But you're wrong, because for all your competitiveness the average American will die far sooner than the average OECD inhabitant.


The United States life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth, up from 75.2 years in 1990, ranks it 50th among 221 nations, and 27th out of the 34 industrialized OECD countries, down from 20th in 1990.[3][4] Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States had the highest or near-highest prevalence of infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy. On average, a U.S. male can be expected to live almost four fewer years than those in the top-ranked country.[5]

[JohnSmith]

But you're wrong, because for all your competitiveness the average American will die far sooner than the average OECD inhabitant.

There are only a handful of health insurance companies in the USA and in some areas there is only one company available and each state has different laws regulating the insurance market. It is in no way competitive. Plus, a cartel of doctors actually set the prices for what they will be paid.

[JohnSmith]

http://m.thefiscaltimes.com/fiscaltimes/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F#!/entry/528ee153025312186c8dfa3b&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefiscaltimes.com%2FColum ns%2F2013%2F07%2F17%2FHow-the-Doctor-Cartel-Sets-Medical-Prices&oswts=1395013780712

The cartel

[Longbowman]

There are only a handful of health insurance companies in the USA and in some areas there is only one company available and each state has different laws regulating the insurance market. It is in no way competitive. Plus, a cartel of doctors actually set the prices for what they will be paid.

But you're the most competitive out there and also the worst. The least competitive nations are the best. Correlation, right?

See, you asked a question, but you didn't care about our answers. You already had your Libertarian ideas and you're trying to twist the data into supporting it.

[JohnSmith]

But you're the most competitive out there and also the worst. The least competitive nations are the best. Correlation, right?

See, you asked a question, but you didn't care about our answers. You already had your Libertarian ideas and you're trying to twist the data into supporting it.



France is a competitive hybrid system and they are ranked # 1. Italy is ranked #2 and are completely government ran but their debt to GDP will soon make this unsustainable I doubt the UK wants to go in that direction. France is also going bankrupt.

[Longbowman]

France is a competitive hybrid system and they are ranked # 1. Italy is ranked #2 and are completely government ran but their debt to GDP will soon make this unsustainable I doubt the UK wants to go in that direction. France is also going bankrupt.

Give it up, France has an NHS and a private system, just like the UK. The competition is separate to the social healthcare provision.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

The deductibles under Obamacare are outrageously high and this new system is a shame to give more money to the insurance companies.

Basically insurance companies wrote the plan.

[JohnSmith]

Give it up, France has an NHS and a private system, just like the UK. The competition is separate to the social healthcare provision.

Comparing the French system with has real competitive health insurance to the UK's system is asinine. Just about all countries have some form of government ran care including the USA.

[Longbowman]

Comparing the French system with has real competitive health insurance to the UK's system is asinine. Just about all countries have some form of government ran care including the USA.


The French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1] In 2011, France spent 11.6% of GDP on health care, or US$4,086 per capita,[2] a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

Cling to your fantasies.

[JohnSmith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

Cling to your fantasies.

Again comparing the French system to the UK's system is completely asinine.

[Longbowman]

Again comparing the French system to the UK's system is completely asinine.

Back up your statement, please, without retorting to insults that only serve to make you look ignorant.

[JohnSmith]

Back up your statement, please, without retorting to insults that only serve to make you look ignorant.

An average Frenchmen would be in much better shape than the average Brit if they both needed the same care. The cost for a Brit to go to private insurance is probably so high they would not be able to afford it, so they go to the NHS and have to wait and do not get the needed diagnoses testing in time and they end up dying from cancer. In France I am sure the person has better odds at survival.

[Longbowman]

An average Frenchmen would be in much better shape than the average Brit if they both needed the same care. The cost for a Brit to go to private insurance is probably so high they would not be able to afford it, so they go to the NHS and have to wait and do not get the needed diagnoses testing in time and they end up dying from cancer. In France I am sure the person has better odds at survival.

Life expectancy difference is 6 months, so I guess not ;)

Stats?



All legal residents covered by public health insurance funded by compulsory social health insurance contributions from employers and employees with no option to opt out.
Most people have extra private insurance to cover areas that are not eligible for reimbursement by the public health insurance system and many make out of pocket payments to see a doctor.
Patients pay doctor's bills and are reimbursed by sickness insurance funds.
Government regulates contribution rates paid to sickness funds, sets global budgets and salaries for public hospitals.
In-patient care is provided in public and private hospitals (not-for-profit and for-profit). Doctors in public hospitals are salaried whilst those in private hospitals are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Some public hospital doctors are allowed to treat private patients in the hospital. A percentage of the private fee is payable to the hospital.
Most out-patient care is delivered by doctors, dentists and medical auxiliaries working in their own practices.


Much like the NHS, where you have to pay for voluntary services, the French insure themselves for said.

[Vermicious Knid]

My problem with what you are saying, Longbowman, is that you are trying to justify the piss-poor condition of the NHS by comparing it to even worse public/mixed healthcare systems elsewhere in the world.

Also, your arguments against the US healthcare system mean nothing because it is not a private healthcare system.

And I am not anti-public healthcare, I just think the NHS is a joke and needs huge reform.

[Longbowman]

My problem with what you are saying, Longbowman, is that you are trying to justify the piss-poor condition of the NHS by comparing it to even worse public/mixed healthcare systems elsewhere in the world.

Also, your arguments against the US healthcare system mean nothing because it is not a private healthcare system.

And I am not anti-public healthcare, I just think the NHS is a joke and needs huge reform.

My problem with you is you say things without backing them up even though you demand I back what I say up.

Capitalism needs regulation.

[Vermicious Knid]

My problem with you is you say things without backing them up even though you demand I back what I say up.

Capitalism needs regulation.

I am not anti-public healthcare, but people like you are the reason the NHS has been allowed to stagnate in to the awful condition it is currently in.

Sure, you can compare it to other public/mixed healthcare systems around the world, but that does not chance the fact that it needs serious reform. That is the point I am making, and I am right.

[Raikaswinþs]

Crap. Yet still better and less expensive than medicare.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Life expectancy difference is 6 months, so I guess not ;)


They have a lot of africans who generally have craplife expectancy. When you meaure british americans and british whites for life expenctancy, we are way ahead of you. Black men have life expectancy of about 68 years in most of US. White women are like 86 or something.

Of course obabma care and some other retarded changes in last few decades have been changing that to make it more expensive and less effective.

[Longbowman]

They have a lot of africans who generally have craplife expectancy. When you meaure british americans and british whites for life expenctancy, we are way ahead of you. Black men have life expectancy of about 68 years in most of US. White women are like 86 or something.

Of course obabma care and some other retarded changes in last few decades have been changing that to make it more expensive and less effective.

'Fraid not, buddy, though there is some disparity between the races, our overall average still tops your white averages.


Asian-Americans, average per capita income of $21,566, have a life expectancy of 84.9 years.
Northern low-income rural Whites, $17,758, 79 years.
Middle America (mostly White), $24,640, 77.9 years.
Low-income Whites in Appalachia, Mississippi Valley, $16,390, 75 years.
Western Native Americans, $10,029, 72.7 years.
Black Middle America, $15,412, 72.9 years.
Southern low-income rural Blacks, $10,463, 71.2 years.
High-risk urban Blacks, $14,800, 71.1 years.[2]

[Longbowman]

I am not anti-public healthcare, but people like you are the reason the NHS has been allowed to stagnate in to the awful condition it is currently in.

Sure, you can compare it to other public/mixed healthcare systems around the world, but that does not chance the fact that it needs serious reform. That is the point I am making, and I am right.

You're right in that it needs a bit of an overhaul and some more money, but you were very clearly advocating a completely capitalist alternative.

[Vermicious Knid]

You're right in that it needs a bit of an overhaul and some more money, but you were very clearly advocating a completely capitalist alternative.

No, although in an ideal world I think it should be an option to opt out of paying tax towards the NHS and go private instead, for those who see potential advantages in doing so. I personally would prefer private healthcare but that doesn't mean I want to abolish the NHS for everyone else.

Fuck knows how NHS spending managed to increase by over £50 billion in 10 years while the service deteriorated

[Longbowman]

No, although in an ideal world I think it should be an option to opt out of paying tax towards the NHS and go private instead, for those who see potential advantages in doing so. I personally would prefer private healthcare but that doesn't mean I want to abolish the NHS for everyone else.

Fuck knows how NHS spending managed to increase by over £50 billion in 10 years while the service deteriorated

Yeah, opting out of tax. What a spectacularly stupid idea. What a fantastically dreadful precedent. What a colossally selfish rationale.

[Lusos]

NHS has all the services available for everyone.

But many nurses are not registered,the majority In fact.
Many Hospital lack hygiene.But again Its a staff problem and not directly form the NHS.
I use private GP because I want to have more then a 10 Minutes appointment.That Is by Law what Is offered By a GP.And I want to understand what He Is saying.I've seen a GP In England for the first time,he was Chinese,Men His accent was worst then mine.The only thing I understood was "Good morning" and "See you"

In sum. Services available but there's great disorganisation.
"To much chiefs not enough Indians"

[Vermicious Knid]

Yeah, opting out of tax. What a spectacularly stupid idea. What a fantastically dreadful precedent. What a colossally selfish rationale.

What's colossally selfish is to force people to pay for things they have no part of and receive no benefit from.

I am gobsmacked that someone seemingly as intelligent as you has come out with something so fucking deluded. Would you rather force private healthcare users to fork out thousands of pounds each year for the NHS too?

[Longbowman]

It's not opting out of tax, it's having your tax reduced proportionally by what would have been spent on the NHS. If private healthcare is as bad as you say it is, very few people would make that choice, so why worry?

And are you really fucking deluded enough to say that it's selfish to want to opt out of a shitty health service and go private for the purpose of receiving better healthcare?

Yep.

And it's bloody stupid.

So, you don't pay tax for things you don't directly use; even though you benefit indirectly by the sustained health of others; does that mean you should have your taxes reduced if you go to private school, if you live in a less-deprived area, if you don't use social services? Basically, if you're well-off? No, of course not. Only a retard - or a Libertarian - would think so.

[Graham]

Don't know if the same in Wales, Norn Ireland & England. We all have independent health services. You can have a family doctor for life. I'm registered to the same Doc have always had as child.

Kinda useful. I like it that way.

[Vermicious Knid]

So, you don't pay tax for things you don't directly use; even though you benefit indirectly by the sustained health of others; does that mean you should have your taxes reduced if you go to private school, if you live in a less-deprived area, if you don't use social services? Basically, if you're well-off? No, of course not. Only a retard - or a Libertarian - would think so.

And this is where we inherently disagree. You value the wellbeing of the collective over individual rights and freedoms. You would force people who choose to go private to still pay around £6k per year (or far more if they're rich) to fund a system that does not benefit them in any way, shape or form. I do not see that as morally justifiable; it's no different to my tax money being used to pay for bankers' bonuses.

Schools are an entirely different matter. The NHS is one of the largest drains of public money, costing us £122 billion a year, which dwarfs the money being spend on education (only a fraction of which is spent on secondary schools).

Although I am aware that it is highly unrealistic that this will ever happen, it's just my vision of how I would like it to be in an ideal world.

[Longbowman]

And this is where we inherently disagree. You value the wellbeing of the collective over individual rights and freedoms. You would force people who choose to go private to still pay around £6k per year (or far more if they're rich) to fund a system that does not benefit them in any way, shape or form. I do not see that as morally justifiable; it's no different to my tax money being used to pay for bankers' bonuses.

Schools are an entirely different matter. The NHS is one of the largest drains of public money, costing us £122 billion a year, which dwarfs the money being spend on education (only a fraction of which is spent on secondary schools).

Although I am aware that it is highly unrealistic that this will ever happen, it's just my vision of how I would like it to be in an ideal world.

The rich should pay more because they can and because it is in their interests to do so. If you can't see the difference between the NHS and investment bankers' bonuses then it's no wonder you vote for the party of the autists and luddites. £6k a year? Nope. At 9% of £26k the average person pays £2,300 per year to the NHS.

Are schools a different matter? If so, why? I was privately schooled. How come my parents had to pay tax to send other kids to school? They should have been forced to work. It's just social darwinism. I should have the right not to be forced to pay for things I don't directly benefit from and the freedom to pay my workers as little as I like. They can leave if they're unsatisfied. Children should be allowed to work too. We need a return to the Golden Age; the early 1800s, with millions of children labouring on the spinning jennies for pennies a day. Things have stagnated since then. Become so decadent. The fault of all the regulation that's been brought in. Godless communists.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/dynamic/00346/STN2616PIC1_346586k.jpg

[Graham]

Ya want ya chimney swept govna?

http://www.victorianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Victorian-Children-Chimney-Sweeps.jpg

[Longbowman]

Ya want ya chimney swept govna?

http://www.victorianchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Victorian-Children-Chimney-Sweeps.jpg

Why should I have to pay him £5 an hour? Bloody labour laws. He'd do it for 50p so I'll pay him 50p. It's not my fault there's a 50% chance he'll die. If he doesn't like it he's free not to take the job.

[Vermicious Knid]

Why should I have to pay him £5 an hour? Bloody labour laws. He'd do it for 50p so I'll pay him 50p. It's not my fault there's a 50% chance he'll die. If he doesn't like it he's free not to take the job.

And now you're following the typical leftie tactic of strawmen arguments and scaremongering.

[Vermicious Knid]

£6k a year? Nope. At 9% of £26k the average person pays £2,300 per year to the NHS.

But not everyone works, dumbass. The NHS costs almost £2k a year per capita - which includes children, pensioners, and the unemployed.


Are schools a different matter? If so, why? I was privately schooled. How come my parents had to pay tax to send other kids to school? They should have been forced to work. It's just social darwinism. I should have the right not to be forced to pay for things I don't directly benefit from and the freedom to pay my workers as little as I like. They can leave if they're unsatisfied. Children should be allowed to work too. We need a return to the Golden Age; the early 1800s, with millions of children labouring on the spinning jennies for pennies a day. Things have stagnated since then. Become so decadent. The fault of all the regulation that's been brought in. Godless communists.

Not going to bother responding to this drivel

[Lusos]

There's a NHS department where I work.
Sometimes we have 4,5 nurses 1 Doctor and....5 or 6 Healthcare managers.Go figure.
Most of the managers are related.
Corruption much maybe In the NHS.

[Vermicious Knid]

Anyway, we've gotten way off topic here. You're diverting the argument away from how shitty the NHS is.

[Vermicious Knid]

There's a NHS department where I work.
Sometimes we have 4,5 nurses 1 Doctor and....5 or 6 Healthcare managers.Go figure.
Most of the managers are related.
Corruption much maybe In the NHS.

Absolutely it's fucking disgustingly corrupt. A £50 billion increase in spending within the space of 10 years with no noticeable improvements in service - if anything it's gotten worse.

[Lusos]

Absolutely it's fucking disgustingly corrupt. A £50 billion increase in spending within the space of 10 years with no noticeable improvements in service - if anything it's gotten worse.

The money that goes "Lost" it's ridiculous.
All because the Staff Is far from being professionals.(Generalising)
Some nurses get up to 50 pounds an hour only to fill In paper work.
While the manager Is pretending to be posh(And earning meanwhile)seating with a tea pot nearby.Looking interested.
Then you ask something work related,they don't know shit about what's going on.
Lot's of discussions I had/have with them.

[Longbowman]

But not everyone works, dumbass. The NHS costs almost £2k a year per capita - which includes children, pensioners, and the unemployed.



Not going to bother responding to this drivel

Dumbass is an Americanism, Mr. Ukip.

Nope, it costs everyone 9%. Because tax goes by percentage not overall amount. The average is 2.3k and rich people will pay more and poor people, less. If you don't understand basic maths there's no hope for you. It costs 9% of GDP.

In 2005,


A person on the average wage of just under £22,500 last year paid in £757.12 to the NHS, through their National Insurance contributions.


for example.

If you make a billion pounds you will be paying a lot more. More than 9%, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4898158.stm

[Longbowman]

And now you're following the typical leftie tactic of strawmen arguments and scaremongering.

I'm a Tory party member. Just bringing your ridiculous policies to their logical conclusion. It's hardly a strawman argument (you don't need to pluralise both words in English, by the way) when it's essentially what you espouse.

[Graham]

Sorry England, us men bring down the average.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Life-Expectancy.jpg

[Aunt Hilda]

Sorry England, us men bring down the average.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Life-Expectancy.jpg
and N. Ireland, and Wales :P

[Vermicious Knid]

As I said, Longbowman, you have dragged this debate off to an irrelevant topic.

The NHS is in a pathetic state, that's a fact, and that's what this thread is about. Anyone who denies this is seriously delusional, full stop. Comparing the NHS to other healthcare services around the world, as you have done, doesn't make it any less shitty.

[JohnSmith]

An American friend of mine was studying in the UK and they got sick and it was impossible for them to get antibiotics. They resorted to having an American mail them to her. You should not have to go to a hospital for antibiotics but you can't see a doctor right away, so how do you get antibiotics for a minor illness if the wait times could be over 2 months. She described the British medical system as medieval compared to the USA.

[Vermicious Knid]

She described the British medical system as medieval compared to the USA.

In many respects it is.

Pretty much the only argument we have against you is that nobody here ever has to worry about not being able to pay for essential treatment.

And that's where the advantages of the NHS come to an end, after that point your healthcare system absolutely shits on ours in every way.

[Graham]

so how do you get antibiotics for a minor illness if the wait times could be over 2 months. She described the British medical system as medieval compared to the USA.

The maximum wait allowed is 4 weeks. You're not allowed to book it any further. About 1/2 weeks tops. if an emergency, you see on the day. If you are a regular, you can book repeat prescriptions by Email or phone.

Trust me, I have been a regular visitor( just came back from the Asthma clinic today). She must be a liar.

[Longbowman]

An American friend of mine was studying in the UK and they got sick and it was impossible for them to get antibiotics. They resorted to having an American mail them to her. You should not have to go to a hospital for antibiotics but you can't see a doctor right away, so how do you get antibiotics for a minor illness if the wait times could be over 2 months. She described the British medical system as medieval compared to the USA.

Either she's lying, wrong, or stupid.

[Longbowman]

Sorry England, us men bring down the average.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Life-Expectancy.jpg

Secede already, won't you? :P

Conservatives seem to live longer :rolleyes:

[JohnSmith]

Either she's lying, wrong, or stupid.

Well the French even say the NHS is "MediEval" but according to you the French system and NHS are similar.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1580847.stm

[Longbowman]

Well the French even say the NHS is "MediEval" but according to you the French system and NHS are similar.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1580847.stm

Was that a terrible pun?

Dude, our system is better than yours. Yours is the worst in the West. AND the most expensive in the world, by far.

[Vermicious Knid]

Was that a terrible pun?

Dude, our system is better than yours. Yours is the worst in the West. AND the most expensive in the world, by far.

In terms of service the American healthcare system is better than ours.

But for argument's sake even if what you are saying is true it doesn't matter because our healthcare system is still shit, all you're saying is that theirs is shittier.

[justme]

It's unfair that the NHS is compared to other countries such as finland... Come on the UK has over 60 million people, compared to Finland it has 5.4 million.
I remember when some girl tried to compare the UK health service to Montengro... She was like..."what kind of health is this, in Montengro you don't have to wait you get seen straight way..." I just looked at her and was like.. "Yeah sure because they have more time, Montenegro only has 630, 000 people living there compared to the UK which has over 60 million"

[Longbowman]

In terms of service the American healthcare system is better than ours.

But for argument's sake even if what you are saying is true it doesn't matter because our healthcare system is still shit, all you're saying is that theirs is shittier.

If it were better than ours they'd live longer.

Anyhow it's officially rated as worse.

[Tacitus]

So this debate basically comes down to: "You'll have to wait six months to a year for that surgery you desperately need, but hey, at least it's free" vs "Sure, we'll be able to operate tomorrow, but it's gonna cost you your life savings, and oh by the way, your insurance doesn't cover it."

Both sound like terrible choices. And US healthcare isn't as nearly as competitive as it's made out to be. For every state there is only one, maybe two, insurance providers, which is one of the main reasons why costs are so high (the reason they give for allowing these monopolies is that it stays in line with the Interstate Commerce clause; however, I have at least half a dozen choices when it comes to insuring my car/house/boat).

[Longbowman]

So this debate basically comes down to: "You'll have to wait six months to a year for that surgery you desperately need, but hey, at least it's free" vs "Sure, we'll be able to operate tomorrow, but it's gonna cost you your life savings, and oh by the way, your insurance doesn't cover it."

Both sound like terrible choices. And US healthcare isn't as nearly as competitive as it's made out to be. For every state there is only one, maybe two, insurance providers, which is one of the main reasons why costs are so high (the reason they give for allowing these monopolies is that it stays in line with the Interstate Commerce clause; however, I have at least half a dozen choices when it comes to insuring my car/house/boat).

NO, christ, haven't you read the posts from the actual Brits here?

If you need the surgery you'll most likely get it on the day.

If you want the surgery, yeah, it'll be a while.

[Tacitus]

NO, christ, haven't you read the posts from the actual Brits here?

If you need the surgery you'll most likely get it on the day.

If you want the surgery, yeah, it'll be a while.

I was generalizing on purpose.

[Longbowman]

I was generalizing on purpose.

Oh. Carry on, then.

[Tacitus]

Oh. Carry on, then.

I noticed you didn't say anything about my generalization of US healthcare. You Brits really are sensitive when it comes to NHS criticism. :laugh:

Either way, my point about "competitiveness" in the US system remains valid.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I noticed you didn't say anything about my generalization of US healthcare. You Brits really are sensitive when it comes to NHS criticism. :laugh:

Either way, my point about "competitiveness" in the US system remains valid.

Well, it used to...new obamacare system has probably made things much worse. It's too much of a mess to even figure it all out.

[Tacitus]

Well, it used to...new obamacare system has probably made things much worse. It's too much of a mess to even figure it all out.

It really was never that competitive to begin with. Any idea why the commerce clause applies to health insurance but not other forms of insurance?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So this debate basically comes down to: "You'll have to wait six months to a year for that surgery you desperately need, but hey, at least it's free" vs "Sure, we'll be able to operate tomorrow, but it's gonna cost you your life savings, and oh by the way, your insurance doesn't cover it."

Both sound like terrible choices. And US healthcare isn't as nearly as competitive as it's made out to be. For every state there is only one, maybe two, insurance providers, which is one of the main reasons why costs are so high (the reason they give for allowing these monopolies is that it stays in line with the Interstate Commerce clause; however, I have at least half a dozen choices when it comes to insuring my car/house/boat).

This is somewhat fair but for most part insurance does cover you.

In US problems are all recent, and all due to mass immigration of people who can't pay, and due to lobbying of insurance companies. Most of the problems come from trying to 'fix' things.

They need to cut out insurance companies and private hospitals basically, that is the real problem. They have made the costs skyrocket in the first place. There's also issue with universities gouging more and more fees from students which needs to be brought under control. Universities have 5x the employees but don't graduate any more students than they did in the 70s.

[JohnSmith]

It's unfair that the NHS is compared to other countries such as finland... Come on the UK has over 60 million people, compared to Finland it has 5.4 million.
I remember when some girl tried to compare the UK health service to Montengro... She was like..."what kind of health is this, in Montengro you don't have to wait you get seen straight way..." I just looked at her and was like.. "Yeah sure because they have more time, Montenegro only has 630, 000 people living there compared to the UK which has over 60 million"


I was comparing it to France which has about the same amount of people but much better healthcare system than the UK.

[JohnSmith]

So this debate basically comes down to: "You'll have to wait six months to a year for that surgery you desperately need, but hey, at least it's free" vs "Sure, we'll be able to operate tomorrow, but it's gonna cost you your life savings, and oh by the way, your insurance doesn't cover it."

Both sound like terrible choices. And US healthcare isn't as nearly as competitive as it's made out to be. For every state there is only one, maybe two, insurance providers, which is one of the main reasons why costs are so high (the reason they give for allowing these monopolies is that it stays in line with the Interstate Commerce clause; however, I have at least half a dozen choices when it comes to insuring my car/house/boat).


The NHS is terrible for people with Cancer, cancer diagnoses may require multiple expensive testing and waiting is the worst possible thing for someone with cancer. It is saddening to me that a person with cancer has to go through a terrible bureaucracy to get treatment and by the time they get through the bureaucracy their cancer could become terminal.

[Longbowman]

I noticed you didn't say anything about my generalization of US healthcare. You Brits really are sensitive when it comes to NHS criticism. :laugh:

Either way, my point about "competitiveness" in the US system remains valid.

Yes, the problem is too much regulation.

The problem is you don't really follow the 'right to life' part of your constitution but part the '[with the aim of maintaining a well-equipped militia] everyone may have a gun' is gospel truth for you.

[Tacitus]

The problem is you don't really follow the 'right to life' part of your constitution but part the '[with the aim of maintaining a well-equipped militia] everyone may have a gun' is gospel truth for you.

My government may not, but I sure as hell do.

[Longbowman]

My government may not, but I sure as hell do.

So you're pro social healthcare and anti death penalty?

[Tacitus]

So you're pro social healthcare and anti death penalty?

I have no problem admitting the US healthcare system is fundamentally flawed, but I'm not sure if a UK-style system for 300 million people is sustainable.

And for the record, I'm anti-death penalty and anti-war (outside of a war where invasion of US soil is imminent).

[Longbowman]

I have no problem admitting the US healthcare system is fundamentally flawed, but I'm not sure if a UK-style system for 300 million people is sustainable.

And for the record, I'm anti-death penalty and anti-war (outside of a war where invasion of US soil is imminent).

Fair enough.

Each state could have its own social healthcare system. Like Europe.

[Vermicious Knid]

If it were better than ours they'd live longer.

Anyhow it's officially rated as worse.

Stupid thing to say, there are many other factors involved in life expectancy.

And it doesn't matter if it's rated as worse, it doesn't make our NHS any less shit.

[Longbowman]

Stupid thing to say, there are many other factors involved in life expectancy.

And it doesn't matter if it's rated as worse, it doesn't make our NHS any less shit.

Really? What is it, pray tell, that drags them back so far?

Moving aside from how good or bad the much-disparaged NHS is, it means that 'correcting' it by going in their direction is stupid.

[Vermicious Knid]

You Brits really are sensitive when it comes to NHS criticism.

It's pathetic, it really is. Can't help but laugh.

You can pick out flaws in private healthcare all day long but it doesn't change the fact that the NHS is beyond shit, for every situation except severe emergencies.

[Vermicious Knid]

Really? What is it, pray tell, that drags them back so far?

Many, many, many factors. Just to name a few - obesity, diet quality, poverty, climate, and crime. America differs significantly with the UK on all five of those factors.


Moving aside from how good or bad the much-disparaged NHS is, it means that 'correcting' it by going in their direction is stupid.

That's not what I want to do.

[justme]

I was comparing it to France which has about the same amount of people but much better healthcare system than the UK.
Fair point, but the NHS also needs more staff. Before in the UK we had "Ward sisters" but not anymore, it would be better to have them back, in my opinion. Some nurses treat patients like shit, MOST of them are good, people and some nurses don't like the idea that the government has introduced the rule that all nurses have to go to university, they say it's about how to be caring... Ok I agree but, so do doctors have to be loving, why can doctors get an education but not nurses? It's not just about caring but more then that... When your a nurse your not just going to clean up bed sheets but will be doing more, some nurses even fail to do right drugs calculation, paper work... and they say education isn't important?!

[Vermicious Knid]

They'd save a few billion each year by getting rid of all the unnecessary managers

They'd save another few billion by having some kind of electronic database so that they don't have to keep repeating expensive tests

I just can't comprehend how they managed to increase spending by £50 billion, where did the money go? Because I haven't noticed any improvements at all

[Caismeachd]

The job department here (job centre) is better than US unemployment office. It's still crap but better than US. In US an unemployed guy with some severe injury or disease would die because he couldn't afford treatment but in UK they'd be helped. Just wish I lived in UK when I had my back injury. I went to 5 different US hospitals and was denied before I paid $12,000 of my own money to get surgery and it didn't even help in US.

[JohnSmith]

Fair point, but the NHS also needs more staff. Before in the UK we had "Ward sisters" but not anymore, it would be better to have them back, in my opinion. Some nurses treat patients like shit, MOST of them are good, people and some nurses don't like the idea that the government has introduced the rule that all nurses have to go to university, they say it's about how to be caring... Ok I agree but, so do doctors have to be loving, why can doctors get an education but not nurses? It's not just about caring but more then that... When your a nurse your not just going to clean up bed sheets but will be doing more, some nurses even fail to do right drugs calculation, paper work... and they say education isn't important?!


The UK's whole system is terribly flawed. Especially for treatment of aggressive cancers. WAITING of any kind for a person that has cancer is a death sentence and the NHS has yet to find a effective way of handling cancer patients in a modern manner. The UK's mortality rate for cancer is frightening to me. In the USA if cancer is defected it is dealt with and treated immediately.

According to this article below, the UK's cancer mortality rate is worst than Bangladesh and Namibia.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/01/medical_statistics_and_nhs

[Caismeachd]

I have a terrible spine injury. From what I've been told I should save 10,000 dollars and goto germany and get a spinal implant. I'd do it. I know my money was entirely wasted in US. Dunno if it would have panned out the same way if I lived in UK but in US I was dicked around without any true treatment. I remember having a hose stuck all the way up my cock and they didn't even treat me even though I paid them 5000 dollars to stick a hose up my cock while my boss watched and could tell my coworkers I had a big cock.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I thought your knee was injured, and they refused to take your insurance....

[Longbowman]

The UK's whole system is terribly flawed. Especially for treatment of aggressive cancers. WAITING of any kind for a person that has cancer is a death sentence and the NHS has yet to find a effective way of handling cancer patients in a modern manner. The UK's mortality rate for cancer is frightening to me. In the USA if cancer is defected it is dealt with and treated immediately.

According to this article below, the UK's cancer mortality rate is worst than Bangladesh and Namibia.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/01/medical_statistics_and_nhs

Dude, more Brits die of cancer than Nigerians because cancer affects people who live to retirement age. Obviously.

Those countries probably have lower cancer mortality rates than the US, too.

Look, our system's better than yours. Suck it up.

Have you even read the article? No, you haven't, because it explains all this at the end. It also explains that the UK cancer data is seriously out of date, AND that it's the ONLY western country with comparable data because the other countries refused to give up said data.

Jesus dude, you're really clutching at straws now.

[Vermicious Knid]

Look, our system's better than yours. Suck it up.


Jesus dude, you're really clutching at straws now.



Oh, the irony...

[Longbowman]

Oh, the irony...

I don't think you understand irony, or the meaning of the phrase clutching of straws.

[Vermicious Knid]

I don't think you understand irony, or the meaning of the phrase clutching of straws.

It is incredibly ironic that you accuse someone else of clutching at straws, when in response to someone giving very legitimate criticisms of the NHS, all you can say is "Look, our system's better than yours. Suck it up."

[Longbowman]

It is incredibly ironic that you accuse someone of else of clutching at straws when in response to someone giving very legitimate criticisms of the NHS, all you can say is "Look, our system's better than yours. Suck it up."

No, it would be ironic if I were clutching at straws.

That sentence was accompanied by actual argumentation.

Typical liberatarian, misquoting people.

[Vermicious Knid]

That sentence was accompanied by actual argumentation.

Attacking other healthcare systems rather than defending the NHS, no matter how complex your arguments are, is clutching at straws, because you are intentionally changing the subject away from the original point.

Typical liberal, unable to comprehend logic

[Longbowman]

Attacking other healthcare systems rather than defending the NHS, no matter how complex your arguments are, is clutching at straws, because you are intentionally changing the subject away from the original point.

Typical liberal, unable to comprehend logic

Actually I pointed out that the article defends the NHS quite neatly and even briefly explained why.

Why don't you read it?

Typical Libertarian, making uninformed decisions about everything.

[Vermicious Knid]

Actually I pointed out that the article defends the NHS quite neatly and even briefly explained why.

Why don't you read it?

Throughout the entirety of this thread you have been dodging very serious and legitimate criticisms of the NHS and instead directed your efforts towards bashing other healthcare systems.

I wasn't talking about just that specific post, but that one comment really summed it up.

[Longbowman]

Throughout the entirety of this thread you have been dodging very serious and legitimate criticisms of the NHS and instead directed your efforts towards bashing other healthcare systems.

I wasn't talking about just that specific post, but that one comment really summed it up.

Nope. You skim-read all my stuff, as proven by this particular response. If you read my opening posts, I gave some actual defences before DDCrush revealed they weren't interested in our opinions so much as they were with comparing it to the US system. At which point I began retorting.

You're just using a subconscious form of reductio ad absurdium to belittle my arguments to push your own misinformed worldview.

Read the thread again.

[Vermicious Knid]

Nope. You skim-read all my stuff, as proven by this particular response. If you read my opening posts, I gave some actual defences before DDCrush revealed they weren't interested in our opinions so much as they were with comparing it to the US system. At which point I began retorting.

You're just using a subconscious form of reductio ad absurdium to belittle my arguments to push your own misinformed worldview.

Read the thread again.

Are you really this delusional? The vast majority of your content in this thread has been comparing the NHS to other healthcare systems as a means to defend the NHS. Regardless of how good your arguments are, it is still a logical fallacy, because you are still avoiding directly answering the criticisms people have of the NHS.

A prime example is when that guy pointed out the UK's high mortality rates for cancer patients. You then soundly disproved his claim that Namibia and Kenya have lower mortality rates, but the NHS still has very high cancer mortality rates, and you have ignored directly defending that point. All you did was basically say "ok but it's better than (insert country here)".

[Longbowman]

Are you really this delusional? The vast majority of your content in this thread has been comparing the NHS to other healthcare systems as a means to defend the NHS. Regardless of how good your arguments are, it is still a logical fallacy, because you are still avoiding directly answering the criticisms people have of the NHS.

A prime example is when that guy pointed out the UK's high mortality rates for cancer patients. You then soundly disproved his claim that Namibia and Kenya have lower mortality rates, but the NHS still has very high cancer mortality rates, and you have ignored directly defending that point. All you did was basically say "ok but it's better than (insert country here)".

No no, not at all. First, read some of my earlier stuff, when I explained why I liked it so much (without external comparisons). Secondly, I pointed out that the article DDCrush provided went on to point out why Britain's rate was so high compared even to OECD countries. For example the high incidence of stomach cancer in Japan meaning it was something they dealt with more, leading to greater awareness, more treatment, and it being embedded in their culture. It also pointed out the UK was the only country with a full set of figures from Europe so all comparisons were invalidated and the UK's stats were out of date and relating to a period that is now 15 years old.

I would also add that it may be the case that Japan smokes less than us, and it certainly drinks less than we do. This will lead to a lower cancer incidence. I didn't mention this in my first post though. As you yourself say there are cultural reasons why stats may differ.

[Vermicious Knid]

No no, not at all. First, read some of my earlier stuff, when I explained why I liked it so much (without external comparisons).

Yes you listed some positives of the NHS, but I'm talking about the way you have responded to criticism of the NHS.


Secondly, I pointed out that the article DDCrush provided went on to point out why Britain's rate was so high compared even to OECD countries. For example the high incidence of stomach cancer in Japan meaning it was something they dealt with more, leading to greater awareness, more treatment, and it being embedded in their culture. It also pointed out the UK was the only country with a full set of figures from Europe so all comparisons were invalidated and the UK's stats were out of date and relating to a period that is now 15 years old.

It would be a lot easier if you would have made it clear that you admit that Britain's cancer mortality rate is too high, rather than trying to justify it by comparing us to other countries. (read the last part of my reply before you respond to this bit)

Another example is when I pointed out that the NHS is way too expensive. All you did was compare it to US healthcare and point out that theirs is more expensive. So what? It doesn't change the fact that ours is too expensive. That's what I'm getting at.


I would also add that it may be the case that Japan smokes less than us, and it certainly drinks less than we do. This will lead to a lower cancer incidence. I didn't mention this in my first post though. As you yourself say there are cultural reasons why stats may differ.

Ok, this is where I think there has been a misunderstanding. What he is referring to is the relatively high proportion of cancer patients who die as a result, not the overall proportion of people who contract cancer. The latter of which would be affected by the factors you just listed, the former of which would not and is entirely a result of flaws in the NHS.

[Longbowman]

Yes you listed some positives of the NHS, but I'm talking about the way you have responded to criticism of the NHS.

I'm responding to posts in the style of said posts. If Crush wants to talk about how great America is that's fine but I'll respond.


It would be a lot easier if you would have made it clear that you admit that Britain's cancer mortality rate is too high, rather than trying to justify it by comparing us to other countries. (read the last part of my reply before you respond to this bit)

One person dying is too high :rolleyes:


Another example is when I pointed out that the NHS is way too expensive. All you did was compare it to US healthcare and point out that theirs is more expensive. So what? It doesn't change the fact that ours is too expensive. That's what I'm getting at.

I compared it to the world. It's cheaper even than Crush's beloved France. If anything it needs more money. For cancer and stuff.


Ok, this is where I think there has been a misunderstanding. What he is referring to is the relatively high proportion of cancer patients who die as a result, not the overall proportion of people who contract cancer. The latter of which would be affected by the factors you just listed, the former of which would not and is entirely a result of flaws in the NHS.

Stats? because as pointed out the article he shared supported me. He clearly hadn't read it.

[Vermicious Knid]

I'm responding to posts in the style of said posts. If Crush wants to talk about how great America is that's fine but I'll respond.

Ok, that's fair enough, but my point is that proving that the NHS is relatively better than other healthcare systems in certain aspects does not in any way, shape or form show that the NHS is objectively good in those aspects.

For example, the NHS may well be significantly cheaper than the US healthcare system, but that doesn't change the fact that it is too expensive.

You are free to have the opinion that the NHS needs more money, but when you double the spending on something by over £50 billion and don't get huge sweeping improvements, that is objectively too expensive.


One person dying is too high :rolleyes:

For someone who loves throwing out long latin terms, you don't pay much attention towards avoiding using the dreaded reductio ad absurdum.


I compared it to the world. It's cheaper even than Crush's beloved France. If anything it needs more money. For cancer and stuff.

And you're doing it again. As I said above - just because it's cheaper than elsewhere, doesn't mean that it isn't too expensive.



Stats? because as pointed out the article he shared supported me. He clearly hadn't read it.

He's the one making the argument not me

[Longbowman]

Ok, that's fair enough, but my point is that proving that the NHS is relatively better than other healthcare systems in certain aspects does not in any way, shape or form show that the NHS is objectively good in those aspects.

For example, the NHS may well be significantly cheaper than the US healthcare system, but that doesn't change the fact that it is too expensive.

You are free to have the opinion that the NHS needs more money, but when you double the spending on something by over £50 billion and don't get huge sweeping improvements, that is objectively too expensive.



For someone who loves throwing out long latin terms, you don't pay much attention towards avoiding using the dreaded reductio ad absurdum.



And you're doing it again. As I said above - just because it's cheaper than elsewhere, doesn't mean that it isn't too expensive.



He's the one making the argument not me

Then I'll wait for him to post them, I've dealt with his evidence so far. I'll not do his work for him.

The rolleyes emoticon clearly demonstrated I was joking, I felt! And whilst yes, being cheaper than everyone else doesn't necessarily make it good value for money, it does indicate it. Why would you say it isn't?

[Vermicious Knid]

The rolleyes emoticon clearly demonstrated I was joking, I felt! And whilst yes, being cheaper than everyone else doesn't necessarily make it good value for money, it does indicate it. Why would you say it isn't?

You succeeded in proving that the NHS is relatively cheap, but that does not in any way make it objectively cheap.

I say that the NHS isn't cheap (value for money would be a better word here) because at a cost of almost £2000 per capita, the service is piss poor except for in immediate emergencies. And also because they doubled spending by over £50 billion in the space of 10 years and if anything the service has gotten worse.

[Longbowman]

You succeeded in proving that the NHS is relatively cheap, but that does not in any way make it objectively cheap.

I say that the NHS isn't cheap (value for money would be a better word here) because at a cost of almost £2000 per capita, the service is piss poor except for in immediate emergencies. And also because they doubled spending by over £50 billion in the space of 10 years and if anything the service has gotten worse.

Valid reasoning, the NHS isn't perfect (what is?) and shouldn't be immune to criticism. However, what could be done is simply roll back the recent changes if your accusations are valid and work on response times, rather than scrap the project. It's one of the best and cheapest out there, after all.

[Vermicious Knid]

Valid reasoning, the NHS isn't perfect (what is?) and shouldn't be immune to criticism. However, what could be done is simply roll back the recent changes if your accusations are valid and work on response times, rather than scrap the project. It's one of the best and cheapest out there, after all.

Absolutely which is why from the beginning I have said that I support the NHS but it needs huge reform because it's laughably inefficient, and that throwing more money at it is only going to make things worse.

[JohnSmith]

I was just pointing out that the process the NHS uses will without a doubt lead to more cancer deaths because of the wait times.

This article still states that the UK's cancer survival rate is below the European Average, it is not something to be proud of.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/UK-cancer-survival-rates-below-European-average.aspx

[Longbowman]

I was just pointing out that the process the NHS uses will without a doubt lead to more cancer deaths because of the wait times.

This article still states that the UK's cancer survival rate is below the European Average, it is not something to be proud of.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/UK-cancer-survival-rates-below-European-average.aspx

Oh my god, would you read the articles you post? It says whilst the UK and Ireland isn't stellar, it's generally about average, only trailing in specific cancers like lung cancer. And it states the situation's improving.

[JohnSmith]

Oh my god, would you read the articles you post? It says whilst the UK and Ireland isn't stellar, it's generally about average, only trailing in specific cancers like lung cancer. And it states the situation's improving.

Again nothing to be proud of.

[JohnSmith]

Plus, the cancers it lag behind the rest of Europe makes up the majority of cancer diagnoses.

[Longbowman]

Again nothing to be proud of.

Look, I know you're desperately trying to rubbish social healthcare but lol the UK has average Western cancer survival is pretty poor.

[Vermicious Knid]

Look, I know you're desperately trying to rubbish social healthcare but lol the UK has average Western cancer survival is pretty poor.

You can't deny that any monopoly of a market, whether it's public or private, inevitably leads to big problems in terms of both finance and service

[Longbowman]

You can't deny that any monopoly of a market, whether it's public or private, inevitably leads to big problems in terms of both finance and service

Unregulated capitalism leads to exploitation. Is it not the case that producers of lights bulbs collaborated to ensure the product be short-lived? And didn't Tescos and Sainsbury's collaborate over the price of milk just 5 years ago? When the guiding principle is make all the money you can, the little man gets trod on.

[Vermicious Knid]

Unregulated capitalism leads to exploitation. Is it not the case that producers of lights bulbs collaborated to ensure the product be short-lived? And didn't Tescos and Sainsbury's collaborate over the price of milk just 5 years ago? When the guiding principle is make all the money you can, the little man gets trod on.

I literally just said that any monopoly of a market is bad, including in the private sector

[Longbowman]

I literally just said that any monopoly of a market is bad, including in the private sector

And I said unregulated capitalism is bad. So a balance must be struck.

And of course we have BUPA and stuff.

[Vermicious Knid]

And I said unregulated capitalism is bad. So a balance must be struck.

And of course we have BUPA and stuff.

One relatively tiny company doesn't change the fact that the healthcare market is a monopoly with virtually no element of competition, and the NHS is certainly not immune (pardon the pun) from the negative effects of being a monopolistic company.

And of course totally unregulated capitalism is bad. A competitive market is extremely beneficial to the consumer, both in terms of price and quality, provided that it operates within reasonable boundaries.

I'm a Libertarian, not an Anarchist dude... Huge difference.

[Catkin]

In praise of the NHS from my experience today. :)

I hurt my hand playing netball over 2 weeks ago and finally went to my doctor yesterday (rang up for an appointment in the morning, got seen after work). She referred me to get an x-ray, so after work today I went to the hospital without an appointment slot. The x-ray showed I'd broken my hand so they sent me to Accident & Emergency to get it strapped and for me to book an appointment to see an orthopaedic doctor for a follow-up. After I'd done all this I went to pay my car parking and the whole thing had taken me less than an hour! Very impressive, and everyone was really friendly and kind too. 4 hour A&E waits are not the norm. This wasn't even an emergency.

[JohnSmith]

Yup the NHS is great. Even if the doctors don't know the difference between an ovary and appendix.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/14/pregnant-woman-died-after-her-ovary-was-mistakenly-removed

[Catkin]

Yup the NHS is great. Even if the doctors don't know the difference between an ovary and appendix.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/14/pregnant-woman-died-after-her-ovary-was-mistakenly-removed

A doctor, on a single occasion, does not represent the NHS as a whole. Terrible as it is, that could have happened anywhere.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Yup the NHS is great. Even if the doctors don't know the difference between an ovary and appendix.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/14/pregnant-woman-died-after-her-ovary-was-mistakenly-removed

He is foreign doctor, of course.

I never understood how you can get a medical degree in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan then come to any country in the world and start practicing medicine.

I used to have regular doctor and he was really good til he moved to Chicago, but now I mostly go to a local clinic and get a grab bag. There's been some holy shit retarded foreign doctors telling me some hard to believe stuff, though of course they are mixed bag and some countries are better than others.

It's probably even a bigger problem with the nurses and administrators etc. many of whom barely speak english. If you go to get something removed, you have to keep track of it yourself and make sure it's right thing. I know people who have narrowly averted similar disasters!

Sadly this is not just an NHS issue but everywhere. I have seen quality of care disintegrate and despite what some people say, I think this is the biggest problem. Especially in inner city areas where it's usually not too sought after positions.

[Graham]

A doctor, on a single occasion, does not represent the NHS as a whole. Terrible as it is, that could have happened anywhere.

Next it'll be Harold Shipman as representative.

[Catkin]

Next it'll be Harold Shipman as representative.

Shhh, don't give them more ammunition! :p

[Longbowman]

Once I was at a bus stop and there was a woman smoking. I don't smoke so I asked her 'please stop smoking as I don't want cancer but also don't want to leave the bus stop.' She said 'look son I am an nurse and just got off a 12 hour shift because a patient had a heart attack, I'll smoke if I like.' Then she sighed and did put out the cigarette, but she just left the butt on the floor which is littering. She was probably working for the NHS and if this isn't an indictment of the NHS I don't know what is. Would never happen in a libertarian society.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Once I was at a bus stop and there was a woman smoking. I don't smoke so I asked her 'please stop smoking as I don't want cancer but also don't want to leave the bus stop.' She said 'look son I am an nurse and just got off a 12 hour shift because a patient had a heart attack, I'll smoke if I like.' Then she sighed and did put out the cigarette, but she just left the butt on the floor which is littering. She was probably working for the NHS and if this isn't an indictment of the NHS I don't know what is. Would never happen in a libertarian society.

This was a covered bus stop, presumably. All she would have to do to remain within the law would be to step from underneath the sheltered area. Why did she not do that? Also, was there a bin nearby? I am guessing yes. It might not be lawful, but personally, I think that to dispose of a cigar/ette butt down a drain is also acceptable.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Once I was at a bus stop and there was a woman smoking. I don't smoke so I asked her 'please stop smoking as I don't want cancer but also don't want to leave the bus stop.' She said 'look son I am an nurse and just got off a 12 hour shift because a patient had a heart attack, I'll smoke if I like.' Then she sighed and did put out the cigarette, but she just left the butt on the floor which is littering. She was probably working for the NHS and if this isn't an indictment of the NHS I don't know what is. Would never happen in a libertarian society.

It wouldn't because she would be flogged. We run our country like a pirate ship, or anyway we used to. Anyone slacking or being discourteous gets keel-hauled.

[Longbowman]

guys it's not a true story.

[Geminus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye27aIJD6qg

That's how I imagine visits to the doctor in Britain.