Healthcare in the UK

[Richard]

You ever been in pain?

Not minor pain, like a skinned knee or extremely intense agony, like the sort caused by a broken leg, but something inbetween?

Pain that's bad enough that it drastically cuts into your quality of life and just makes life miserable for you?

Now imagine feeling like that, hurting like that, and knowing that there's a fix for it -- but -- and this is a huge but -- finding out that you're going to have to wait an entire YEAR to have it taken care of properly.

That would be horrible, wouldn't it?

Well, if you lived in Britain, where they have the sort of "wonderful" socialized medicine that Democrats want to bring to this country, you wouldn't have to imagine that horrible situation. To the contrary, if we ever have government run healthcare in this country, this is the sort of thing that will likely happen here as well:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely.  Even worse than Canada it seems.


Link: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0%2C4136%2C92703%2C00.html
Comments by John Hawkins.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

"www.rightwingnews.com"?!?  I'm disappointed in you, Richius.

[Richard]

Please stay on topic.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Okay, sorry about that.  Anyway, yes socialized healthcare is clearly a failure in Britain.  This case isn't the first where people have given up in desperation and gone someplace else instead.

[TheresNoMoney]

There are at least 45 million Americans that don' t have health insurance at all. Most of them can't see a doctor, either. If they do, they will be in financial ruin well into the future.

And now, they won't even be able to declare bankruptcy if they have medical bills that they can never afford to pay.

Which situation is better?  No one says the European system doesn't have problems, but it's much better than the system we have, which is way overpriced and where 45 million (the entire population of 24 states) doesn't even have any health insurance at all. 18,000+ a year die because they don't have any health insurance.

Blind idealogy has fooled Americans into believing in a system that says that only those who can afford to pay for health care deserve to live.

[TheresNoMoney]

Okay, sorry about that.  Anyway, yes socialized healthcare is clearly a failure in Britain.  This case isn't the first where people have given up in desperation and gone someplace else instead.

45 million Americans have to decide whether to go to the doctor or whether to be able to pay for food/rent. I don't see how that situation is any better.

[John Dibble]

Blind idealogy has fooled Americans into believing in a system that says that only those who can afford to pay for health care deserve to live.

Blind ideology has fooled Socialists into believing that a system that gives out a 'free' lunch is a good idea.

EDIT - Also, remember that if you die waiting for healthcare you're just as dead as you would be from being unable to pay for it.

[TheresNoMoney]

[quote author=Scoonie link=topic=26541.msg584104#msg584104 Blind ideology has fooled Socialists into believing that a system that gives out a 'free' lunch is a good idea.

It's not free lunch. Everyone pays for it.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The word free is in quotes.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

That would be horrible, wouldn't it?

Sounds like the United States to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

*sigh*



Yet another seriously weird story (and you can find similer-ish stories happening pretty much everywhere) taken out of all context and used as a mindless bashing point by people utterly ignorant about NHS.

The sheer immaturity of this sort of stuff makes me f***ing furious sometimes.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Is it true that there are more MRI's in a medium-sized city in America (like Memphis) than there are in the entirety of Canada?

[David S]

18,000+ a year die because they don't have any health insurance.

.

Whats your source for that?

[A18]

"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." - Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Unlike the federal government, states have the constitutional authority to establish socialized health care at any time. It has always struck me as odd why some insist on forcing their ideology on the entire country, when liberals and conservatives could both be happy under the federal system. This is clearly morally and intellectually bankrupt.

The problem with do-gooders is that they really give no consideration to the desires of the people they use.

Unfortunately, things aren't going to get any better so long as the Supreme Court refuses to apply the Constitution.

[afleitch]

Our system isn't perfect, but I would never abolish the right to free basic healthcare.

[Speed of Sound]

Our system isn't perfect, but I would never abolish the right to free basic healthcare.

i envy your country's ability to care for its people. i wish we could do that.

[John Dibble]

I would never abolish the right to free basic healthcare.

You can't abolish something that doesn't exist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would never abolish the right to free basic healthcare.

You can't abolish something that doesn't exist.

It's free at the point of use. IIRC the amount of money an average taxpayer in the U.K pays towards the NHS is less than the amount of money the average taxpayer in the U.S pays towards the various Government schemes to do with healthcare.
And much less than the average taxpayer in Canada pays for healthcare, but that goes without saying really...

[John Dibble]

I would never abolish the right to free basic healthcare.

You can't abolish something that doesn't exist.

It's free at the point of use. IIRC the amount of money an average taxpayer in the U.K pays towards the NHS is less than the amount of money the average taxpayer in the U.S pays towards the various Government schemes to do with healthcare.
And much less than the average taxpayer in Canada pays for healthcare, but that goes without saying really...

I was referring to the right to healthcare, not the 'free' part, which is a load of crap anyways. Just because you don't pay when you use it doesn't mean you don't pay. Anyways, there is no right to healthcare.

And don't get me started on the U.S. schemes in healthcare - they need to be scrapped.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyways, there is no right to healthcare.

Well there is here and has been since 1948.

[John Dibble]

Anyways, there is no right to healthcare.

Well there is here and has been since 1948.

I'd say that's more of a privilege. If it is a right, it's certainly low in priority.

[JohnFKennedy]

I would never abolish the right to free basic healthcare.

You can't abolish something that doesn't exist.

It's free at the point of use. IIRC the amount of money an average taxpayer in the U.K pays towards the NHS is less than the amount of money the average taxpayer in the U.S pays towards the various Government schemes to do with healthcare.
And much less than the average taxpayer in Canada pays for healthcare, but that goes without saying really...

I was referring to the right to healthcare, not the 'free' part, which is a load of crap anyways. Just because you don't pay when you use it doesn't mean you don't pay. Anyways, there is no right to healthcare.

And don't get me started on the U.S. schemes in healthcare - they need to be scrapped.

Here's the problem, you don't provide some basic minimum standard of healthcare you end up with the poorer members of society who prop up a lot of the infrastructure dying in the streets or languishing at home with broken limbs and as they can't work they can't pay for treatment. The basic minimum healthcare for the poor is a definite necessity in my opinion.

[John Dibble]

Here's the problem, you don't provide some basic minimum standard of healthcare you end up with the poorer members of society who prop up a lot of the infrastructure dying in the streets or languishing at home with broken limbs and as they can't work they can't pay for treatment. The basic minimum healthcare for the poor is a definite necessity in my opinion.

So? I don't see how their needs give them a right to something.

[Peter]

The NHS undoubtedly has its faults, but it has its strengths.

The article that Richius posts does show up one of these faults - that of caring for people with a chronic, non-life threatening illness/injury. The NHS has in recent years found it very difficult to deal with this sort of problem as it targets (understandably) its resources at people with life threatening conditions/injuries.

The Labour government has tried to solve this problem by simply throwing money at the problem (I remember reading that its tripled spending since 1997, though this figure doesn't take account of inflation). I'm pretty much convinced in my own mind these days that this probably won't work, and that a more libertarian approach may be needed.

In terms of offering emergency treatment, the NHS does a fine job in my opinion, and therefore there does not seem to be a need to allow the private sector to break the public monopoly that already exists.

In terms of out patient treatment and treatment for those niggling things that tend to slightly detract from comfort, I personally feel the NHS is slipping. What the government has tried to do in some of these cases is contract the stuff out to private companies - I don't really think this has worked too well either, especially as I imagine it probably costs a lot as well.

I think ultimately one way to go maybe allowing people to spend money on private healthcare to a certain limit and allow them to get the tax back.

[JohnFKennedy]

Here's the problem, you don't provide some basic minimum standard of healthcare you end up with the poorer members of society who prop up a lot of the infrastructure dying in the streets or languishing at home with broken limbs and as they can't work they can't pay for treatment. The basic minimum healthcare for the poor is a definite necessity in my opinion.

So? I don't see how their needs give them a right to something.

Did I say anywhere in my post that their needs gives them a right to healthcare?

I was merely commenting on the idea of scrapping healthcare schemes for those who need it which I believe to not be in society's interest. By scrapping the state provision of healthcare for those who cannot afford it you effectively remove a layer of citizens from economic activity as if they cannot get treatment then they cannot work. Generally the poorer members of society are those who fulfill roles that are fundamental to the maintenance of our infrastructure at the bottom level. If you effectively remove these people from work because they are all at home with broken legs or diseases that require treatments that they cannot afford then all of society is damaged. It is fundamentally in society's interest to provide at least a basic modicum of healthcare as otherwise society begins to break down and fails to function properly which ultimately hurts us all.