• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Britain's National Health Service: Cack or Cool?

The bill that's been produced by the House doesn't address either of those problems, and also adds new expenses in the form of subsidies.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because it gives me a chance to make my position clear.

I don't necessariily support (or even know enough about) Obama or anyone's particular plans, but I do support people who have no coverage or who would get saddled with three lifetime's worth of debt if they commit the heinous sin of getting ill getting better coverage.

The current system is ruinous and it's ridiculous to speak of freedoms being curtailed by changing it, when seventy million Americans are gettnig stiffed by it and everyone is paying three times more than they need to to keep it going.

Isn't freedom of the best choice and freedom not to be conned and effectively overtaxed not essentially American, too? Isn't that what people fought and died for in the eighteenth century?
 
And yet... it might not be too far off to assume that maybe... the Democrats don't want real health reform to pass.

With the amount of money that pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies spend on lobbying in this country, it's pretty clear who really pulls the strings.

Yeah, essentially it seems to be that way: that America is a privately owned oligarchy with many millions of smeggers at the bottom.

I hasten to add though that socialism/communism, which both reduce all peole to the same basic level of shit life, is an awful system, just in case any of y'all suspect I might lean left - I don't, I'm centre-right. I just think it should be easier in the richest country the world's ever seen, or likely will see, for people at the bottom to rise a bit higher.
 
One of the charges levelled at the NHS is that there IS a rationing system, and the level of rationing is decided by a government bureaucrat rather than a doctor. Therefore, if you're in the above position, the doctor can suggest a treatment but the government can refuse to pay for it.

And here's one of the wonderful things about being British...

I pay my taxe4s and am thus entitled to NHS treatment. I also have private medical insurance.

The cost of both added together is less than the cost of what just private insurance would cost me in the US and while the NHS may have things people would perceive as shortcomings compared to the American private system, our private healthcare system is better than America's because it isn't driven by greedy bastards in white coats loading the bills, it's still regulated.

That being the case, who's better off and why aren't more Americans, even those who would place themselves at the right side of the spectrum (like Maniac for instance) more pissed off that they're being taken for a complete and total ride with the cost of the healthcare?

Even better question, why aren't more people angrilly demanding a system that doesn't con them? Even if they can afford it or have it through their employer, they're still being needlessly deprived of money that should rightfully be in their back pocket.
 
This corresponds to what I was saying above about the biggest problem in the American health care system being out of control cost inflation. That's the underlying disease and the high number of uninsured is just a symptom of that. Until a reform bill focuses on that, plenty of well informed individuals who understand that the status quo sucks are going to have trouble getting behind it (especially given that polls indicate centrist voters are increasingly worried about the lack of attention to the deficit and will be wary about anything that's not budget neutral).


That's the underlying problem and I would be hugely surprised if Obama has the artillery to take on the people who own the private system.
 
Another joy of the US system is to be able to vote any politician out of office. Something I personally intend to do to any of my Congressmen. Senators, and President who vote or sponsor this quick fix socialism. I might even contribute to their opponents campaigns. Three cheers for the US. 😀

Any further debate on this I will reserve for P and R.
 
Yeah, essentially it seems to be that way: that America is a privately owned oligarchy with many millions of smeggers at the bottom.

I hasten to add though that socialism/communism, which both reduce all peole to the same basic level of shit life, is an awful system, just in case any of y'all suspect I might lean left - I don't, I'm centre-right. I just think it should be easier in the richest country the world's ever seen, or likely will see, for people at the bottom to rise a bit higher.

The wealthier the people in power are, the better able they are to insulate themselves from the suffering of others.

By the same token, if you make sure that the working class is still living better than a lot of the world, then many of them will illogically assume that everything is ok.

Basically, it comes back to what Machiavelli once said.

"Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better."

All the government has to do at this point is hang the carrot of tort reform in front of the public, and the resulting cost savings will be satisfactory enough to keep the current system intact -- even if it lacks the equanimity seen in socialized systems.

That is the nature of our government and of government in general -- as the wealthy elite try to squeeze as much as possible from the rest of humanity.
 
Only funny if you're detached though, I guess. In britain we're kinda close to America as buddies, yanno? We think of them as a sort of overgrown offspring and a protective ally, and they think of us as a sort of ... warehouse.

I don't. I think of them as some sort of foreigners with guns, Bibles, and scary newsmen who SHOUT ALL THE TIME AND OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING OBAMA IS BLACK WOARGH.

And here's one of the wonderful things about being British...

I pay my taxe4s and am thus entitled to NHS treatment. I also have private medical insurance.

The cost of both added together is less than the cost of what just private insurance would cost me in the US and while the NHS may have things people would perceive as shortcomings compared to the American private system,

According to some analysts the only facet of British healthcare that lags behind the US system is the technology, but they developed that and they're rich, insular and won't share it so that's hardly our fault.

our private healthcare system is better than America's because it isn't driven by greedy bastards in white coats loading the bills, it's still regulated.

That being the case, who's better off and why aren't more Americans, even those who would place themselves at the right side of the spectrum (like Maniac for instance) more pissed off that they're being taken for a complete and total ride with the cost of the healthcare?

Because apparently any and all government intervention in any part of a person's private life is tantamount to socialism and thus we need to bring back McCarthy.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I was paying 3 grand a year to some fucking faceless institution, I'd want to know it was doing something more than just paying the policeman. I'd expect at least a little bit of help when I get into trouble abroad, or get tetanus, or need to pay for a course of rehabilitative treatment after suffering a muscular injury but my employer fired me after I injured myself because I wasn't a union member and couldn't do anything about it so now I'm stuck with a half-useless arm because I can't afford insurance, and oh sure the trauma was free but the follow-up treatment fucking isn't.

Even better question, why aren't more people angrilly demanding a system that doesn't con them? Even if they can afford it or have it through their employer, they're still being needlessly deprived of money that should rightfully be in their back pocket.

Which, to be fair, is sort of the way I feel about our National Insurance contributions. I pay mine weekly as part of my taxes, and back in the old days that money was ring-fenced for the express usage of the NHS. Nowadays it all goes into the central pot and is doled out in portions wherever it's thought to be needed according to budget reports. If the money isn't going to be used to pay for the NHS they should just call it what it fucking is and make that sum part of your Income Tax contributions. Otherwise treat it as the involable and sacrosanct institution it should be, get back to ring-fencing it's money in the way it was initially designed to be, instead of trying to run the fucker like it was just another arsehole Department and spending my Insurance contributions on a new computer system for the Department Of Bridges, Roads, Railways, The Manchester Ship Canal, Some Fields, A Large Cow And Farmer Gile's Tractor.

EDIT: I'm all-but convinced that is an actual Department of the British government.
 
I pay my taxe4s and am thus entitled to NHS treatment. I also have private medical insurance.

The cost of both added together is less than the cost of what just private insurance would cost me in the US and while the NHS may have things people would perceive as shortcomings compared to the American private system, our private healthcare system is better than America's because it isn't driven by greedy bastards in white coats loading the bills, it's still regulated.
There are only two reasons why this may be true; one is the right to sue with an unbound payoff for a guilty verdict; and the second is my choice for obtaining an insurance provider ends at the state line.

Remedy either one or both of these and our costs drop significantly without adding a dime to the current system. Of course neither are likely to be introduced into a bill from either party as long as Big Pharma & the trial lawyers continue to grease both sides of the isle.
 
There are only two reasons why this may be true; one is the right to sue with an unbound payoff for a guilty verdict; and the second is my choice for obtaining an insurance provider ends at the state line.

Remedy either one or both of these and our costs drop significantly without adding a dime to the current system. Of course neither are likely to be introduced into a bill from either party as long as Big Pharma & the trial lawyers continue to grease both sides of the isle.

There's also a third possibility; Britons who, of their own volition (not because they HAVE to), choose to pay for private healthcare plans in addition to receiving the right to use the NHS somehow end up paying less than an American who only pays his private insurance premium. Why that should be so I don't know, because British lives aren't worth any more or less than American ones, but if I had to guess I'd say it was because the HMOs or whatever you call them are taking the piss out of the USA. I think
Big Jim the Hampshire Farmer is expressing surprise that a nation so ready to cry out against the provision of affordable healthcare for those without wherewithall are so ready to simply accept the high cost of premiums. To be honest I find it a bit weird too.

As a comparison, I pay £25 (about $14 or so) a week for my National Insurance contributions. Comes to about £1300 ($975) a year. For that I get the peace of mind of knowing that no matter where I go in the UK I have access not only to emergency medicine, but also to any further treatment I might require such as physiotherapy, psychological therapy, chemotherapy, whatever. I can go to a medical facility, get treated, get better and go home without having to worry about someone having done a wallet biopsy on me or having my insurance invalidated by circumstances or whatever. It's pretty sweet, all told. Be interesting to see what the average Yank pays for their health insurance.
 
There's also a third possibility; Britons who, of their own volition (not because they HAVE to), choose to pay for private healthcare plans in addition to receiving the right to use the NHS somehow end up paying less than an American who only pays his private insurance premium. Why that should be so I don't know, because British lives aren't worth any more or less than American ones, but if I had to guess I'd say it was because the HMOs or whatever you call them are taking the piss out of the USA. I think
Big Jim the Hampshire Farmer is expressing surprise that a nation so ready to cry out against the provision of affordable healthcare for those without wherewithall are so ready to simply accept the high cost of premiums. To be honest I find it a bit weird too.

As a comparison, I pay £25 (about $14 or so) a week for my National Insurance contributions. Comes to about £1300 ($975) a year. For that I get the peace of mind of knowing that no matter where I go in the UK I have access not only to emergency medicine, but also to any further treatment I might require such as physiotherapy, psychological therapy, chemotherapy, whatever. I can go to a medical facility, get treated, get better and go home without having to worry about someone having done a wallet biopsy on me or having my insurance invalidated by circumstances or whatever. It's pretty sweet, all told. Be interesting to see what the average Yank pays for their health insurance.
It’s good to know there are some Brits happy with the NHS only option, but the fiasco they put my daughter through to treat and follow-up on a simple throat infection a few years back convinced her to never be without the private option again. So for many it’s not an option at all. And don’t forget, any individual can walk into any emergency room here for initial treatment with no true obligation of repayment thus adding to our overall costs.

But the truth is it’s difficult to compare costs because most Yanks get insurance through their employer and have no idea what the actual premium is, particularly since the size of the company makes an enormous difference in that cost.

I interpreted Big Jim’s comparison statement to the cost of a self-employed individual who has no leverage in premium bids across the relatively small pool of competing companies within a respective state. Opening the competition nationally would level the playing field somewhat.

The problem isn’t a lack of viable solutions to the cost issue here; the problem is that the solutions rub those holding the keys the wrong way combined with a spineless set of politicians unwilling to confront them.
 
The thing about the NHS is, service varies depending on which trust you're dealing with. Some are much better than others.

I had minor surgery a couple of weeks ago, was treated pretty quickly and the chain of events was seamless (pun intended) as far as I could see. But I've known people to stay on waiting lists for similar procedures for much longer in other trusts.

As I recall, there was a more standardised system in France; I'm going back a long time, though.
 
What I don't get (since no one has at all replied to my previous post on page 2) is why we are even comparing US NHC to the current UK NHC... they are not in any way comparable.

I totally agree with you mate. The reason it's currently a hot topic, is because a certain section of the Republican Party chose to use the NHS as a whipping boy when trying to attack the Obama/Clinton plan.

One of their tactics was to get various people (British) to voice their critiscisms about it, quoting them out of context and without telling them the reason for the video. Another guest speaker was a Tory MEP who used the words, "I wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone".

****.

I know I would. I'd wish it on someone who has cancer but can't afford to pay for private treatment. People like him are so out of touch with the rest of us poor sods in humanity that they really don't deserve to serve us, even if it is only in the European Parliament.
 
Thats the joy of the law in the US system. He doesn't have to. All he has to do is slip this into the paperwork of some bill that grants financial assistance to grieving widows and orphan kittens - you either vote yes for it or look like a complete ass. And once it is law, there is no competition between Obama and private healthcare. Private healthcare loses. Period.

Oh the optimism of the uncynical. I wish I could remember it.
 
There are only two reasons why this may be true; one is the right to sue with an unbound payoff for a guilty verdict; and the second is my choice for obtaining an insurance provider ends at the state line.

Remedy either one or both of these and our costs drop significantly without adding a dime to the current system. Of course neither are likely to be introduced into a bill from either party as long as Big Pharma & the trial lawyers continue to grease both sides of the isle.

And there quite possibly, we have the turd in the waterpipe.
 
but even critics of socialism have been forced to admit that the Scandinavian Model actually works.

[...]

It's the US though... I don't intend to ever move there, so while I think it's kinda tragic that the greatest country in the world can't have honest and objective media coverage
1. The scandinavian model is not socialist. It's socialdemocratic. Big difference.

2. American media is more than Fox News. Besides, does Sweden always have objective media coverage? Didn't large parts of swedish press actually debate weather Sverigedemokraterne (for those outside of Scandinavia: a swedish anti-immigration, centrist party) should get any coverage at all?
 
It’s good to know there are some Brits happy with the NHS only option, but the fiasco they put my daughter through to treat and follow-up on a simple throat infection a few years back convinced her to never be without the private option again.

I had problems with throat, sinus and chest infections for ten years of my life from the age of 9 to the age of 19, so I can sympathise. Every other time I went into the clinic the doctor referred me to hospital for blood tests, chest x-rays, some horrific thing where they wash your sinuses out with saltwater that was absolutely atrocious, and failing to find any underlying cause for my shitty respiratory tract the treatment each time was antibiotics. Which cleared it up every time. Apart from the one time it was mono, which they caught on the spot and treated.

Eight years later and here I am hale and hearty. Turned out my constant respiratory tract problems were due to my mum's insistence upon smoking in the house, evinced by the fact they stopped when I moved out. I have no idea why your daughter went through such a polava to get treated for a chest infection, the only reason that springs to mind is that she's a non-EU foreign citizen although I really don't know how the system works for foreign citizens, or even those here with tourist/ student visas and whatnot. Frankly I'm not happy about foreigners being able to come here and leech the fuck off my tax money, especially when the arrangement is not reciprocal, but hey. Of course she might be an NHS Card-carrying British citizen in which case it's an unfortunate incident, but not one I've had experience of. And, according to the so-called "postcode lottery", the place I grew up, Knowsley, is supposedly covered by one of the worst Local Health Authorities in the UK.

I do know, however, that the Foreign Office strongly cautions against travelling to the United States without insurance, because having the temerity to fall ill in the land of the free could end up bankrupting you.

So for many it’s not an option at all. And don’t forget, any individual can walk into any emergency room here for initial treatment with no true obligation of repayment thus adding to our overall costs.

Yes, the initial treatment is all well and good, but what happens when you walk your insurance-less hide into an A&E after having done yourself an injury that might require follow-up treatment, such as physiotherapy, psychotherapy or just more drugs?

But the truth is it’s difficult to compare costs because most Yanks get insurance through their employer and have no idea what the actual premium is, particularly since the size of the company makes an enormous difference in that cost.

And that doesn't strike you as a system open to abuse? Name your price, Mr Insurer; if the companies want to keep their employees happy they'll pay whatever the frig you tell them to. What else are they going to do, get their healthcare for free like they do on Pinko Island?

I interpreted Big Jim’s comparison statement to the cost of a self-employed individual who has no leverage in premium bids across the relatively small pool of competing companies within a respective state. Opening the competition nationally would level the playing field somewhat.

If it's the case that insurance companies operate in this way then changing it would help the US private healthcare market immensely, and I'd be very surprised if that isn't part of Obama's healthcare reforms. Seems like the sort of thing he'd do, being a centre-right man as he is.

The problem isn’t a lack of viable solutions to the cost issue here; the problem is that the solutions rub those holding the keys the wrong way combined with a spineless set of politicians unwilling to confront them.

That's the problem with every private market though. Take the commodity out of the hands of profiteers and it goes away. In Britain, private health insurance companies like BUPA HAVE to price their policies competetively, because if they charge too much people will ignore the shit out of them and get their healthcare free. Sure, it might seem "wrong" to market capitalists to have private corporations forced to compete against a leviathan funded by guaranteed money from the public purse, but at the end of the day the "target market" they're fighting over are sick people.
 
We use a bit of a different system here.

Used to be income based, now it's simple. You pay around €100 a month (people with lower incomes get subsidized by the governement (as do I, poor student that I am) with up to €50 and if you don't use any healthcare you receive around €250 in return at the end of the year. (a no-claim system like with car-insurance)

We have waiting lists, which are shortening, but that's not because of the system itself but simply because in the early 90s the governement didn't invest properly so by the end of the 90s we had a problem. But things are looking better and better.

Quality of the healthcare provided is quite good.



The main reason why in my opinion nationalised healthcare is much better than a private system is because in a nationalised system there are no shareholders who demand profits and such. No profits means simply that if there's any money made in the process it flows back to the consumers. That might be unamerican, but it's hell of a lot better than getting told your brain tumor isn't life threatening enough because your insurance needs to satisfy it's shareholders.

Anyways, our fancy new system works brilliantly and it has been suggested in the journal "Health Affairs" (Universal Mandatory Health Insurance In The Netherlands: A Model For The United...
van de Ven and Schut Health Affairs.2008; 27: 771-781 ) that it could be quite a good model for the US.

And here's a video with English subtitles which explains why it's the way to go.

http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/heal...-health-care-system-in-the-Netherlands-video/
 
What's New
10/31/25
Happy Halloween!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top