|
Do You Want To Keep The NHS?
Well, bear this in mind when you are asked to vote:-
"The Conservatives have sought to reassure voters that the NHS is safe in their hands after one of its MEPs joined in with US attacks on it. Daniel Hannan (Tory Minister) added his voice to criticism of Barack Obama's health reforms, telling US TV he "wouldn't wish" the NHS "on anyone". Quite simply staggering that a Tory Minister can join in some USA slagging off of the British NHS Service!!! He wouldn't wish NHS treatment on anyone? Yeah, that's because you - you toffie nosed, privately educated, out of touch tw4t - can go private!! :mad: Makes my blood boil .... they never change .... vote Tory, lose your NHS! |
Didn't Cameron give the NHS total support in a statement yesterday?
But you knew that already Pete didn't you? |
Depends if you believe him, doesn't it?
I don't trust him, or most MP's to be honest with you. And if you think, because he 'said he supports the NHS' - he actually does, you are a little niave TBH |
I liked this comment in amongst the various online discussions about Hannan's comments;
From painful personal experience I can assure Mr Cameron (who without doubt goes private) that the NHS is a defunct moribound institution whose only function is to keep the legions of Browns administrators and QUANGoes in lucrative and useless employment. The billions wasted never got near the target clientele. Paying doctors 100K to reduce their services, counter productive targets, headline grabbing initiatives that achieve nothing, downright faslification of statistics-the list is endless. So butcher the NHS administration- swap managers for doctors and nurses or hospital beds- cut quangos and use the money to pay the nurses. Be as nasty as you like- it cannot get worse. Better yet ditch DC - replace with DH or give DC a backbone (not on NHS he will either be shunted from waiting list to waiting list to meet target or given a rubber one). Free at point of service means system abused- cough up 20Euros to see doctor (claim most back later from insurance) and people who clog up waiting rooms for trivia soluble at chemists disapear. I live and work in Belgium but pay tax in UK- here I see doctor in 10 minutes in emergency- 1 hour if not and for 30Euros at home. To see my UK doctor I arrange appointment before booking ferry. Scan for back - here within 2 weeks- UK within 18months. To see Specialist- here within 2 weeks- UK 2years. Dentist- just call. NHS- I will not break my rule and use obscene or offensive language- just guess. DH is right this the yanks dont need. The NHS might be an admirable Socialist ideal, but if you can think of a more inefficient, bureaucratic and mis-managed institution (and an institution it is), let me know. I'll be waiting a long time for your suggestions. The NHS does need to be reformed. It does some things well, but on some levels, it is utterly shocking. You wouldn't know because you don't work in the NHS, but let's not let that get in the way of a good trolling, eh? :) |
People die in NHS hospitals every day.
I say ban them! :thumb:;) |
An organization that provides – free at the point of delivery – healthcare to 55 million people is never going to be perfect, or even an approximation of perfection.
The “it’s free so I will take two” syndrome is always going to be there. But it is vastly better than what is on offer in the US – where they have field hospitals (tents) for the poor FFS. Maybe an argument can be made for a small fee to see a doctor - to reduce the serial malingerers. I have had 5 kids on the NHS and recently a small opp to deal with an infection caught in Greece – the service was brilliant on every occasion, with fully committed staff. |
The NHS should stay,if it wasnt here,well,its un thinkable.
i have had private treatment and NHS treatment and to be honest,the NHS system was more structured and precise wheras the private system wanted the cash mainly. NHS Gets my support |
I'll be happy to scrap the NHS and move to a hybrid public/private system. Or at the very least a system that charges an increased subsidised fee people to see doctor or use hospitals for trivial or minor issues (maybe I should extend that to include penalty charges for self-inflicted illness like smokers, drunks or even Vegans, but lets not get too controversial ;) ).
Too many treatments are offered on the NHS, which TBH shouldn't be, deflecting resources away from healthcare for the critically ill and emergencies. Yes its hard on those with an illness, but life is a cruel b*****d. The daft thing is; I could have the most expensive private helthcare plan in the world, but under the current system, if I was hit by a car or had a heart attack. The first place I could go to and be treated is an NHS A&E. I have no issue with that, as its a time critical emergency; but when the ambulance is turned away from the closest hospital due to the A&E being full beyond capacity, and then sent to another hospital where I'm left to die in a cubical because doctors and nurses are overwhelmed with the number of patients to treat, something is very wrong. No thanks, stabilise me, sort out the immediate life-threatening stuff. Then cart me off to a private hospital to have the operations and rehab required to get me back on my feet- at my insurer's expense. |
Cameron is a known keen supporter of the NHS due to his experiences with his son. Scrapping the NHS would be political suicide, however I do feel there is a strong argument for greater input from the private sector.
|
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 8880697)
I have had 5 kids on the NHS and recently a small opp to deal with an infection caught in Greece – the service was brilliant on every occasion, with fully committed staff.
But if you had any idea of the tiers of pen pushers, target setters and countless other wasteful do-gooders behind the scenes, you'd be exasperated. With the exponential rise in the numbers of elderly people in this country over the coming 20 years, the NHS simply cannot remain in its current guise, not unless we bankrupt the country to preserve it. Some uncomfortable choices will have to be made. The unthinkable will have to become the thinkable. In my opinion it's just a shame that these reforms can't be started sooner rather than later just because there's a section of the population who will stand in the way of change, whatever the economics of the situation. |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8880662)
I liked this comment in amongst the various online discussions about Hannan's comments;
The NHS might be an admirable Socialist ideal, but if you can think of a more inefficient, bureaucratic and mis-managed institution (and an institution it is), let me know. I'll be waiting a long time for your suggestions. The NHS does need to be reformed. It does some things well, but on some levels, it is utterly shocking. You wouldn't know because you don't work in the NHS, but let's not let that get in the way of a good trolling, eh? :) Its OUR NHS, not the worlds :p Tony:D |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8880662)
an admirable Socialist ideal :)
It really is about time 'dave' grew a spine and told it like it is. :( The NHS is an enormous waste of resources and not fit for purpose. Should be scrapped along with other 'institutions' like the BBC |
Originally Posted by TelBoy
(Post 8880737)
That's the fortunate reality - the frontline staff are, by and large, pretty good.
But if you had any idea of the tiers of pen pushers, target setters and countless other wasteful do-gooders behind the scenes, you'd be exasperated. With the exponential rise in the numbers of elderly people in this country over the coming 20 years, the NHS simply cannot remain in its current guise, not unless we bankrupt the country to preserve it. Some uncomfortable choices will have to be made. The unthinkable will have to become the thinkable. In my opinion it's just a shame that these reforms can't be started sooner rather than later just because there's a section of the population who will stand in the way of change, whatever the economics of the situation. this seems to be the modus operandi of most institutions these days, both private and public – vast swathes of unproductive middle management walking around with clipboards looking busy. When I turned the tap on in the kitchen the other day (and water came out) it occurred to me that it’s probably the result of 5 people in the pumping station and 800 people with clipboards at the head office telling the 5 people (who have probably been doing the job for 25 years) how to do the job. In my view, this situation is a legacy of the massive pay/social gap that we have let develop in our industries/society over the last 30 years, way above anything in Europe, between people doing the work and people “managing” people doing the work. |
I'd keep the nhs but it needs massive restructiring, and more importantly someone with the balls to do it.
|
I agree with both Cameron and the other guy, but at different times... sometimes the NHS can be great and sometimes shocking......
I would support a public/private joint venture. Many politicians in every country dislike the way certain sectors are run..... this does not make them bad politicians or bad people..... so, Pete, stop moaning and whining like a little b1tch!!!! |
Very interesting topic I have to say, and one I am passionate about.
Shame it was started with such a poor attempt at political spin. |
Perhaps we should petition the mods to have him renamed Propaganda Pete, so everyone knows his agenda and to pay no attention.
|
Originally Posted by unclebuck
(Post 8880756)
There's no such thing. I agree with Daniel Hannan and the Americans.
It really is about time 'dave' grew a spine and told it like it is. :( The NHS is an enormous waste of resources and not fit for purpose. Should be scrapped along with other 'institutions' like the BBC Look, outside the SN world of fast cars, 4 bedroom detached houses, £3k watches etc, there are people in this country who, for no fault of their own, never made it. My maternal grandparents are an example. Born in Devon, Gran was a house servant, my Grandad joined the Army and served in WW1. They married and moved to Guildford. Gran kept the house clean and tidy, Grandad worked in a factory. When WW2 kicked off, the factory made parts for the war effort and on evenings and Sunday afternoons ( because he worked 6.5 days a week, 12 hours a day ) he was in the Home Guard. That was their life. The made enough money to be moderately comfortable, lived in a council house, had a week in Devon once a year, and that was it. Aged 65, my Gran got stomach cancer, was treated by the NHS as best they could ( this was mid 1960's remember ) and told she has 12 months to live. She died aged 97. Without the NHS, she'd never have had the treatment that probably saved her life, and let me know her for 30 odd years. So, if you think that people like that, who couldn't afford health insurance through no fault of their own, should be left with no safety net to guard against ill health, then we'll agree to disagree. |
The NHS kills upwards of 50000 people per year, and we are supposed to support it? Let me explain my figure, the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer in the UK is 77%, in the US its 100%, 35000 cases per year in the UK, ergo 8000 people dying unneccessarily due to socialised medicine for just one disease. Same for heart disease and other cancers, let alone hospital aquired infections. See The Welfare State We're in: Amazon.co.uk: James Bartholomew: Books for more details.
What is lost in the ranting and fear is what to replace the NHS with. People have some fantasical idea that no NHS means no healthcare. This is completely wrong. A popular alternative is Singapore style health accounts. Currently the state pays for the healthcare (through taxation) and also provides healthcare, through the NHS. People are more concerned with the first (think of the poor!!!!!!) than the second. A simple alternative would be to provide the amount spent per person (around 1400 quid pa I believe) and give it as a health insurance voucher to individuals to spend how they wish with whichever provider they wish. People have flexibility and choice and are not dictated to by the state - a definite good thing |
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 8880901)
The NHS kills upwards of 50000 people per year, and we are supposed to support it? Let me explain my figure, the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer in the UK is 77%, in the US its 100%, 35000 cases per year in the UK, ergo 8000 people dying unneccessarily due to socialised medicine for just one disease. Same for heart disease and other cancers, let alone hospital aquired infections. See The Welfare State We're in: Amazon.co.uk: James Bartholomew: Books for more details.
What is lost in the ranting and fear is what to replace the NHS with. People have some fantasical idea that no NHS means no healthcare. This is completely wrong. A popular alternative is Singapore style health accounts. Currently the state pays for the healthcare (through taxation) and also provides healthcare, through the NHS. People are more concerned with the first (think of the poor!!!!!!) than the second. A simple alternative would be to provide the amount spent per person (around 1400 quid pa I believe) and give it as a health insurance voucher to individuals to spend how they wish with whichever provider they wish. People have flexibility and choice and are not dictated to by the state - a definite good thing most men in who die in their 70,s and higher have postrate cancer btw |
My Nan had breast cancer 4 yrs ago, she has now recovered; my mother had breast cancer 2 years ago and has now recovered; I recently had ACL surgery and am in the process of recovering; my brother-in-law had surgery for bowel cancer on Monday.
From my personal experience I cannot fault the NHS, though I agree it might be a postcode lottery as too how well you are treated but the staff at Chesterfield Royal Hospital and my local health centre have been amazing in everything they've done for both my family and myself. |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 8880908)
is that 100% who get postrate cancer or 100% who get treated (its a meaningless statistic otherwise)
most men in who die in their 70,s and higher have postrate cancer btw see You Were Warned - FOXNews.com 3.26 |
Getting a few bites today?
Perhaps you should try a different bait? |
The NHS isn't free. We pay for it on every Salary.
With that money, I'd rather pay for private health care. |
Originally Posted by stilover
(Post 8881028)
The NHS isn't free. We pay for it on every Salary.
With that money, I'd rather pay for private health care. |
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 8880979)
Its using international comparative rates from the American Cancer Society
see You Were Warned - FOXNews.com 3.26 I suspect it is a percentage of who gets treated which is not fair -- beacuse we are discussing the universality of access to treatment. what it does not tell you is the amount of people in the US who die of prostrate cancer because they have no access to healthcare. No one would deny that US healthcare is not one of the best if not the best in the world. The argument is about the fact the thousands die in the US (some of prostrate cancer) because they simply cannot get access to healthcare. So off course the bald statistics looks bad for the UK, but that is because most people with prostrate cancer get access to treatment whereas some people in the US simply die of it without ever getting treatment. the bald fact is healthcare in the US is about making money, treating people is a by product of that process. |
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 8881058)
fox news -- what a joke
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 8881058)
I suspect it is a percentage of who gets treated which is not fair -- beacuse we are discussing the universality of access to treatment.
what it does not tell you is the amount of people in the US who die of prostrate cancer because they have no access to healthcare. No one would deny that US healthcare is not one of the best if not the best in the world. The argument is about the fact the thousands die in the US (some of prostrate cancer) because they simply cannot get access to healthcare. So off course the bald statistics looks bad for the UK, but that is because most people with prostrate cancer get access to treatment whereas some people in the US simply die of it without ever getting treatment.
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2
(Post 8881058)
the bald fact is healthcare in the US is about making money, treating people is a by product of that process.
|
IN MY OPINION (and i have worked in the NHS, granted not a doctor/nurse)
Firstly Should we keep it - SIMPLY PUT YES Secondly I believe that it does need a complete OVERALL, bring back the matron, get rid of the pen pushing tossers, that have just come from university, that then try to tell DOCTORS and NURSES (most of which have been doing the job for years) how to do there job. Wonder how much money could be saved by doing this alone, who knows how many more doctors and nurses could be supplied using there wages. THRIDLY I believe the main problems with the NHS is under funding, not enough doctors and nurses available, And I have got private medical insurance, but have and would use NHS hospitals again and again. |
Originally Posted by warrenm2
(Post 8880979)
Its using international comparative rates from the American Cancer Society
see You Were Warned - FOXNews.com 3.26 |
Originally Posted by FlightMan
(Post 8881104)
Fox news! ROFLMAO. 80 years ago you'd have been the German who got his news about the Jewish people from the Nazi party. :cuckoo:
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:24 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands