The rest of the world thinks you're silly

[InsaneApache]

So you totally ignore the fact that hospitals all over the UK have been killing people through negligence and box ticking.

When I had my heart attack 4 years ago the elderly guy in the next bed would have starved to death if the Polish cleaners hadn't taken the time to feed him. Or perhaps the time a year or so later when my eldest lad was in hospital and his bed frame was caked in faeces. Or perhaps the time last year when the consultant was going to stop my dads meds because he was old and quote, "didn't have much time left".

Wonder of the world eh?

[Beskar]

So you totally ignore the fact that hospitals all over the UK have been killing people through negligence and box ticking.

Did I say there were no such things as bad apples? I was simply remarking that a few incidents out of over 400 hospitals, even then one ward out of a great many (they are ran separately), doesn't mean it is representative for the majority of the NHS.

As for anecdotal evidence, it is different to my own. Outside of superficial things such as lack of activities/overpriced activities and hospital food not being comparable to my home cooking, the treatment was quick, thorough and rather no nonsense and regularly saw cleaners and support staff. Even with my terminally ill brother, he was on 'about a week' and they still continued treatments and he has lived for a further 5 years due to constant and ongoing support. When on the wards, I regularly see support staff assisting patients with feeding, and if they skip (when voluntary) two meals they are automatically placed on a diet and fluid chart to monitor what they have eaten with further steps implemented, if the gentleman was in a situation where he couldn't feed himself, then he would have some one with him to ensure it or placed on supplement bags.

If you are saying about greater transparency and accountability, I have no issues with that. Anything out of line should be reported and dealt with. The incidents you experienced should not have happened and if anything like that starts to happen again, get proof of it, via pictures and other evidence then report it on.

[InsaneApache]

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favour of subsidised health-care. Just not in the way we do it in the UK. It clearly isn't working as intended.

[Major Robert Dump]

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favour of subsidised health-care. Just not in the way we do it in the UK. It clearly isn't working as intended.

I THINK YOU'RE BIG PROBLEM OVER THERE IS THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT INVOLVED. CLEARLY IF THE UK INVOLVED MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES IT WOULD FIX EVERYTHING

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm willing to give it a shot because it passed congress and the executive and then, on the judgement of SCOTUS, was deemed to not be an unlawful abuse of Federal power under their power to tax.

Do I think that it will work? No. Do I think that out will fail so badly that and prices will skyrocket to such levels that people will be clamoring for single payer? Absolutely - but this was the agenda of the left the entire time. I'm so fed up with the current health system that I really don't care'; we're all going to die one day, but the current system makes my living years angst ridden due to the financial calamity that could befall my family at any time. I don't know if people realize that when you are chronically I'll that your "off" days are different. It is so easy to get fired and just have no insurance when you are sick.

[HoreTore]

I feel like quoting Per Fugelli in response to IA:

"I heard a representative from the Progress Party scream with an offended tone: 'People are dying in our hospitals!' Yes, where else should they die?"

People demand perfection in life, and freedom from pain and hurt. When society can't deliver, they scream and blame everyone.

We as a society needs to face up to the fact that life isn't without pain, and cease the constant demand of a perfect life.

[Kadagar_AV]

I must honestly say, as both a Swede and Austrian, that I really struggle to understand how (some of) the people of the US do NOT want everyone to be able to get treatment.

What's the problem?

If we can afford healthcare for all our citizens, why not provide it?

And if we can not afford it, where does the money go that would be MORE important?

Really, c'mon. Everyone with somewhat of a heart must understand that being able to treat your childs cancer is a good thing. There are no "but", "if" or "when" about it.

Humanitarian reasons aside, nations as a rule benefit from having a healthy - not to mention alive - population.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some interesting things in this thread.


First: Health care, as with anything else, cannot be free. The cost can be transferred, deferred, shared, or gifted but nothing is ever free. Somewhere, somehow, someone or some group of someones must pay.

Second: Obamacare -- and yes the name is a little silly -- is mostly mandated insurance requirements. As is usual with the US approach to healthcare, it is a booddoggle waiting to happen. Persons who, by current standards of insurance underwriting, have a high morbidity risk will flock to obtain health insurance that will defray the bulk of their expenses.

Since most who are really ill cannot get health coverage at all and are forced to rely on pro bono care under the present system, they would be foolish NOT to avail themselves of Bronze coverage costing them $500 a month with a deductible of 6,350 max. For less than 12.5k per annum, they will receive unlimited health care for their condition. With lifetime costs well into the six-figure range for cancer treatment (1 in 8 women WILL face breast cancer; nearly 1 in 7 men WILL face prostate cancer), persons suffering a debilitating illness would be silly not to procure coverage and minimize their costs.

Ideally, this is offset by large numbers. If large numbers of (usually healthier) younger persons participate, the numbers will work well (that's the classic insurance approach to spreading the risk as a risk management tool). However, for example, the current law has a maximum "not covered" penalty of 2.5% of income. Run the numbers and a 27 year old making 25k in Dallas would (Source: Huffington Post) pay $74 a month for health coverage costing 888/year. The non-payment penalty would be $625/year (even lower for the first two years of the program). Most of the relatively healthy younglings -- the ones least likely to have insurance or give a care anyway -- are going to opt out because it is cheaper.

We will see, I suspect, a prototypical example of adverse selection that completely skews the finances on the whole thing. As many employers will have opted to have employees use the government exchanges rather than absorb the cost of maintaining their own coverage plan, we will rapidly face a situation where the government will have to:

a) increase penalties to draconian levels so as to make health insurance a required personal obligation for all

b) subsidize the continued losses of the program through an increase of the debt and/or an increase in taxation

c) nationalize the health system along the lines of the present Canadian or British health systems


Third, the government will NOT make a quick decision when this new crisis looms because of the usual political shenanigans, thus leaving us with option b), debt increase variant.

Fourth, when the government services bubble bursts, it will make the sub-prime lending bubble look like fart bubble in a bathtub.


Or, I suppose, our politicos might have the courage to act and tackle the problem head on....but I don't plan to hold my breath until that occurs.

[Sir Moody]

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favour of subsidised health-care. Just not in the way we do it in the UK. It clearly isn't working as intended.

don't blame the model blame the administration.

The NHS is still one of the best examples of socialized Healthcare in the world but it is currently suffering under major administration problems.

Demand for the NHS has risen inline with the population, which as we all know has swelled massively - the Government (both Labour and the Conservatives) however have failed to manage this and instead of expanding services with more Hospitals and more staff, they have instead either pumped more money into existing Hospitals which ends up spent on middle management or worse CUT the budgets which has led to closed Hospitals and dangerously low levels of the key staff (aka Nurses and Doctors).

What the NHS needs is a culling of the middle management, a recruitment drive for Nurses and Doctors, and new hospitals to be set up in areas where demand is highest... then the service might be able to handle the demand being thrown its way