Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Septic Christo-facists attack NHS


Recommended Posts

That's ludicrous. The NHS may not be perfect but it's a fuck of a lot better than America's system where only the rich folk can afford treatment and medicine. See that film Sicko where the woman gets inhalers from Cuba for $5, and she's been paying $100 for them in states cos they're sold by a privately owned company. Crazy, makes me never want to live in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ludicrous. The NHS may not be perfect but it's a fuck of a lot better than America's system where only the rich folk can afford treatment and medicine. See that film Sicko where the woman gets inhalers from Cuba for $5, and she's been paying $100 for them in states cos they're sold by a privately owned company. Crazy, makes me never want to live in America.

The problem there is that private companies can price gouge consumers because they set the prices insurance companies have to pay and the uninsured are forced to pay the same. It didn't use to be that way but, these days, US healthcare insurance has very broad coverage, typically with a low deductible, meaning you pretty much charge everything on your insurance, including routine checkups which really shouldn't be covered by a risk-based system. This drives competition down and premiums sky high.

The reason for this is the tax code. Your healthcare insurance contributions come out of your pay check pre-tax, so naturally the incentive is to lump as much onto your insurance as possible. I even had a pre paid credit card charged up out of my net pay when I was over there. So, there's a lot they could do to fix the system without social healthcare, although I still think some form of government backed compulsory insurance scheme is ultimately necessary to deal with pre-existing conditions which should be uninsurable.

Compare the NHS to the French system though, and you'll realise we're getting a pretty bad deal ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's insane the stuff they're saying over there:

Stephen Hawking both British and not dead The Register

If they don't want a fair health system then fine, that's their fucked up choice. But lying about ours isn't going to help matters.

That is rather hilarious but also fucking scary at the same time. IBD has a circulation of over 210,000 and misinformation of this magnitude which will be absorbed by all who are of a disposition to believe it. They're response is quite hilarious when Hawking's Britishness is pointed out:

IBD still milking Hawking example, still coming up dry | Jay Bookman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the left-wing falsehoods, half truths, and unattributed speculation the Guardian regularly uses to attack their opponents when they run out of cogent arguments out of the equation, what have we got? A story that is simply about Obama's political opponents, not to mention the majority of the people he represents, not wanting to use the NHS as a model for US healthcare provision. That seems like an eminently sensible view to me, given that the NHS is too expensive for what it is, riddled with beaureacracy, poorly managed and unable to provide services effectively and in a timely fashion in a great number of cases. Is that not a fair view? Would anyone who has ever worked in the NHS, or used their services challenge any of those statements?

There's no such thing as free healthcare, and what many americans have realised is that Obama's plan will mean that they will not only have to pay for it with their tax dollars, but also at the point of service when the "free" care they have been promised fails to materialise due to poor management at government level and through lack of funding. Of course there should be free medical care for those who most need it or can't afford insurance, but those that can should make their own provision. That's just good common sense, as the story of the NHS, and every other socialised medical plan around, is that the government will invariably let you down.

What we have got here is opponents to Obama's healthcare proposal peddling uninformed sensasionalist garbage which preys on the mindset of the uneducated republoyanks who, more than anything in the world, don't want to have anything in common with Russia.

I appreciate that this isn't uncommon in politics but it always grates.

Whilst you may be able to put forward a compelling argument against socialised medical care I presume, although I may be wrong, that the vast majority of the American populace who oppose it couldn't tell you why they do, other than because the British have notoriously bad teeth and Communism is evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the left-wing falsehoods, half truths, and unattributed speculation the Guardian regularly uses to attack their opponents when they run out of cogent arguments out of the equation, what have we got? A story that is simply about Obama's political opponents, not to mention the majority of the people he represents, not wanting to use the NHS as a model for US healthcare provision. That seems like an eminently sensible view to me, given that the NHS is too expensive for what it is, riddled with beaureacracy, poorly managed and unable to provide services effectively and in a timely fashion in a great number of cases. Is that not a fair view? Would anyone who has ever worked in the NHS, or used their services challenge any of those statements?

There's no such thing as free healthcare, and what many americans have realised is that Obama's plan will mean that they will not only have to pay for it with their tax dollars, but also at the point of service when the "free" care they have been promised fails to materialise due to poor management at government level and through lack of funding. Of course there should be free medical care for those who most need it or can't afford insurance, but those that can should make their own provision. That's just good common sense, as the story of the NHS, and every other socialised medical plan around, is that the government will invariably let you down.

...because, after all, there is no history of private healthcare doing absolutely everything it can to avoid actually paying out. No, those guys can be relied upon without exception. :up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're mistaking private healthcare providers with insurance companies. If you pay for private healthcare, you get private healthcare.

Yeah, and if you can pay, you're very well off - but for the vast majority of people if your insurance messes you about, you're not getting private healthcare, so the point is moot. According to Harvard Law School, 60% of all personal bankruptcies can be traced back to funding healthcare.

Why would a universal, government-backed insurance scheme be in any way preferable to a private one tailored to one's own needs, anyway?

Precisely because it is universal. Everyone can access it. You can dress it up any way you like but the politics of private healthcare are fundamentally selfish. The subtext of pretty much everything I've read in favour of it is an opposition to perceived increases in taxation. I've got mine, why should I pay for yours? Lovely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the left-wing falsehoods, half truths, and unattributed speculation the Guardian regularly uses to attack their opponents

I only put the Guardian link up because the BBC is blocked at my work. Most news outlets have been reporting this in a similiar way - including BBC radio.

'spose the BBC are a bunch pinko leftie hippies too though....;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only put the Guardian link up because the BBC is blocked at my work. Most news outlets have been reporting this in a similiar way - including BBC radio.

'spose the BBC are a bunch pinko leftie hippies too though....;)

Yes :up:

But the American right-wing are completely stupid at this point. Like I pointed out earlier, there's much that can be done in way of healthcare reform without adding a couple of trillion to the annual budget deficit. I suspect obamacare will line the pockets of pharmaceutical corporations just like medicare does (which is now 30 times over its original annual budget allocation ) because they can charge up what ever they like to the government tab.

I'm sure Mr Bernanke can just print the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tam o' Shantie
Go on then, tell me why. Why should I pay x amount for government-regulated healthcare, only to find that, when I need to access it, it's unavailable or of such a poor standard that I have to shell out more cash to be privately looked after? Surely amount x is safer in my pocket than in the government's?

Dude, do you realise that something like a third of this country's population is living in poverty? The people who are wealthy enough to afford private healthcare can pay for it if they want, but those living on benefits can't. Unfortunately a side effect of having money and raising your expectations of the quality of life you deserve is that you often have to spend your money to recieve it. The difference between our system and theirs is that the most vulnerable people in our society are given the basic right to adequate healthcare (slag it off all you want - it ain't perfect but it's better than nothing). Once you force this to be an OPTION for people living off 200 a week, do you really think that they're going to have a money jar on the mantlepeice in case they get cancer?

Edit:

PS. If I was working in America, I would prefer that my taxes were used to provide basic healthcare to the poor, rather than contributing to this year's $515.4 billion military budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catastrophic insurance coverage for things like cancer can actually be very cheap. I had a specific additional policy on top of my American PPO plan coverage, just in case as I used to smoke. I was earning about $12 an hour, though my company paid the bulk of the insurance premium.

Of course, the problem is that people will tend to spend the cash on fags instead...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tam o' Shantie
Catastrophic insurance coverage for things like cancer can actually be very cheap. I had a specific additional policy on top of my American PPO plan coverage, just in case as I used to smoke. I was earning about $12 an hour, though my company paid the bulk of the insurance premium.

Of course, the problem is that people will tend to spend the cash on fags instead...

The problem is...

"The number of unemployed persons increased by 563,000 to 13.7 million in

April, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent."

13.7 million americans aren't making $12 an hour, or even $1 an hour. Maybe Cancer was a poor choice but 'cheap' or not, catastrophic insurance still costs money. What about a) an unemployed man with no medical insurance or private healthcare who gets cancer? b) an employed man who earns minimum/minimal wage and whose cheap catastrophic insurance doesn't cover him for some other sickness or injury? What if both of these people knew that some of the american tax was being used to make sure that these people would not be left either with an ongoing illness, permanent injury or the other side of the coin...treated and left bankrupt as a result? Wouldn't that undoubtedly be better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is...

"The number of unemployed persons increased by 563,000 to 13.7 million in

April, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent."

13.7 million americans aren't making $12 an hour, or even $1 an hour. Maybe Cancer was a poor choice but 'cheap' or not, catastrophic insurance still costs money. What about a) an unemployed man with no medical insurance or private healthcare who gets cancer? b) an employed man who earns minimum/minimal wage and whose cheap catastrophic insurance doesn't cover him for some other sickness or injury? What if both of these people knew that some of the american tax was being used to make sure that these people would not be left either with an ongoing illness, permanent injury or the other side of the coin...treated and left bankrupt as a result? Wouldn't that undoubtedly be better?

Yes, well the dependency of Americans on their employer for insurance coverage is unfortunate, and people like Mr Schiff would like to end that. There are COBRA plans which allow a former employee to continue with their group healthcare coverage, however they pay the full costs plus 1% extra for administration fees. Temporary insurance is also available but is very expensive.

And a lot of people in America have been very foolish. They're now a nation of Two-thousandaires. ie. They have a mortgage, a car payment, a credit card and two grand in the bank. This low savings rate coupled with high debt means they are very vulnerable if they lose their job, especially if they get sick.

However, the American government has also been massively foolish so how do you suggest that they can step in and cover the unemployed? America is de facto bankrupt and should be cutting the federal budget at least to take the falling tax take into account. The Americans still employed are struggling to pay down their debt and save, in the face of possible unemployment themselves and they don't need the additional tax burden.

Or, taking from Peter to give to Paul, as they would put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tam o' Shantie
Yes, well the dependency of Americans on their employer for insurance coverage is unfortunate, and people like Mr Schiff would like to end that. There are COBRA plans which allow a former employee to continue with their group healthcare coverage, however they pay the full costs plus 1% extra for administration fees. Temporary insurance is also available but is very expensive.

And a lot of people in America have been very foolish. They're now a nation of Two-thousandaires. ie. They have a mortgage, a car payment, a credit card and two grand in the bank. This low savings rate coupled with high debt means they are very vulnerable if they lose their job, especially if they get sick.

However, the American government has also been massively foolish so how do you suggest that they can step in and cover the unemployed? America is de facto bankrupt and should be cutting the federal budget at least to take the falling tax take into account. The Americans still employed are struggling to pay down their debt and save, in the face of possible unemployment themselves and they don't need the additional tax burden.

Or, taking from Peter to give to Paul, as they would put it.

I agree with you about how people need to take financial matters into their own hands but unfortunately expecting them to do so IMO, when dealing with funding basic human needs can be catastrophic when they don't have the money or simply can't afford to put the money aside. Again, I'm not talking about a guy that loses his job as much as people who may never have worked due to disability/single parent unable to leave children at home alone etc. I am talking about the poverty line here, which covers a LOT of american citizens. Yes america is bankrupt which is why I brought up the astonishing cost of their military budget - but I am not arguing the case financially, either they raise taxes or redistribute tax use (such as the overspend on guns & bombs), the point is that so many american people, none more so than the right wing politicians, seem to have an inherant distrust of the idea of a basic government funded healthcare plan which does not discriminate against those who aren't fortunate enough under the current. the republicans leave me in a state of disbelief...they are like baddies in cartoons, if anything is morally bankrupt or 'evil' they love it. funny, but rather sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about how people need to take financial matters into their own hands but unfortunately expecting them to do so IMO, when dealing with funding basic human needs can be catastrophic when they don't have the money or simply can't afford to put the money aside. Again, I'm not talking about a guy that loses his job as much as people who may never have worked due to disability/single parent unable to leave children at home alone etc. I am talking about the poverty line here, which covers a LOT of american citizens. Yes america is bankrupt which is why I brought up the astonishing cost of their military budget - but I am not arguing the case financially, either they raise taxes or redistribute tax use (such as the overspend on guns & bombs), the point is that so many american people, none more so than the right wing politicians, seem to have an inherant distrust of the idea of a basic government funded healthcare plan which does not discriminate against those who aren't fortunate enough under the current. the republicans leave me in a state of disbelief...they are like baddies in cartoons, if anything is morally bankrupt or 'evil' they love it. funny, but rather sad.

It's just in the American character to be suspicious of the growth of government and it's intrusion into American life. What the Republicans are guilty of more than anything is hypocrisy and laughably so at that. Oh, so now you suddenly turn into constitutionalists! Goodness me, I was wondering if you'd been asleep these last eight years. So, they really can't be taken seriously, except for the Libertarian types who have consistently stood up to the party throughout the Bush years.

As for those incapable of supporting themselves, that is where we get into 'ifs' like if America had a prosperous economy and low taxation everyone would be a great philanthropist, funding for healthcare could be obtained through charitable donations etc. Well, maybe. I suspect those mouthing off about obamacare have short hands and deep pockets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the illness caused by the underlying stress of the situation of having to pay more than you have, becoming bankrupt and having nothing to look forward to other than massive debt for the rest of your life?

I think that as much as the NHS could do with a major overhaul, less management more nurses and cleaners, less use of antibiotics and disinfectant(i believe this invites bacteria to evolve at a faster rate)

It is much better to pay out of our income taxes - which although everyone complains, they make do because nobody, really, nobody budgets to use their pre-tax income - to have a health service which is readily available should you need it in a flash.

Wouldn't it really suck to live in the USA if you broke your back, haven't got insurance? don't get treated or get put into debt for the next ten years... Remembering that a lot of people wouldn't be able to work whilst injured like that.

I am very happy that we have the NHS, it's something to be proud of, can't fault them on any treatment I or any of my family or friends have had.

If you don't like it go private, you have the choice but remember if you can't afford your premiums the NHS will still be there for you.

No matter how shit this country is its a lot fucking better than a lot of other 'Developed' places. I'm still getting over something that hit me like a brick a few weeks ago, Scotland is a good country, something to be proud of, something that can make something of itself, Aberdeen likewise, low crime rate, friendly, polite, relatively sunny after HATING both for the majority of my early years it just came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have with the NHS is the lack of choice. I went into one surgery because it was close to my work and they told me I have to go to the one on King St. How convenient for me since that's as far in the opposite direction from my house as my work was.

So, I register and I go there. First time with an NHS doctor in years. I just have to discuss a slight problem with my leg that will probably need physio and a visit to the podiatrist...

OMG, this guy is a prick. He's totally not even listening to me, tells me 'there's nothing wrong with the way you walk', 'flat feet are considered quite normal these days' 'no, I don;t think I need to have a look'

He says he'll refer me to a physio and it'll take a couple of months. I have to take his word on this, I don't even know who or where this physiotherapist might be. Can I see a podiatrist? 'no, you're under 65'. Oh well, I'll go private, thought I might have to. Thanks for your valuable input though Doctor. You know, like looking at my feet for the fucking 10 seconds that would take.

See, the thing is, before I left the states I went to a doctor there for advice and she wrote up a diagnosis I could take to any podiatrist and physiotherapist. She was polite, interested and treated me like a customer, not a whining five year old. I could choose specialists in my working area and arrange a time with them myself.

So, minor issue service own goal by NHS. I was fuming when I left there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...