Is there any hope for the NHS in your opinion?

First topic message reminder :

I think not.

For the first time ever I have been unable to make a GP's appointment. I offered to wait the two to three weeks which is standard practice now.....even that couldn't be done.
Full up for the foreseeable.

What a sad state of affairs for our once thriving NHS.

I don't really have a problem with the NHS, but perhaps I have low expectations. I've had problems with not getting through on the phone, hospital appointments being cancelled, and all that kind of thing, but I just accept it really. Whenever I'm in the waiting room, I wonder why the other people are there and what's wrong with them.

If the NHS is deteriorating despite all the measures taken, then things don't look too good. Ultimately it will probably fizzle out. 

The gov't tried everything to get more medical staff - it encouraged more working class and more homegrown pupils, more women, and it lowered entrance grades  …... and yet they are still struggling?  Ominous!!

Jules wrote:If the NHS is deteriorating despite all the measures taken, then things don't look too good. Ultimately it will probably fizzle out. 

The gov't tried everything to get more medical staff - it encouraged more working class and more homegrown pupils, more women, and it lowered entrance grades  …... and yet they are still struggling?  Ominous!!

The government also withdrew bursarys, which has had a devastating effect on nursing.


"Two years on from the removal of the NHS student bursary, applications to nursing degree courses have plummeted by a third in England.
Numbers applying to begin training in September 2018 have dropped 12% compared to the same time last year, resulting in a total decline of 16,580 since March 2016, the last year students received financial support through the bursary.
The fall in mature student numbers has been even more extreme, with a 16% drop by the June application deadline compared to the same point last year, and a total decline of 40% since June 2016"

https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/removing-the-student-nurse-bursary-has-been-a-disaster

Jules wrote:If the NHS is deteriorating despite all the measures taken, then things don't look too good. Ultimately it will probably fizzle out. 

The gov't tried everything to get more medical staff - it encouraged more working class and more homegrown pupils, more women, and it lowered entrance grades  …... and yet they are still struggling?  Ominous!!

I'm curious. Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized? Why?

Put it this way Quill, private health companies only work in areas where there is profit.
There is no profit in Accident and Emergency so private insurance won't help if you have a heart attack or gash your hand open. You will join an ever going queue to be served.

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:If the NHS is deteriorating despite all the measures taken, then things don't look too good. Ultimately it will probably fizzle out. 

The gov't tried everything to get more medical staff - it encouraged more working class and more homegrown pupils, more women, and it lowered entrance grades  …... and yet they are still struggling?  Ominous!!

I'm curious.  Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm curious.  Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

When have you ever eaten at a "five star" restaraunt,  Smelly'  ?

Or a soup kitchen.. As if you would ever know the difference !

You really do love talking out of your arse...

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:If the NHS is deteriorating despite all the measures taken, then things don't look too good. Ultimately it will probably fizzle out. 

The gov't tried everything to get more medical staff - it encouraged more working class and more homegrown pupils, more women, and it lowered entrance grades  …... and yet they are still struggling?  Ominous!!

The government also withdrew bursarys, which has had a devastating effect on nursing.


"Two years on from the removal of the NHS student bursary, applications to nursing degree courses have plummeted by a third in England.
Numbers applying to begin training in September 2018 have dropped 12% compared to the same time last year, resulting in a total decline of 16,580 since March 2016, the last year students received financial support through the bursary.
The fall in mature student numbers has been even more extreme, with a 16% drop by the June application deadline compared to the same point last year, and a total decline of 40% since June 2016"

https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/removing-the-student-nurse-bursary-has-been-a-disaster

Yep and now private companies run around cherrypicking all the lucrative bits of the NHS. Literally looting it!
While all the Cinderella specialities like A&E, psychiatry, geriatics are neglected.  Disaster.


For 'vanity projects' like actors seeking facelifts/hair transplants .......
…... or reality show celebs seeking bigger boobs,  private medicine is fine.
But for impoverished people who are dangerously ill, a universally private medical system would be a disaster.

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:If the NHS is deteriorating despite all the measures taken, then things don't look too good. Ultimately it will probably fizzle out. 

The gov't tried everything to get more medical staff - it encouraged more working class and more homegrown pupils, more women, and it lowered entrance grades  …... and yet they are still struggling?  Ominous!!

I'm curious.  


Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?

Yo, kid !  

I'd like to give a short, straightforward answer, Quill.
But that is one loaded question, about a very complex establishment.  
If you read my reply to Syl above,  that puts things in some context.



See, private medical care is ALREADY available to those who opt for it, ie the super-affluent "1 percent" or so.
There are plenty of privatised schemes out there, which run alongside the NHS. Fine.


HOWEVER, changing the entire NHS to a privatised service [ie making it profit driven] is a whole new ball game


Greedy profiteering in hospitals would change the entire cultural landscape of the country - for the worse.
Some spheres of life [like housing or even education] can be handed over to the private sector, fine.
But health shouldn't be one of them.


Giving the NHS to greedy businessmen who know zilch about medicine and care even less is unethical
Making a fat profit on the back of human sickness & misery is immoral.
We are not Americans. :-|

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:
The government also withdrew bursarys, which has had a devastating effect on nursing.


"Two years on from the removal of the NHS student bursary, applications to nursing degree courses have plummeted by a third in England.
Numbers applying to begin training in September 2018 have dropped 12% compared to the same time last year, resulting in a total decline of 16,580 since March 2016, the last year students received financial support through the bursary.
The fall in mature student numbers has been even more extreme, with a 16% drop by the June application deadline compared to the same point last year, and a total decline of 40% since June 2016"

https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/removing-the-student-nurse-bursary-has-been-a-disaster

Yep and now private companies run around cherrypicking all the lucrative bits of the NHS. Literally looting it!
While all the Cinderella specialities like A&E, psychiatry, geriatics are neglected.  Disaster.


For 'vanity projects' like actors seeking facelifts/hair transplants .......
…... or reality show celebs seeking bigger boobs,  private medicine is fine.
But for impoverished people who are dangerously ill, a universally private medical system would be a disaster.

I couldn't agree more.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm curious.  Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

That's an analogy, not an answer. The question was: "Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?"

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm curious.  


Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?

Yo, kid !  

I'd like to give a short, straightforward answer, Quill.
But that is one loaded question, about a very complex establishment.  
If you read my reply to Syl above,  that puts things in some context.



See, private medical care is ALREADY available to those who opt for it, ie the super-affluent "1 percent" or so.
There are plenty of privatised schemes out there, which run alongside the NHS. Fine.


HOWEVER, changing the entire NHS to a privatised service [ie making it profit driven] is a whole new ball game


Greedy profiteering in hospitals would change the entire cultural landscape of the country - for the worse.
Some spheres of life [like housing or even education] can be handed over to the private sector, fine.
But health shouldn't be one of them.


Giving the NHS to greedy businessmen who know zilch about medicine and care even less is unethical
Making a fat profit on the back of human sickness & misery is immoral.
We are not Americans. :-|

So the answer to my question is: No! I agree. The result would be to avoid unprofitable centers, as Andy notes, and as with all privatization, it presents another mouth to be fed.

Capitalism changes the focus to profit motivation, eschewing guarantees. In certain fields we need guarantees, not markets driven by profit. The military, police, fire protection, and healthcare are examples. We ask those organizations to be there, no matter what. Profit-driven capitalism says, I'll be where there is a profit...or worse, ...I'll restructure the profit center to make money first, and deliver goods and services second (ie, insurance companies that preclude certain pharmaceuticals.

You can't get around it: Privatization redirects all social productivity to profit. When profit is the motive, all guarantees are off. When your health or life is at stake, you would rather have guarantees.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm curious. Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized? Why?

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

Let me use your answer as an example of what I've just said. How many people who ordinarily frequent the soup kitchen, get to frequent the Michelin restaurant? That is because the Michelin restaurant is re-purposed to seek profit, not feed everyone. Consequently, it's too expensive.

Feeding the starving is a mandatory purpose, calling for guarantees. The Michelin restaurant is seeking profit, rather than to fulfill feeding the starving.

Perfect example of how capitalism is the wrong answer when you need something dependable.

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:

Yo, kid !  

I'd like to give a short, straightforward answer, Quill.
But that is one loaded question, about a very complex establishment.  
If you read my reply to Syl above,  that puts things in some context.



See, private medical care is ALREADY available to those who opt for it, ie the super-affluent "1 percent" or so.
There are plenty of privatised schemes out there, which run alongside the NHS. Fine.


HOWEVER, changing the entire NHS to a privatised service [ie making it profit driven] is a whole new ball game


Greedy profiteering in hospitals would change the entire cultural landscape of the country - for the worse.
Some spheres of life [like housing or even education] can be handed over to the private sector, fine.
But health shouldn't be one of them.


Giving the NHS to greedy businessmen who know zilch about medicine and care even less is unethical
Making a fat profit on the back of human sickness & misery is immoral.
We are not Americans. :-|

So the answer to my question is: No!  I agree.  The result would be to avoid unprofitable centers, as Andy notes, and as with all privatization, it presents another mouth to be fed.

Capitalism changes the focus to profit motivation, eschewing guarantees.  In certain fields we need guarantees, not markets driven by profit.  The military, police, fire protection, and healthcare are examples.  We ask those organizations to be there, no matter what.  Profit-driven capitalism says, I'll be where there is a profit...or worse, ...I'll restructure the profit center to make money first, and deliver goods and services second (ie, insurance companies that preclude certain pharmaceuticals.

You can't get around it: Privatization redirects all social productivity to profit.  When profit is the motive, all guarantees are off.  When your health or life is at stake, you would rather have guarantees.

I think capitalism has many faults, but you cannot get around one major factor

It has gotten more people out of poverty than any political system

Whilst there maybe many faults with capitalism, no system has made better in roads to ensure more people. Have come out of poverty. Socialism has never achieved this and failed every single time and there is a major reason for this.

History shows this to be true

Poverty has continually shrunk under capitalist systems and stagnated or declined under socialism

Just look at the many forms of pure socialims in action and you see the worst forms of poverty with socialism. When people adapt socialism to partner capitalism, it works and the best examples are Nordic countries.

Hence it is always capitalism that is the driving factor that enables people to get out of poverty

So whilts its bad that the rich get richer, the poor also get richer too, in proper captalistic societies

Hence why capitalism may have faults, its brought more people out of poverty than any other system

That is a basic fact and there is a reason for this. A basic need for people to better themselves and capitalism drives this within many people

Whereas socialism, causes the opposite. The view, that others should do the work for many others. It has no drive and incentive. Its why communism has always failed. When you take away the one fundemental factor that people wish to obtain. The very view to better themselves into society, and at their own accomplishments. Capitalism always enables people to do this. Whereas socialism always places a barrier to this

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

Let me use your answer as an example of what I've just said.  How many people who ordinarily frequent the soup kitchen, get to frequent the Michelin restaurant?  That is because the Michelin restaurant is re-purposed to seek profit, not feed everyone.  Consequently, it's too expensive.

Feeding the starving is a mandatory purpose, calling for guarantees.  The Michelin restaurant is seeking profit, rather than to fulfill feeding the starving.

Perfect example of how capitalism is the wrong answer when you need something dependable.

That rgument can be turned on its head

How now that many people no longer use the soup kitchen

How now many people, no longer need to fetch water

The reality is those capitalists are the most genereous when it comes to being charitable and that they help enable those poorest to be able to feed.

Lets look at poor socialist plans to feed

That of Mao and Stalin.

How well did their soup kitchen lines work out?

It shows they never cared for the people and were willing to sacrife them, to achieve their ideological beliefs

Tens of millions died and then many still lived in abject poverty. Its why in the end, even now China, has embraced a form of Capitalism

Socialism has its benefits when it truely cares for people, but economically, is where socialims fails and why it always needs a form of capitalism to work

Maybe you can show me a socialist system that has actually worked without the need of capitalism?

In over a hundred years, hundreds of millions of people have moved out of poverty and in the main all due to capitalism

These are known facts

The problem with the NHS is its not run by actual buisness people and hence why so much money is wasted and mistakes made

So I will repeat my points again and why people are still clinging to a mythical system that clearly is never going to work in the long term

Again we need to adopt a system that does work

Look, the NHS is a failed system and when you have places like the US, Australia, Canada, etc pay more in wages for doctors. Then the system is always going to have a problem with staff shortages. Many people being trained whether nurses or doctors, can go abroad and get a far better wage for their abilities. Its why we have such a drain on the system. As well of the fact, we have had such a huge increase of people requiring medical care.

You could set aside billions more for this system and it will still fail. As you require the medical staff to run this system and its where we are always going to suffer with, because the system is flawed. Its unworkable.

The care system is a shambles and many of the problems stem from the fact, we dont have a better system to ensure many elderly or people in need of care. Have places to go in respite. They are stuck in hospitals, that cost far more money and take up hospital beds. Then you have the shortages of specialist doctorss. Where again many are dran abroad and the knock on effect continues.

We need a radical think, in how we can revoluntionize our NHS system. As at present it is unworkable. Its no good blaming the Tories for this. The problem started years ago and they are just one in a line of Political parties that have failed the system.

We now use a system called NHS 111, which looks to attempt to rule out potential problems and because it err on the side of caution and unable to rule out potentially life threatening situations. It will have advisors clogg up A&E and 999 emergency calls. As they cannot rule out potential life threatening medical problems. This is because the system is flawed and based on people providing arbitrary answers to questions. The system cannot differentiate and onl;y takes the worst case scenario. If the answer is unsure. This will often lead to people having an abulance sent or being sent to A&E

The other problem, is the poor view formed by people that demand to be seen, for the most mundane medical problems. Where people demand to be seen and again clogg up the system with the most ridiculous non-life threatening illnesses. Has a massive knock on effect. What happens, is the more people demand to be seen, when there is no need that they are. It increasesd the waiting time for people to be seen. 

Like i say, there is many factors here and many were created when actually Labour privatised many sub groups like paramedics. Because clinical commisioning groups were clueless on finnnacial issues. This led to then many ambulances having basic trained operatives, who are not paramedics, but basically first aid trained to help. Another massive strain on the system. Now many ambulances do not have an actual paramedic.

The sad reality is, nobody thought long term with the NHS. Not with the increased aging population or high birth rates. This is why its now strugglling. As consequtive goverments have tried to impliment short term fixes, which never work. Its hucking money at a problem for the short term, which only makes the problem far worse

Its time the NHS was adapted to a better system. Its also time people stopped thinking that they should be seen for many non-life threatening conditions. Its also time many people stoppped self diagnosing themselves online. As this leads people to form an subconscious bias to think they they are suffering from the worst case scenario and leads to people making untruthful answers to questions asked. They think they are suffering from the worst and say yes, to things not actually wrong with them. The internet is making idiots out of people thinkin g they can self diagnose themselves and often doing so wrongly, than what is medically wrong with them. 

This is just a number of reasons why the system is flawed. Cuts only play a minor part to the many probllems today

Your 99% correct Didge, but remember if people are worried and in pain, and they can't get an appointment with their GP, they will call an Ambulance !

nicko wrote:Your 99% correct Didge,  but remember if people are worried and in pain, and they can't get an appointment with their GP, they will call an Ambulance !

Its even worse than that nicko

Many now rightly seek help with NHS 111

The system always errs on the worst case scenario and where one simple question is unsure. It often leads to people being sent wrongly to A&E. When they never had a need too

What people do not realise is this is what is clogging up A&E and the ambulance service

What is even worse, is they have targets for the NHS 111 advisors to maintain 8% or lower 999 calls. What do you think kind of view that is going to place on people with basic medical knowledge? Its going to create an atmosphere of mistakes

Not only that the system constantly will give far more unnecessary outcomes to a phone assessment. This has to be the worst system ever devised and is casuing far more people to attend A&E and even surgeries. As they will advise people they need to be seen within 2 hours, 4 hours by a gp and surgeries have to abide by said assessments. Its just about the worst system going and is causing untold problems. Now people know to call 111 assessment overrides a sugery not being able to provide them with an appointment. Every assessment is sent within minutes to the surgery and if that assessment advises them to be seen. They have to be seen by that surgery. 

Like i say the system is easily corrupted, by people knowing exactly what to say to answers. They can read online and know exactly what are life threatening symptoms. As they learn from previous calls and what is known as serious medical symptoms. As the system is very limited based on answers. The system only tries to rule out potential threats and if it cannot, then a person has to be seen.

What I would like to see is a study to show how many of the people advised to be seen in by doctors within 24 hours, ever needed to be seen. This could have a bases based on drugs being prescribed by an out of hours doctor. Like I say these systems are very easily corrupted and to me, is added to the already long waiting list for genuine sick people to be seen

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

That's an analogy, not an answer. The question was: "Would the quality of medical services be any better if it were privatized?  Why?"

it depends on what you mean by "medical sevices"

thats a big umbrella

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

For the same reason the food you pay for at a five star Michelin restaurant is better than the food you're given at a soup kitchen.

Let me use your answer as an example of what I've just said.  How many people who ordinarily frequent the soup kitchen, get to frequent the Michelin restaurant?  That is because the Michelin restaurant is re-purposed to seek profit, not feed everyone.  Consequently, it's too expensive.

Feeding the starving is a mandatory purpose, calling for guarantees.  The Michelin restaurant is seeking profit, rather than to fulfill feeding the starving.

Perfect example of how capitalism is the wrong answer when you need something dependable.

are you fucking simple??

the reason things are better when you pay for them is because of money , you know that capitalism you hate so much?? yeah thats the reason.

when you pay someone good money they deliver good products and services, when you pay someone peanuts you get monkey poo.

the NHS has a limited supply with an unlimited demand that has to be met, people use the NHS for things it was never meant to be used for, boob jobs, transgender snip 'n zip, fat fuck elastic bands, drunkard hand holder, smokers lung replacement service,you name the bulllshit and the NHS delivers, fuck sakes they even let immigrants and tourists in on the gravy train.

the latest bullshit is bycycle rides paid for by the NHS, and let me tell thats gonna cost about 1million per bike.

thats your soup kitchen. it needs to feed everyone so it stretches 1 onion between 30 people and thats why all you get is a bowl of warm onion flavoured water when you actually need something more substantial

thats why its fucked , too much going out not enough coming in. BILLIONS is a drop in the ocean - think about that

the NHS is a wannabe socialist system of health care in practice, and its failing - just like everything else socialism, thats why socialism is always the wrong answer

private health care is funded by the user, and as such is not open to the abuses suffered by the NHS, it incentivizes users to be responsible in their use and to take care of their health since it penalises those who opt for unhealthy lifestyle choices.

are you gonna keep smoking if your premiums are pushed up by 15% because of it??

ive seen the difference between private and NHS, you call the NHS and you may have to wait 5-6 weeks on a good day, to be seen, on private you are seen within the week if not the next day and probably by the same health care professional

oh wait!

ah bless, you didnt realise that the NHS rely very heavily on private contractors??

oh wow, thats embarrasing for your socialist pipe dream isnt it?? and if thats not bad enough for you ego try this : on private you get a bed in the same NHS hospital that NHS patients use, and that means NHS patients are denied access to that bed if you as a private client require it because your health care provider has paid for it on your behalf.

so tell me how socialism is better for everyone, havent had a laugh today

Well there went a reasoned argument out of the window between Quill and myself

Sorry Quill, it seems smelly wants to talk trash talk

The NHS has been and i admot one of the better aspects of socialism

It may not have been adapted by any other country, but its pricniples have

I have no idea what the fuck smelly is going on about, but he constantly embarresses me in what little he actually does understand

Everything to him, is based on a left and right devide

Maybe he would like to telll the forum, when the NHS was formed and worked for decades without private contractors?

Nothing worse than a simpleton, trying to argue with the big leagues

Maybe smelly can explain why the US based on his system is way down on the league of health care

Why it has lower survival rates and life expectancy?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/lower-life-expectancy-health-care-system.html

This is why i cringe whenever smelly posts

Its like reading the bible of neo conservatism. Its utterly embarressing and full of flaws

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let me use your answer as an example of what I've just said.  How many people who ordinarily frequent the soup kitchen, get to frequent the Michelin restaurant?  That is because the Michelin restaurant is re-purposed to seek profit, not feed everyone.  Consequently, it's too expensive.

Feeding the starving is a mandatory purpose, calling for guarantees.  The Michelin restaurant is seeking profit, rather than to fulfill feeding the starving.

Perfect example of how capitalism is the wrong answer when you need something dependable.

are you fucking simple??

the reason things are better when you pay for them is because of money , you know that capitalism you hate so much?? yeah thats the reason.

when you pay someone good money they deliver good products and services, when you pay someone peanuts you get monkey poo.

the NHS has a limited supply with an unlimited demand that has to be met, people use the NHS for things it was never meant to be used for, boob jobs, transgender snip 'n zip, fat fuck elastic bands, drunkard hand holder, smokers lung replacement service,you name the bulllshit and the NHS delivers, fuck sakes they even let immigrants and tourists in on the gravy train.

the latest bullshit is bycycle rides paid for by the NHS, and let me tell thats gonna cost about 1million per bike.

thats your soup kitchen. it needs to feed everyone so it stretches 1 onion between 30 people and thats why all you get is a bowl of warm onion flavoured water when you actually need something more substantial

thats why its fucked , too much going out not enough coming in. BILLIONS is a drop in the ocean - think about that

the NHS is a wannabe socialist system of health care in practice, and its failing - just like everything else socialism, thats why socialism is always the wrong answer

private health care is funded by the user, and as such is not open to the abuses suffered by the NHS, it incentivizes users to be responsible in their use and to take care of their health since it penalises those who opt for unhealthy lifestyle choices.

are you gonna keep smoking if your premiums are pushed up by 15% because of it??

ive seen the difference between private and NHS, you call the NHS and you may have to wait 5-6 weeks on a good day, to be seen, on private you are seen within the week if not the next day and probably by the same health care professional

oh wait!

ah bless, you didnt realise that the NHS rely very heavily on private contractors??

oh wow, thats embarrasing for your socialist pipe dream isnt it?? and if thats not bad enough for you ego try this : on private you get a bed in the same NHS hospital that NHS patients use, and that means NHS patients are denied access to that bed if you as a private client require it because your health care provider has paid for it on your behalf.

so tell me how socialism is better for everyone, havent had a laugh today  

Oi Skunk Stenchbandit, how many private A&E departments have you seen or been to in the UK, you dolt?
Answer , NONE.
THERE ARE NONE to make comparisons.
Your argument is crass at best.

Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

are you fucking simple??

the reason things are better when you pay for them is because of money , you know that capitalism you hate so much?? yeah thats the reason.

when you pay someone good money they deliver good products and services, when you pay someone peanuts you get monkey poo.

the NHS has a limited supply with an unlimited demand that has to be met, people use the NHS for things it was never meant to be used for, boob jobs, transgender snip 'n zip, fat fuck elastic bands, drunkard hand holder, smokers lung replacement service,you name the bulllshit and the NHS delivers, fuck sakes they even let immigrants and tourists in on the gravy train.

the latest bullshit is bycycle rides paid for by the NHS, and let me tell thats gonna cost about 1million per bike.

thats your soup kitchen. it needs to feed everyone so it stretches 1 onion between 30 people and thats why all you get is a bowl of warm onion flavoured water when you actually need something more substantial

thats why its fucked , too much going out not enough coming in. BILLIONS is a drop in the ocean - think about that

the NHS is a wannabe socialist system of health care in practice, and its failing - just like everything else socialism, thats why socialism is always the wrong answer

private health care is funded by the user, and as such is not open to the abuses suffered by the NHS, it incentivizes users to be responsible in their use and to take care of their health since it penalises those who opt for unhealthy lifestyle choices.

are you gonna keep smoking if your premiums are pushed up by 15% because of it??

ive seen the difference between private and NHS, you call the NHS and you may have to wait 5-6 weeks on a good day, to be seen, on private you are seen within the week if not the next day and probably by the same health care professional

oh wait!

ah bless, you didnt realise that the NHS rely very heavily on private contractors??

oh wow, thats embarrasing for your socialist pipe dream isnt it?? and if thats not bad enough for you ego try this : on private you get a bed in the same NHS hospital that NHS patients use, and that means NHS patients are denied access to that bed if you as a private client require it because your health care provider has paid for it on your behalf.

so tell me how socialism is better for everyone, havent had a laugh today  

How many private A&E departments have you seen or been to I. the UK, you dolt?

the A&E is in the hospital which is owned by private corporations you simpleton, there will be private contractor medical professionals who see you in the A&E, do you think they are lying when they say there is a shortage of NHS nurses and doctors??

how do you think they get round that shortage??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Andy wrote:

How many private A&E departments have you seen or been to I. the UK, you dolt?

the A&E is in the hospital which is owned by private corporations you simpleton, there will be private contractor medical professionals who see you in the A&E, do you think they are lying when they say there is a shortage of NHS nurses and doctors??

how do you think they get round that shortage??

Incorrect on both counts

The cleaners are from a private company

So are the porters

Some nurses and doctors belong to temp agencies. The majority  of health professionals are employed directly by the NHS. Those not and through agencies are still employed through the NHS

All the above is paid for by the NHS

Hence the A&E department is not privately owned

Hence again we see smelly expose himself as just about the most dumbest idiot going

phil wrote:That rgument can be turned on its head

How now that many people no longer use the soup kitchen

Many, many, many still depend on the soup kitchen.  The homeless depend on soup kitchens, as opposed to Michelin restaurants.  When we talk about essential services, we are talking about the need for guarantees.  Guarantees are needed to assure that certain essentials, nor profitable to capitalists, would still be provided.

phil wrote:How now many people, no longer need to fetch water

The reality is those capitalists are the most genereous when it comes to being charitable and that they help enable those poorest to be able to feed.

When you talk about the methods ("fetch water"), you are talking about the Industrial Revolution, and a shift in tooling.  Fetching water is simply a more primitive way of water distribution and plumbing.

After the Industrial Revolution, the worker no longer used the hammer and chisel, but worked on a conveyor belt.  You're putting the cart before the horse by saying capitalism was the single answer.  The Industrial Revolution caused the need for capital resources, for which both capitalism and socialism are equally effective answers.  

The real argument is, which is the best answer. capitalism or socialism?  You associate capitalism with charity, but are you suggesting that capitalists would sacrifice profit for charity?  I don’t think so.  The capitalist depends on profit, and that is it's highest priority.  Charity is an unfortunate step-child.

Capitalism takes care of its own needs first.  When contrasted with socialism, capitalism is another mouth to be fed: ie, profit.  With socialism, the collective provides the tooling, and it needs no profit.  Capitalism is ipso facto more expensive.

Moreover, with capitalism the market is restructured to favor profit.  Take Andy’s example of healthcare: that privatization would eliminate emergency and other wards because they are not profit-makers.  It’s the private sector, making sure there is a profit.

One has only to look at insurance companies, that restructure the market and falsely claim that certain (expensive) drugs are not needed, when in fact they are essential.  Such insurance companies are restructuring the market to fit the mouth of profit.  With socialism, profit does not play into the picture, and so such drugs and services would be guaranteed.

Another point to remember, private health insurance companies won't touch customers with pre existing health conditions with a barge pole.
Imagine the chaos and carnage if the Government decided to sell the NHS lock stock and barrel to a global conglomerate involving Virgin, the Chinese and US companies.

Who would pick up the tap for those with cancer, or mental health or the aged?
Insurance won't be of use.
It would be the start of the Nazi death camps where the ill and infirm are sent to die as cheaply as possible.

Andy wrote:Another point to remember, private health insurance companies won't touch customers with pre existing health conditions with a barge pole.
Imagine the chaos and carnage if the Government decided to sell the NHS lock stock and barrel to a global conglomerate involving Virgin, the Chinese and US companies.

Who would pick up the tap for those with cancer, or mental health or the aged?
Insurance won't be of use.
It would be the start of the Nazi death camps where the ill and infirm are sent to die as cheaply as possible.

Why do I have to pay for your fucking diseased carcass??

It's my money not yours, pay for your own treatment you benefit scrounging bastard

Andy wrote:Another point to remember, private health insurance companies won't touch customers with pre existing health conditions with a barge pole.
Imagine the chaos and carnage if the Government decided to sell the NHS lock stock and barrel to a global conglomerate involving Virgin, the Chinese and US companies.

Who would pick up the tap for those with cancer, or mental health or the aged?
Insurance won't be of use.
It would be the start of the Nazi death camps where the ill and infirm are sent to die as cheaply as possible.

Utter bullshit

You know this is a lie, as it would be against Uk law

I dont mind Andy, when  you present sound arguments, but this is pure conspiracy far left bullshit

Show me any organisation that denies people based on ill health

Lets start with Bupa

It really fucks me off when the left lie out of their arses

smelly-bandit wrote:

Andy wrote:Another point to remember, private health insurance companies won't touch customers with pre existing health conditions with a barge pole.
Imagine the chaos and carnage if the Government decided to sell the NHS lock stock and barrel to a global conglomerate involving Virgin, the Chinese and US companies.

Who would pick up the tap for those with cancer, or mental health or the aged?
Insurance won't be of use.
It would be the start of the Nazi death camps where the ill and infirm are sent to die as cheaply as possible.

Why do I have to pay for your fucking diseased carcass??

It's my money not yours, pay for your own treatment you benefit scrounging bastard

Argument from ignorance

Whjy should people pay for your education

If your view is that its your money, then you have no place in an integrated society

So do you refuse to pay taxes and NI?

Are you really THAT thick, Dodge?

Just try and get BUPA cover , then tell them you already have cancer/slipped disc/ whatever.
Watch them decline your treatment.

From BUPA's own wrbsite  - Pre existing conditions.

Am I covered for pre-existing conditions?

We won't cover you for any illnesses you're currently suffering from or have had before. These are known as pre-existing conditions.

A pre-existing condition is any disease, illness or injury for which in a period of time before your start date†:

You've received medication, advice or treatment; orYou've experienced symptoms

whether the condition was diagnosed or not.

 

†The time period is different depending on your choice of underwriting.

I shan't bother waiting for you to admit you were wrong.

Because whilst you often say you do, you actually rarely do.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Andy wrote:Another point to remember, private health insurance companies won't touch customers with pre existing health conditions with a barge pole.
Imagine the chaos and carnage if the Government decided to sell the NHS lock stock and barrel to a global conglomerate involving Virgin, the Chinese and US companies.

Who would pick up the tap for those with cancer, or mental health or the aged?
Insurance won't be of use.
It would be the start of the Nazi death camps where the ill and infirm are sent to die as cheaply as possible.

Why do I have to pay for your fucking diseased carcass??

It's my money not yours, pay for your own treatment you benefit scrounging bastard

One point to remember is the quid pro quo argument. They will be there for you when your "fucking diseased carcass" pisses away.

But the real point is more fundamental: that's what it means to be a part of society. If you want to live outside of everyone, and perpetually be the exile, if not the enemy...go ahead. Though, I'll bet you'll miss the grocery store.

Andy wrote:Are you really THAT thick, Dodge?

Just try and get BUPA cover , then tell them you already have cancer/slipped disc/ whatever.
Watch them decline your treatment.

I have Bupa insurance and hence why I said this

Does this mean you are actually the thick one here?

Again you need to back up your claims with evidence

Ads seen your claims, were pure lies

Andy wrote:From BUPA's own wrbsite  - Pre existing conditions.

Am I covered for pre-existing conditions?

We won't cover you for any illnesses you're currently suffering from or have had before. These are known as pre-existing conditions.

A pre-existing condition is any disease, illness or injury for which in a period of time before your start date†:

You've received medication, advice or treatment; orYou've experienced symptoms

whether the condition was diagnosed or not.

 

†The time period is different depending on your choice of underwriting.

I shan't bother waiting for you to admit you were wrong.

Because whilst you often say you do, you actually rarely do.

You were wrong and a big fat liar

Choose Bupa Global for a range of benefits, including:

Expert treatment for cancer, as well as ongoing care and support
Access to second medical opinion
Cover available for many pre-existing conditions
Additional benefits such as Maternity, Annual Health Checks, Dental and Optical and Medical Evacuation are available

https://www.bupaglobal.com/en/campaigns/health-insurance?cmpid=ppc-bgbu201UKGenericBMMen00003&utm_campaign=UK_EN_BIC_Generic_Original_BMM&utm_source=google&utm_medium=paidsearch&utm_term=+Pre%20+Existing%20+Conditions%20+cover&gclid=CJvQ0KGgkuICFQsMGwodFi4CQQ&gclsrc=ds

You see Andy, this is why you are such a complete idiotic dick, and nobody will ever trust left wing idiots to get into power

You lie out of your arses

Andy, I had BUPA a while back and you can choose different cover options. Or am I reading this wrong?

eddie wrote:Andy, I had BUPA a while back and you can choose different cover options. Or am I reading this wrong?

As seen he is lying and why he never presented a link

As seen they certainly do cover many pre-existing conditions

This is a good example of when to be right, to expose people who actually promote lies

Its important to correct these lies, when they were invented and made from a political ideology

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Andy, I had BUPA a while back and you can choose different cover options. Or am I reading this wrong?

As seen he is lying and why he never presented a link

As seen they certainly do cover many pre-existing conditions

This is a good example of when to be right, to expose people who actually promote lies

Its important to correct these lies, when they were invented and made from a political ideology

Okay fair enough. I came into the debate halfway through. But you certainly can choose different options and yes, they do treat pre-existing conditions.

Even hard-core libertarians like Friedrich Hayek accepted that there's nothing wrong with the government organizing a program that treats sick people without them having to bankrupt themselves.

Even the "father of capitalism" Adam Smith accepted that the burden of tax should fall heavier on the rich than on the poor, because the rich can afford it.

So it seems to me that these two important figures in right-wing philosophy showed that there is a difference between being right-wing and being callous and self-centered.

I don't see why this isn't a perfectly acceptable conservative position:

The only acceptable justification for the government to require citizens to pay tax is that the government will then use that money to make life better for the citizenry.

If the government could provide a better health care system than the private sector, but doesn't, then it is not spending the citizens' taxes to the best possible effect and is actually negligent.

The United States, with an almost completely private system of health care, is a perfect example of what happens when the government doesn't get involved in health care.

Americans spend more on health care than people in any other country, and we're hardly getting the best care -- just look at us. We're fatter, more drugged up, don't live as long, etc., etc.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Why do I have to pay for your fucking diseased carcass??

It's my money not yours, pay for your own treatment you benefit scrounging bastard

One point to remember is the quid pro quo argument.  They will be there for you when your "fucking diseased carcass" pisses away.

But the real point is more fundamental: that's what it means to be a part of society.  If you want to live outside of everyone, and perpetually be the exile, if not the enemy...go ahead.  Though, I'll bet you'll miss the grocery store.

That's fine

They will be there for me becasue I'll be paying for it, the beauty of capitalism.

You pay you get.

As for living outside of society?? The west is capitalist you are socialist, who is living outside society???

Ben Reilly wrote:Even hard-core libertarians like Friedrich Hayek accepted that there's nothing wrong with the government organizing a program that treats sick people without them having to bankrupt themselves.

Even the "father of capitalism" Adam Smith accepted that the burden of tax should fall heavier on the rich than on the poor, because the rich can afford it.

So it seems to me that these two important figures in right-wing philosophy showed that there is a difference between being right-wing and being callous and self-centered.

I don't see why this isn't a perfectly acceptable conservative position:

The only acceptable justification for the government to require citizens to pay tax is that the government will then use that money to make life better for the citizenry.

If the government could provide a better health care system than the private sector, but doesn't, then it is not spending the citizens' taxes to the best possible effect and is actually negligent.

The United States, with an almost completely private system of health care, is a perfect example of what happens when the government doesn't get involved in health care.

Americans spend more on health care than people in any other country, and we're hardly getting the best care -- just look at us. We're fatter, more drugged up, don't live as long, etc., etc.

You raise some good points and some really awfully poor ones

For a start the US has actually the best health care, if of course you can afford it. The reality is many rich people go to the US, as they do offer the best medical teatments. How people poorly mistreat their bodies has nothing to do with the American health system. That is down to how people live.

Your other point on taxation, which I have never seen ever a rational argument from the left with. Its purely emotive and based on what they think is fair and yet never qualifies as an actual system based on equality. If you applied equality to taxation. Then all would pay the same percentage. That would be a system based on universal equality concept. Except the left wish to ignore the many fundemental rules they adhere to on equality and actually introduce something that is not based on reason but emotions.

Nobody would lay claim to ask a man 6ft 5 and as broad to do twice the work of any other employee. No doubt his strengh and size would make it far easier than most, but we dont say, because you have more, you should do more. As its not equality. Whilst I think people richer can do more, I think the view to tax them to the hilt is a flawed concept and makes a mockery of the concept of equality. You and others are saying they should bare the majority burden in order to help fund a country system through taxation. Is that really fair? What you are doing is actually punishing them for where many are in the main successful through hard work and good business sense. When many already give countless money to charity.

You would never lay claim to say to someone stronger, they must take the burden of wars and thus be called up to fight and yet when people earn more you expect them to pay far more a bigger percentage than anyone else. This generally coming from people who hardly ever give to charity and also bemona when people do not give to charities. You have an expectation for others to resolve problems. If everyone gave an equal percentage of what they earned for the homeless or health on top of their taxes. There would never be an issue. Yet you think those better off, should be responsible for others. Yes we look rightlky to share and help each other out, but what the fuck, are you actually doing about helping others?

The US healty system would be number one, if not for the many restrictions in place

You should never force a view to maintain an unequal taxation system, expecting others to resolve based on what they earned

Ben Reilly wrote:Even hard-core libertarians like Friedrich Hayek accepted that there's nothing wrong with the government organizing a program that treats sick people without them having to bankrupt themselves.

Even the "father of capitalism" Adam Smith accepted that the burden of tax should fall heavier on the rich than on the poor, because the rich can afford it.

So it seems to me that these two important figures in right-wing philosophy showed that there is a difference between being right-wing and being callous and self-centered.

I don't see why this isn't a perfectly acceptable conservative position:

The only acceptable justification for the government to require citizens to pay tax is that the government will then use that money to make life better for the citizenry.

If the government could provide a better health care system than the private sector, but doesn't, then it is not spending the citizens' taxes to the best possible effect and is actually negligent.

The United States, with an almost completely private system of health care, is a perfect example of what happens when the government doesn't get involved in health care.

Americans spend more on health care than people in any other country, and we're hardly getting the best care -- just look at us. We're fatter, more drugged up, don't live as long, etc., etc.

Being fat is nothing to do with how much you spend on healthcare. If you eat too many calories you will get fat whether you spend loads on healthcare or nothing at all.

As for being drugged up, do you mean on prescription drugs or "recreational" drugs? If it's the latter, again that's nothing to do with what you spend on healthcare.

Re Bupa, there is certainly conflicting information out there re pre-existing conditions, so it's not appropriate to say another poster is lying about it.

Ben Reilly wrote:Even hard-core libertarians like Friedrich Hayek accepted that there's nothing wrong with the government organizing a program that treats sick people without them having to bankrupt themselves.

Even the "father of capitalism" Adam Smith accepted that the burden of tax should fall heavier on the rich than on the poor, because the rich can afford it.

So it seems to me that these two important figures in right-wing philosophy showed that there is a difference between being right-wing and being callous and self-centered.

I don't see why this isn't a perfectly acceptable conservative position:

The only acceptable justification for the government to require citizens to pay tax is that the government will then use that money to make life better for the citizenry.

If the government could provide a better health care system than the private sector, but doesn't, then it is not spending the citizens' taxes to the best possible effect and is actually negligent.

The United States, with an almost completely private system of health care, is a perfect example of what happens when the government doesn't get involved in health care.

Americans spend more on health care than people in any other country, and we're hardly getting the best care -- just look at us. We're fatter, more drugged up, don't live as long, etc., etc.

Ashya King was a young boy who had a brain tumour, he was sentenced to death by the NHS becasue they didn't want their inadequacies exposed, a more advanced treatment called proton therapy was avaliable abroad but not in the UK.

His parents refused to let him die in an NHS bed and took him to get treated elsewhere, the NHS then issued an international arrest warrant for his parents who became the subject of an international manhunt, hunted down like criminals and arrested and imprisoned

Their crime??? They wanted to keep their boy alive using therapy the NHS refused to fund, he was subsequently allowed to recieve said therapy and follow up brain scans revealed no signs of the brain tumour

You are welcome to the NHS Ben, may God have mercy on you if you get sick becasue the NHS wont

Many people are very down on the NHS, but I've had some very good treatment on the NHS. Last year I was in hospital for a week, and the care I received was very good - right from the minute when I went to the GP.

Of course there are issues and problems, but let's hear it for all the successes, the hard work of paremedics, doctors, and nurses, and for all the drugs which are used to treat people.

We certainly shouldn't forget the good points, I too have been in hospital as an in patient and in clinics and I have to say the hospital stay was very good, clean ward, nurses that took very good care of us, the medical staff explained the treatment, the food was very good. The problems I encounter are gp appointments which of course is the foundation of the system and some of the problem with how crowded A & E's get because you can't access your gp for minor emergencies.

Vintage wrote:We certainly shouldn't forget the good points, I too have been in hospital as an in pagottient and in clinics and I have to say the hospital stay was very good, clean ward, nurses that took very good care of us, the medical staff explained the treatment, the food was very good. The problems I encounter are gp appointments which of course is the foundation of the system and some of the problem with how crowded A & E's get because you can't access your gp for minor emergencies.

Well yes. That particular day I had tried to ring my surgery early on but couldn't get through so I gave up. It was only later when I tried again later that I got an appointment. However, once I was there, the care I had was brilliant. I don't know what's going on with GP appointments. Are there not enough surgeries or GPS? Are people making unnecessary appointments? It's often easier to get an appointment with a surgery nurse, and they seem to start work earlier in the morning.

If you get that kind of service and treatment, you're lucky.

Its not the normal state of things

smelly-bandit wrote:If you get that kind of service and treatment, you're lucky.

Its not the normal state of things

I was quite surprised. I thought I'd be prescribed some antibiotics and sent off. I think that extra care was possibly taken because I take immunosuppressants or because the doc thought I had sepsis. Sepsis is a big thing these days.

Raggamuffin wrote:Re Bupa, there is certainly conflicting information out there re pre-existing conditions, so it's not appropriate to say another poster is lying about it.

Only if you are dimwitted

So either a liar or dimwitted

Thanks, happy with that

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Re Bupa, there is certainly conflicting information out there re pre-existing conditions, so it's not appropriate to say another poster is lying about it.

Only if you are dimwitted

So either a liar or dimwitted

Thanks, happy with that

Nonsense. Try being a bit more pleasant for a change. There is info out there that Buba doesn't cover you for pre-existing conditions. Perhaps you should write them a letter and tell them they're misleading people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Only if you are dimwitted

So either a liar or dimwitted

Thanks, happy with that

Nonsense. Try being a bit more pleasant for a change. There is info out there that Buba doesn't cover you for pre-existing conditions. Perhaps you should write them a letter and tell them they're misleading people.

It is not nonsense

The reality is Andy was utterly lying

There is no confusion, unless you happene to be utterly dimwitted

The claim was that private health insurance does not cover pre-exiisting conditions

The claim was not whether it covered them all

Private health insurance do cover some pre-existing conditions

Hence, Andy is either thick or a liar