Nationalised health care

a reply to: butcherguy

I wish I knew how my estranged wife does it then.
She has no job. Lives on welfare and food stamps and has had a lot of medical procedures performed (she managed to have two breast augmentation surgeries performed since I threw her out) including treatment for heart issues and narcolepsy. She doesn't receive money from me, she has three children of which she doesn't have custody and she pays no child support.

Maybe she isn't telling you something?

What, you think her welfare payments are paying for her cosmetic surgeries?

I'm American, and lived in the U.K. for two years, and my own experience with the system was very positive. Th quality of doctors and healthcare over there were a lot better than ones I experienced privately in the U.S. Sure, in the U.S., you can get access to stuff faster, and can get more cutting edge medicine. IF you have the money or great insurance, that is. For the rest of us, however, we get substandard, if any treatment, and what treatment we do get usually sends a moderate, financially stable household into bankruptcy and debt.

I don't think the same system would be advisable here in the U.S., nor would I support one, at least not at a federal level. (State level, maybe.) However, I at least know the majority of horror tales and doom rants from people in this country regarding European socialized medical systems are based on BS and certain agendas, and ignore them as such. I've lived in other Western Euro countries, and I think the only one that had a substandard, #ty system was Spain (and that has more to do with the Spanish being Epic fail on just about everything).

Our health care system and industry in this country is NOT the best in the world, regardless of what some may claim. We might have cutting edge technology, top of the line next generation research and breakthroughs, but none of that really means much when the majority of the population can't access it because they can't afford it, or don't want to spend their extended lives in crushing debt.

a reply to: SprocketUK
Good one!
But no,
There is nothing that she could do to come back.
The two children that we had together won't have anything to do with her any more... she is that bad.
It isn't that I am not a forgiving person, it is that she is beyond help imo. Her own mother and siblings won't associate with her.
But she has just as good a health care plan as I do, with no costs associated with it. Having no job, she has plenty of time to shop for doctors to prescribe her painkillers.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Many here in america seem to refuse to acknowledge the potential benefits of nationalized health care because they believe the total BS stories they are fed by the MSM, stories which are contrived, fabricated and paid for by industries which would lose their shirts if the US actually did adopt nationalized health care.

Most american's are pretty naive and trust too much of anything they hear from anyone supposedly in a position to tell them the truth about what is actually going on, and then they are too lazy to do their own research and find out if somebody is hoodwinking or boonedogling them.

They say " I want to belive " like some stupid character on some TV show,....

Blip....

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What, you think her welfare payments are paying for her cosmetic surgeries?

No, I am fully aware that the surgeries were paid for by the man that her mother was previously dating.... a man her mother's age. He wised up to her ways and wrote me a nice letter about her skills as a con-woman.
The point is... she has no job or intention of getting one, has free health care and a double fake boob job.

Do you support that?

Why yes, you do.
We all do.

I am the person that doesn't think it is right.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: SprocketUK

Many here in america seem to refuse to acknowledge the potential benefits of nationalized health care because they believe the total BS stories they are fed by the MSM, stories which are contrived, fabricated and paid for by industries which would lose their shirts if the US actually did adopt nationalized health care.

Most american's are pretty naive and trust too much of anything they hear from anyone supposedly in a position to tell them the truth about what is actually going on, and then they are too lazy to do their own research and find out if somebody is hoodwinking or boonedogling them.

They say " I want to belive " like some stupid character on some TV show,....

Blip....

Maybe the smart people should have been focused on reducing costs instead of pushing insurance that doesn't help if deductibles and premiums are too expensive. But they didn't and a group of really smart supporters believed it would help and failed to research or think about it. We do have a problem with people believing what they are told, failing to research, failing to actually think about things. You honestly think after the last disaster that will be getting even more expensive in the next couple of years that the clowns in government have any credibility on healthcare? Maybe if your goal is to have someone else pay for your healthcare. I think an average person sees cost as the issue and not who pays the cost, unless of course you don't care what it costs as long as someone else pays. Honestly those people really should be ignored. They aren't looking for a solution, they are looking to get those costs paid by others.

Besides we know what happens. We go public. The first couple of years we bring in more than it costs. The politicians see the "extra" money. They blow it on some new program or increased funding for something else. Then in a couple years we have a real bad financial situation and a mess that we created.

Talk to me on costs not if someone else is going to pay.

a reply to: SprocketUK

In the US we have a corrupt government that did a bad job of mandating healthcare. Rewarding a terrible performance by government with complete control over our healthcare is insanity.

If we had a responsible, trustworthy, reliable, honest government, then universal healthcare might be a possibility. But that's not reality.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Thanks for sharing mate and I'm glad to hear things are looking up.

I guess this is a good example of where the NHS fails, though I wonder at the people who put these "rules" in place and whether they think them through.

You're welcome, and thanks.

That's the issue isn't it? The "Rules" shouldn't be done by a government bureaucracy who doesn't and frankly COULDN'T know about everyone's personal situation.

The Government SHOULD have regulations in place to prevent fraud and abuse, however my personal care should be decided by no one else besides myself and my doctor who knows my own personal situation.

by providing healthcare to some groups, the gov't is acknowledging that healthcare is a necessity of life.

by selecting groups of people, according to income, according to weather or not they have children, ect, the gov't is picking and choosing who among the masses is deserving of that necessity as well as who should be have that necessity made even more difficult to obtain.

they are picking an choosing who should have a more right to live healthy and who shouldn't....
does the constitution give them the power to do this???

as far as the higher death rates in the GB system, well I have to ask, could this be because the people aren't ignoring the symptoms and going for treatment and thus actually inside the hospital instead of sick in be at home, at work, homeless on the streets, ect. and well since these people rarely sought medical care, it's easier to attribute their deaths to heart disease, cigarette smoking, obesity and the like that to try to sort out really just what caused the death.
heaven help us if we ever have a epidemic start in the wrong segment of the population, it would probably go unnoticed till it was out of control!!

the US spends more money on healthcare, and well, probably more taxmoney goes into our heathcare system than the system in GB... when you consider the medicaid, the medicare, the obamacare, the chips, along with the funding that is going into the medical research, the building of hospitals, the purchasing of equipment, and on and on. and, yet, most of those who are being left out of the loop are those who are paying the taxes! To say that we can't afford to ensure that every member of society can get decent medical care is ludicrous. what we can't afford is the high salaries of the managers in both the large groups of healthcare providers as well as the insurance companies, along with all the crap the gov't just has to throw our money at that we don't need, and in some cases don't want...but well serve to put a ton of money into some senator's cousins, best friend's neice's husband's pockets!

The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid – An Update
kff.org...
this country failed to even provide insurance coverage to all....

A lot if not all of the eurozone has free health care.

This is great because if someone has a car accident or even something minor they will get help without ending up with a massive, sometimes unplayable bill.

Of course everyone has access to private care and insurance if they want it. So more often than not the better off will have this as a back-up.

But at the end of the day,, the fact that no matter how wealthy you are you will always have access to free healthcare is an amazing thing.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

You failed to mention that we all use roads to get around, and that those damned bicyclists and pedestrians who are frequently seen using them don't pay for them because they are the poor who should really be forcefully kept out of sight under a bridge someplace, or maybe in camps....

Societies are a socialist thing.

When societies forget about their weakest they collapse.

And we consider ourselves to be above animals.

....Right....

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
A lot if not all of the eurozone has free health care.

This is great because if someone has a car accident or even something minor they will get help without ending up with a massive, sometimes unplayable bill.

Of course everyone has access to private care and insurance if they want it. So more often than not the better off will have this as a back-up.

But at the end of the day,, the fact that no matter how wealthy you are you will always have access to free healthcare is an amazing thing.

It's not free, there's simply a difference in who pays. Not attacking you personally but when someone refers to nationalize healthcare as free, it's hard to not only not laugh at them, but makes it hard to take what they are saying seriously

One of the reasons the NHS was founded wasn't some lily liver commie agenda but to help tackle the threat of the ruskies. When both world wars started there was always a great need for men to sign up but a lot of the time they then needed a lot of simple medical treatment before they were fit for active duty so it could take months before they were any use and so theres not much point having a call up when they spend 3 months in the hospital wards.

The idea is great but execution is poor.

The state runs it like a business, so cuts costs all over.

Under trained staff, long waiting times, lack of knowledge.

So many horror stories.

And the fact you can go to your doctor and say you need plastic surgery without being told to f**k off says it all.

My personal experiences with the NHS are diabolical.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Big time, I'm paying around £1000.00/month in tax - £800 goes to NI? Or would it be £400ish? Either way that ain't no free service I'm paying for.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You failed to mention that we all use roads to get around, and that those damned bicyclists and pedestrians who are frequently seen using them don't pay for them because they are the poor who should really be forcefully kept out of sight under a bridge someplace, or maybe in camps....

Societies are a socialist thing.

When societies forget about their weakest they collapse.

And we consider ourselves to be above animals.

....Right....

Has abosultely nothing to do with the failure of politicians and supporters to focus on addressing costs. While that felt good to post and a poor analogy was added just like obamacare failed to adddress the root problem so does the public option at the moment. If people will be honest and say I don't care how much it costs as long as I am not paying, we are at a better starting point.

a reply to: Reallyfolks


I understand what you mean and no it's not technically free.

But anyone can access it at anytime and don't have to expect a possibly devastating life changing bill.

That's why people don't object to paying a bit more tax. In fact people don't even really notice, hence why it is often referred to as free.

a reply to: SprocketUK

As a child, I had asthma, and I was also seriously injured in a physical attack on my person, by other children in my school. These two things resulted in a fair amount of time off school, either healing surgical scars which were a result of intervention necessary to correct damage from the assault, or because my chest was locked up like a bank vault and I could not breathe properly.

The assault meant that I had to have two corrective surgeries, with a four year gap between them, and my asthma had me in and out of the Chest Clinic of our local hospital for many years.

If the damage from that assault had never been corrected, it is likely that I would have been incapable of siring a son, and yet my son is in the world. If I had not have had access to the treatment for asthma, I doubt I would have lived long enough to sire him.

My mother would not have been able to afford the treatment or surgery, either one, or the other, let alone both. Between that and the various inoculations and vaccines a child has, it would have been impossible for my mother to look after my physical health as well as she did, if it had of involved an American style, pay to play system. Suffice to say, I would not have survived childhood, and certainly would not have gone on to have a child of my own.

The NHS is an equaliser. People forget, that before the NHS, people simply went without, and DIED purely because they were too damned poor to afford care. Stupid things, like common ailments, without any particular complexity would kill young and old alike, and because those people had no money, they had no voice, until the NHS came along. Ever since, those who had nothing in their bank accounts were not forced to die of easily treated diseases and ailments, emergency aid was rendered without qualm or query. It recognised that all lives are worth precisely the same amount, not more or less depending on irrelevances like wealth and status.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: Reallyfolks


I understand what you mean and no it's not technically free.

But anyone can access it at anytime and don't have to expect a possibly devastating life changing bill.

That's why people don't object to paying a bit more tax. In fact people don't even really notice, hence why it is often referred to as free.

I understand that but in the US if cost is not dealt with and we simply focus on changing who pays or simply put cost controls in place we will have solved nothing. We will simply have moved the problems and created more of them.

a reply to: SprocketUK

The insurance and pharmaceutical companies make too much exploiting health care for profit. Americans should be outraged by this, however too many have been sold on the idea that socialism is evil and socialized medicine is the devil.