It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'I wouldn't be here if not for the NHS': Stephen Hawking defends UK's 'Orwellian' healthcare a

page: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
and just to reflect on this matter..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

try reading that.. and you are whining about health care in the UK?

I think we have a pretty good deal..

I added this for a poster who was talking about TAX and its relevance to health care ..




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Often when people bring the Constitution into the argument, I simply ask if they would like their next surgery performed with what was "State of the Art" in 1776.
(The life expectancy at that time was 50 years of age for males by the way.)


Whether health care was "state of the art in 1776" is immaterial. The Constitution is supreme law.


I'll take that as a No.



[edit on 13-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
It is the land of inverted reality over there . Where you can invade and occupy and be the on the side of right . The land of the free with the highest incarceration rate in the world . Now those same 'right to life ' crowd are probably the same ones demanding there is no national health service for all . They should rename their slogans ' right to life , as long as you can afford the insurance' .

The British are protective of their NHS , in the same way Americans are protective of their gun laws . The british hold their NHS doctors and especially the nurses in the same kind of esteem the americans hold their troops in . Says a little about the mindset of these nations , doesn't it .

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Gun Totin Gerbil]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by QueenofWeird
 


i live in finland my self and we have a pretty much cost free healthcare service here and it is basicly free because of the tax that we pay.

what ive was trying to point out was that nagging about "my tax money" goes to someone elses health or school or what not is a futile argument.

the tax that a person pays yearly do not cover the expences a person benefits from the goverment yearly , so the only way to do this is by everyone paying taxes inorder for the system to work and everyone regardless creed or class gets to enjoy the same free healthcare.

i dont know how much people here pay in taxes but i can say that the ammount i pay divided by the ammount of citizens in my country is pretty much nothing to cheer about , so by naging that someone gets 15 cents worth of healthcare from my yearly tax is pretty much an absurd viewpoint in the whole debate of wether healthcare should be free or not.

the same thing goes for thouse in the u.s .
take your tax and divide it by 300.000.000 , thats how much you theoreticly spend on other people including your self and the communion you live in yearly.

its a pretty bleak number.

z



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I suffer from Spinal Muscular Atrophy, a Motor Neurone disease similar to what Dr Hawkins suffers from. Lucky for me I have Type 3 of this disease so it's not as severe, I don't agree with a lot of policies the government makes but the NHS I have nothing but praise for. The NHS has supported me my whole life, without my mother wouldn't have coped when I was growing up. The council made me an extension to my house (costing upwards of £25,000), I get around £120 a week to help with caring/mobility costs (half of which goes on a car). The NHS provided me with physiotherapy whenever I needed it, regular checkups and help towards paying for a decent wheelchair. The council also provide me with carer's when I am at University as well, I was recently in Addenbrookes Hospital and my problem was sorted out in no time.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by System

Why is the NHS Orwellian?


Simple... because the big pharma lobbyist puppet masters with their hands firmly up the butts of American politicians say so. Big money buys good propaganda!

IRM



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Herein lies the problem, no matter how much we pay in taxes here in the USA, they are being used for things other than the good of the people.

I have a feeling things are going to change here real soon, complacency with the majority in the USA is almost non existent now.

The sleeping giant has just awoke, but this time its' about righting the wrongs in our own country.

It's time to take out the trash.



Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Simple... because the big pharma lobbyist puppet masters with their hands firmly up the butts of American politicians say so. Big money buys good propaganda!

IRM



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


well said my man


star for you! and i hope ur doing well
hehe "snarky grin"




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I myself regard the NHS in the UK as one of the best in the world, and one will continue to do so. I havemore admiration for the Doctors, Nurses, in the NHS than I do for any other profession.

Most of the restrictions on the NHS is due to red tape, Government interfeering in the running of the NHS. Not allowing those onthe front line to carry out thier duties to the high standards they medical staff invovled inthe NHS have always tried to do.

Another thing which has brought down the NHS Standards, was the introduction of the Postcode lottery, depending on where you live, you can recive treatment, where as someone who has the same medical condition, who lives ina different post code area, cannot gain access to that treatment.

I do not mind paying National Insurance for the NHS. At least I know others who are worse off than I am. Are recieving Health Care.

It beggars belief, that there are members who would allow children to die, just because they cannot afford health insurance, or pay the fees for treatment.





[edit on 13-8-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
It beggars belief, that there are members who would allow children to die, just because they cannot afford health insurance, or pay the fees for treatment.
[edit on 13-8-2009 by Laurauk]


In the current US system no one who is apparently about to die is refused treatment?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
In the current US system no one who is apparently about to die is refused treatment?


What happens in the current US system when someone who is about to die requires treatment but has no money or insurance?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 



The trouble is their lack of treatment could result in an early grave to many as minor issues over the years become life threatening.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

What happens in the current US system when someone who is about to die requires treatment but has no money or insurance?


That's what I mean, regardless of their situation, they HAVE to be treated? I think that is the case, maybe an American could clarify



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


NO, What I was referring to was some members, in here complaining about having to pay taxes for Free Healthcare. That is what I find alarming, so if someone say a child was dying would they still complain with regards to paying for that childs healthcare?

If that child had no health insurance, or had no one else to pay for it.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by noangels

The trouble is their lack of treatment could result in an early grave to many as minor issues over the years become life threatening.



that is a separate argument though, and you could tie that in with people eating, drinking too much and not taking enough excercise contributing to possible early death



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
NO, What I was referring to was some members, in here complaining about having to pay taxes for Free Healthcare. That is what I find alarming, so if someone say a child was dying would they still complain with regards to paying for that childs healthcare?


You'd probably find some who would not agree to any free healthcare in any situation, but even most who oppose this bill would not be in support of that



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
That's what I mean


Doh - missed the ?


It would be good to know what the situation is regarding this matter.

If people do receive life-saving treatment regardless of the means to pay for it then why get insurance et al?

I suppose the US SHS (Selective Health Service) would differentiate between someone dying of cancer and someone who has just arrived from a car accident.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
It would be good to know what the situation is regarding this matter.

If people do receive life-saving treatment regardless of the means to pay for it then why get insurance et al?

I suppose the US SHS (Selective Health Service) would differentiate between someone dying of cancer and someone who has just arrived from a car accident.



yeah, as I understand it, you would need to be at death's door, heart attack sort of thing- so if you were diagnosed with some long term degenerative illness you would not qualify



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

In the current US system no one who is apparently about to die is refused treatment


You're right. You have the option of being treated at the ER, who must provide life saving treatment. Life saving treatment...NOT prescription meds to make your condition better or to make pain tolearable, not PT, not treatments for issues which aren't life threatening. Additionally, say you break your leg. You don't have insurance so you go to the ER where they MUST treat you. They do and then slap you with a bill for thousands of dollars. A bill which if not paid will adversely effect your credit rating, a bill for which you can have your wages garnished. Secondly, they are NOT obligated to treat further to the initial stabilization.

Case in point. I didn't have insurance and went to the ER with extreme abdominal pain. I had an Ectopic pregancy and needed emergancy surgery. I was in hospital for a week recovering. When discharged I was given a referal to doctor to have myself assessed after a few days out of hospital. That doctor was under no obligation to see me. In fact when I explained I had no insurance and couldn't come up with the cash upfront I was referred to a local "free clinic", for which I did not qualify as I was over the income threshold.

That was almost 15 years ago when I still cared about my credit rating so I actually made an effort to pay it off. Five years ago when I left the US I still owned about 10K, as far as I know my credit rating in the US is #e as a result.

But hey, it's my own fault I got pregnant, I'm sure I didn't deserve the healthcare I got and probably deserve to be flogged for not paying off my bill. God forbid any tax payer money would go toward my undeserving self.

Whatever happened to " treat others as you would like to be treated....?"



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
NO, What I was referring to was some members, in here complaining about having to pay taxes for Free Healthcare.




I personally don't see it as paying a tax.

I see it as a necessary gift to my community that I would have made anyway in order to ensure that a basic level of humanity, decency and medical support is afforded to everyone.

I am comforted by the encapsulating idea that I am helping everyone in my community - not just myself.

[edit on 13/8/2009 by skibtz]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join