Socialized Healthcare - A Very Personal Story

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 
I'm not being hardhearted. I am being realistic. We are well into our third generation of entitlements. People are not encouraged to work and care for themselves. Instead they expect to feed from the government teat. The poor currently get better care than the rich, because they are on medicaid. They don't pay for anything. I pay co-pays for doctor's vists, for medications, and for hospitalizations. They don't pay a damned thing.
I have been nursing for almost forty years(I'm 59), and I have worked with several British nurses who would never go back to Britain to work because of the conditions.
Living longer? Most of my patients are range from their late 70's to their 90's, and a large number of them are mentally clear, and give me wonderful history lessons.
On the other hand, quite a few of my patients are young men who are on "disablity" because of a "bad back." They have 26" biceps and legs like tree trunks, which is indicative of someone lifting weights. In other words, they are cheating the government, and the taxpayers. However, because of federal privacy laws I am prohibited from reporting them.
It seems that we are at a bit of a paradox here, but no hard feelings. ATS is here to provide a medium for debate and exchange of ideas. I have never lived in GB and (I assume) you have never lived here. I look forward to hearing more from you.

I happen to believe that people should take responsiblity for themselves, and should only turn to the government as a last resort.




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I could continue this thread about american problems however the idea of the thread was to do away with this idea of a socialised healthcare system being utterly awful. That was my intent, to do away with this idea that socialised healthcare means strip lighting, obsolte methods, months of waiting times for critical treatments and generally all of the arguments used against socialised healthcare.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You been here? WE can play my dick is bigger then your all night the fact is you countrys systems works for you. You have not proven other wise. If you want to be a socialst nation thats your buisness. Stay out of our affairs



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I love my socialized Canadian health care too


Never had a problem with it. I've been to the ER a handful of times and seen a doctor before even having a chance to sit down.

The very small number of people who complain about our system simply don't know how to use it to their advantage, mostly out of laziness.

There's no reason to wait more than 10 or 15 minutes to see a walk-in doctor! Is it magic? Does it involve sexual favours perhaps? No, but it does require you to not be a useless person.

This is the general scenario that plays out for people who end up whining:

They have a bad cough or diarrhea or insomnia, whatever, so they drive to the nearest clinic. They walk inside and see that 20 other people with minor issues have beat them to it and the wait is 2 hours. What do they do? They find a magazine, sit in the corner, pout and then go home and complain they had to wait 2.5 hours and the doctor was in a hurry because there were 50 other people after them.

Now, what could you do to change this? I'll tell you! Get a phone book, find the listings for clinics, there's probably pages of them unless you live in the middle of no where. Pick up your phone and start making a few calls, ask the wait time and get them to take down your name so that when they say the wait is 15 minutes, you'll walk in the door right when your name is called!

How do you make this work for the ER? Even easier, because you only need to contact one person, your family doctor. You give him a call and tell him you lowered a chainsaw into your leg (true story, it sucked) and you have don't really want to wait with all the people going in there with the sniffles. Doctor says sure, hold for a minutes while I ring them to tell them to expect you. You then walk through the doors of the ER, tell the receptionist you're there and a doctor comes to get you.

In America, instead of a doctor calling to say you're in there for good cause, you wave a wad of cash in the direction of the doctors and if it pleases them, you get to go first.

Then people inevitably say, "but what if I don't have the phone number or hes MIA and it's serious?". Easiest of all: call an ambulance.

Some people just want to march into the ER, sit in the middle of the floor and cry until someone tends to them. Although if you do that, you will eventually get help, just not as quickly if you actually give some effort.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by ZombieOctopus]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
The public option is actually good here in Canada, contrary to what some Big Pharma propaganda would have you believe.

There was a commercial running in the states recently, about this Canadian woman who claimed she had a brain tumor. The truth is, she actually had a benign cyst on her brain. The doctors told her that it was not life threatening, and it is not affecting her health. So the hospital told her that there would be a 2 month waiting period, as it was not urgent and not affecting her health in any way. The hospitals have to deal with the priority patients first. So the woman screamed, yelled and pounded her fists saying: "This is outrageous!" and ended up on one of those commercials you see in the States demonizing the Canadian health care system. She claims she could have died if she had not gone to the US to have her "tumor" removed. Well, it was one big lie.

Now, I don't want to interject or hijack the OP's thread, I just wanted to add my two pennies on the demonization of the public health care system in the American media.

Big Pharma lies, because if they don't, they lose money.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by kommunist]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 

I am sorry, but you got lucky. To say that bad treatment is the exception rather than the rule is rather optimistic. You are judging from your personal experience. Lots of others have terrible experiences. My experiences with both my parents plus friends has been that a lot of doctors are completely incompetent, that a lot of nurses are lazy, that if a patient cannot feed themselves they are left to starve, that when the alarm bell is rung...on a stroke ward for God's sake....that nobody comes. Nobody comes to see what is happening. Nobody even comes round to see if patients need to be taken to the toilet. My own mother would wait from 8pm until 3pm the next day, until we were allowed to visit again, to ask me to take her to the toilet, as she could not go on her own and nobody would ask her if she needed to go. Nobody cares if they eat. I witnessed 95 yr old women being shouted at to get on the bed when they arrive frightened because they do not know what is happening to them, and left stranded nowhere near the pillows. I watched as patients were hurriedly sat in a chair or wheeled outside when relatives had rung to warn they were coming to visit, to pretend that was the norm. I watched as a patient was given a bib, her drink put in front of her, and then left ...when she was unable to pick up the container let alone drink from it. I watched as the nurses lied and said she had not wanted her dinner, but had a few spoonfuls, when it was obvious to anyone that the lid had not even been removed let alone anyone trying to feed her. Luckily her daughter saw what was going on and removed her from the hospital next day, probably to have private care. Lucky too that she could afford that. I saw an open leg wound that had not been treated at all in a hospital rife with MRSA, yeah great idea.
On a stroke ward, where one would expect that shocks are not good for the system, all the relatives would jump in shock from stupid workers banging the metal lids of rubbish bins as hard as they could and startling patients who were asleep at the time, who awoke in great shock with beating hearts. This went on all through the night as well. This is just a snapshot, else I would be listing examples all night.
I am glad you had a good experience with the NHS, but do not quote that as the experience of the majority. Patients, to a lot of nurses are an inconvenience. A lot of doctors are so incompetent that they quote inaccurate drug dosages that a child could look up on the Internet in 5 minutes and know were totally and criminally wrong. I have had a friend awake during a procedure because of inadequate anaesthesia which was so traumatic that she was scarred for a long time. I have had people die because of surgeons incompetence. I am glad you had home help too and equipment as we were told that we could not have that, and then were given advice that was laughable if it wasn't so serious. I could list my witnessing and experiences personally, and that long, long list is a shambolic mess of utter incompetence, no help, no care and no financial assistance, but to be honest I am still traumatised by the experience and still incandescent with rage about the lack of care and the lack of competence.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
A very touching story. I am glad to hear the system worked so well for your family.

My concern is (and by this I have no intention of attacking the NHS; I would like to understand it better), who pays the doctors and nurses? Who do they report to? Are they private practitioners who set their own fees for the NHS to pay, or do they actually work for the NHS directly?

I also have some concern about research money. I did a few checks on some of the tests you mentioned, and I found the following information: the EEG was created in the USA, although it was theorized earlier by both Russian and English researchers [1]; the ECG was originally used in America, and later in England and the Netherlands [2]; Ultrasonic imaging was developed at the Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and later found applications in Sweden and Scotland [3]. It appears from this admittedly quick and simplified look into the history of medical research that the Capitalist medical system of the USA has been at least instrumental in development of the technologies that are being used by the NHS. My concern is, are there medical researchers in the UK under the NHS, and if so, how are they paid and who supplies funding for the (extremely expensive) research?

Sources used for above information:
  1. en.wikipedia.org...
  2. en.wikipedia.org...
  3. en.wikipedia.org...


I would also ask, is the NHS paid for by a generally higher tax, or is there a special health tax that is paid for it? What is the actual percentage of this tax? And how does this taxation rate compare with the taxation rates America would need to implement a similar system?

While the story of your family's care received was impressive, all doctors are human and make mistakes. What happens should there be a legitimate malpractice occurrence?

Again, this is not an attack, just some questions I have never had answered to my satisfaction. Now seems like a good time to ask.


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
A very touching story. I am glad to hear the system worked so well for your family.


As you have asked very good questions instead of baseless attacks i am very happy to go through them.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
My concern is (and by this I have no intention of attacking the NHS; I would like to understand it better), who pays the doctors and nurses? Who do they report to? Are they private practitioners who set their own fees for the NHS to pay, or do they actually work for the NHS directly?


The doctors and nurses have their wages set byt the NHs and they sign a contract for them. If they don't like the wages they can leave anytime and do private work or they can mix private work and NHS treatment. It should be noted that a starting salary for a doctor is around 48,000 pounds which is around. 78,000 us dollars at todays excahnge rate.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I also have some concern about research money. I did a few checks on some of the tests you mentioned, and I found the following information: the EEG was created in the USA, although it was theorized earlier by both Russian and English researchers [1]; the ECG was originally used in America, and later in England and the Netherlands [2]; Ultrasonic imaging was developed at the Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and later found applications in Sweden and Scotland [3]. It appears from this admittedly quick and simplified look into the history of medical research that the Capitalist medical system of the USA has been at least instrumental in development of the technologies that are being used by the NHS. My concern is, are there medical researchers in the UK under the NHS, and if so, how are they paid and who supplies funding for the (extremely expensive) research?


The USa is a larger country and therefore has a larger research budget. It should also be noted the many of these breakthroughs came from military funding. If this funding were channeled into healthcare then the breakthroughs would be equally impressive. Medical research does happen in the UK and in fact we lead many fields. Remember that science is a joint effort and the UK has less of a population, therefore less funds and so has less research. If our population were as large as yours and we had equal land mass no doubt we'd be equal.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I would also ask, is the NHS paid for by a generally higher tax, or is there a special health tax that is paid for it? What is the actual percentage of this tax? And how does this taxation rate compare with the taxation rates America would need to implement a similar system?


The NHS is paid for by income tax. The income tax here is higher than the USA, however it is interesting to see the amount of ancilliary taxes the USA has which almost seem to level things out. However yes i would argue we do pay more taxes. The USa would need to increase tax rates for this system, however the savings would be clear. People would be able to work longer, in good health. I think the next 20 years will show this as you see the impact of an obese nation.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
While the story of your family's care received was impressive, all doctors are human and make mistakes. What happens should there be a legitimate malpractice occurrence?


If malpractice occurs it is the same as your system. The family sues, end of story.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Again, this is not an attack, just some questions I have never had answered to my satisfaction. Now seems like a good time to ask.


TheRedneck


You asked respectfully and with an apparent genuine open mind, therefore your questions are very welcome.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 
I don't see what difference my religious beliefs make, but I consider myself Christian. And I would prefer that we had no need for any type of military, but I am old enough and experienced enough to know that is wishful thinking.
If you are about to critiize my thinking concerning health care based on my beliefs, remember that The Christ said " The poor you will have with you always." We will always have people who will not care for themselves. For those who cannot care for themselves, there are safety nets to meet their needs.
Yes, we could reduce our military, but what would the rest of the world do? This is not arrogance on my part. Simply go back to WWII and beyond and study history. It has fallen to the United States to be the Policeman for the world, whether we like it or not.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

The doctors and nurses have their wages set byt the NHs and they sign a contract for them. If they don't like the wages they can leave anytime and do private work or they can mix private work and NHS treatment.

That brings up another question: what private work is available? If everyone is covered under NHS for 'free', then why would anyone pay for services form a private entity?

$78K sounds like a good wage at first glance, but when I think things over, that may be lower than the starting income of our doctors. Based on a 40-hour workweek, that comes to about $39 per hour. A machinist or welder can typically start out at $20 an hour. That's about half of the doctor's starting pay, but considering the difference in education requirements (4 years college + 4 years med school + minimum 2 year internship vs. around 2 years training in a trade) it sounds pretty pathetic to me.

Now I am no expert by any means on the subject of doctor's pay, so if someone wishes to enlighten me, it would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps the starting pay for a doctor here is higher, or perhaps the advancement is much faster than that of a tradesman; I simply would expect such an initial sacrifice to be well-rewarded.


The USa is a larger country and therefore has a larger research budget. It should also be noted the many of these breakthroughs came from military funding. If this funding were channeled into healthcare then the breakthroughs would be equally impressive.

I must agree that the US is a larger country and would therefore have more funded researchers. Can you provide me some examples of UK breakthroughs that have happened since the innovation of the NHS? Also, is the funding for this research provided directly by the NHS, or is medical research left to Capitalistic influences? I would assume there would be some connection with the NHS, since the NHS would be the singular customer domestically for any breakthroughs that occur.

My concern here is that there is enough incentive to attract the best and brightest minds into the field.

As for military innovations, that has always been the case. Military advances are usually the norm simply because governments have the funding available to pursue new technologies and in the interest of National Security, that funding may easily be seen as practical where private interests would consider it excessive. Because of this, I personally doubt direct research money into the medical field would provide much if any improvement over and above what the military has always provided.


The NHS is paid for by income tax.

What percentage do you pay for this income tax? That may not be a viable option in the USA. As you mention, we have many many more taxes than just the income tax. In the first place, most states also require payment of an income tax over and above the federal tax, and even some cities have their own income tax as well. Now add in luxury taxes, use taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes, 'sin' taxes, fees, permits for almost every activity you can imagine, mandatory requirements for insurance, waste disposal, and other services that cannot be refused and we are already taxed well beyond the 50% mark, even for those living below the poverty level.

Taxation must stop at 100%. You cannot tax more than a person makes. That is self-evident. Even at 100%, that leaves nothing for people to use for food, housing, transportation, clothing, or disposable income to drive the economy. Do we have room for a tax on the level you employ for socialized health care?


If malpractice occurs it is the same as your system. The family sues, end of story.

I wonder if malpractice awards are on par with ours... I also wonder how we could compare accurately between the two systems.


You asked respectfully and with an apparent genuine open mind, therefore your questions are very welcome.

Thank you. I have no interest or stake in denigrating the NHS. I have no connection with the NHS. Therefore it would be illogical for me to attack them without just cause, and even more illogical to attack them over rumor and innuendo.

Please note, however, that just as in our previous exchanges I am not one to sugar-coat a position I hold. Some of my questions may become pointed; do not take that as aggression, but as honest debate.

TheRedneck


[edit on 9/18/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


Oh now seriously i could get into WW2 if you like and utterly destroy your ideas, but it would detract fromt he thread. So please start a new thread on that one. The idea of this thread is as follows.


a) To abolish the rather stupid idea that British healthcare is backwards
b) To abolish the idea that waiting times are months for serious health conditions like cancer
c) To abolish the idea you cannot choose which doctor you see
d) To abolish the idea that you see a manger and not a doctor when unwell

This is the sole reason of the thread.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I feel for the OP,first and foremost to be going through any type of Medical problems with the family.In America,everyone can see a Doctor.Illegals ,even the OP could be seen without insurance.I am glad NHS worked for you and your family.But for every one bright spot,there are more that are horrible.For Every Britain who thinks that socialized health care is good,There is one that thinks its bad. You cannot criticize someone who doesnt want a NHS type health care,or say they are attacking it,especially if they have it,or have had it fail for them.Im sure you can show me the bright spots,the better stories out there,but heres a few I found.I wouldnt want it.Ill take my chances with what I have now.

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.mirror.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk...


Good site on socialized health care:

www.liberty-page.com...

“We have the best government that money can buy.”~ Mark Twain



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Once again i can easily link a ton of scare stories about the USa health system, so bsically we're at a wash on that one.

I''m off for the night but i will be back tomorrow!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Your absolutely right!! We could debate it till our ears fell off.Personally,I believe in Small Government.This article hits American Health care on the head.

www.capmag.com...


Small Government=Less Problems.......



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It's good to know that after a little more than 60 years, the NHS has turned out to be a benefit.

You, as a UK resident, should know that the NHS only came into being after WWII, and that was after the decision was made between 1943 & 1944.

By 1951 the NHS almost caused the UK to be bankrupt.

You must be from Wales, as you mention that prescriptions for your Mother were free, and Wales is the only branch of the NHS that offers free prescriptions. In England, the cost £7.20, which would be about $16 USD.

And let's also mention that dentistry, while included in the NHS, has corresponding charges that come out of the patient's pocket.

It is grand for younger people today to think that the NHS is a wonderful thing, as they didn't experience the time of transition. 60 yrs is a long time.

I seriously doubt that the US would manage, in the same period of time, to make it's own version of national health care as effective as the NHS has managed.

People who are middle aged to elderly in the US would be the ones to suffer the most, as would the entire next generation. 2-3 generations later, well maybe we would have something that would be equivalent to the quality of care we currently have here in the US, via private insurance & medicaid/medicare.

But we aren't returning home to a war ravaged nation with the chance to build it back better than it was, as the UK was when NHS was implemented.

We already have a system that works for the majority of our citizens.

To fix something that for the most part, isn't broken, is inviting destruction, and it is those living now, and future generations that will suffer until the "kinks" are worked out.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
First off, you cant really compare the life expectancy and say "hey ours is almost as good because we just live 1 or 2 years less" because we pay more than twice as much per capita....while leaving 10% of our people without healthcare....so paying twice as much per capita for 90% of our people to live 2 years less is NOT equal.

Secondly if your going to compare how much we pay in taxes to those countries....you have to add healthcare costs to our taxes....since its something they dont have. Further, when speaking of how much our doctors make vs theirs, you have to factor in our costs for education, which they mostly get for free...our average doctor pays between 1 and 2k per month for 10 years...thats 12 to 24 thousand a year to subtract from our american doctors salaries...then you must subtract malpractice insurance which can easily range up to 60k a year. Really when it all comes down to it, subtracting these costs the salaries are not so far different.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
State run basic services are the only sane way to go. Why the hell should someone make a profit from you being sick? Give the sallary to the workers, but no-one should gain from the hospital in form of profit from stocks or multimillion dollar vages for managers.

Here in Finland a big hospital's manager on the state run side gets about as much sallary as a specialized doctor on the private sector. Still, both the privately run side and the state run side offer similar quality in treatment. The difference being the rich ones go to the private side, because there they are paying customers, and therefore always right = they basically say to the doctor what they want, and the doctor does it and charges you.

I know numerous people who happen to know the right doctor, and make their living of selling their ADHD medication they have got by just asking. I know even more who sell their benzos and painkillers, since they are even easier to get as the are not classified as narcotics.

So yeah, as long as money is involved, there is corruption. Selling a month's worth of your prescribed ADHD medication gives you 400euros in profit if you sell bulk, 600 on the street. You get 400 euros social security money + your necessary bills paid by government. You immediately double your spending money.

On top of this you can easily earn 100 euros by selling your monthly dose of benzos, and 100 euros by painkillers. Why work when you get the same sallary as a MD by once a month contacting your pusher and selling him the drugs the healthcare system provides to you?

MD makes 3000/month, 50% tax leaves 1500. Your rent is 600 leaves you with 1100euros. The example above yields you 1000euros per month AT LEAST.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by above]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
America is definently being lied to. From what I understand they were also told a lot of lies about the health care system in Canada. And thats only what I know. Perhaps they also are told lies about France and other European countries.

Americans should listen to people living in these countries instead of to their mass media. We are the ones having these systems and we would tell you if they sucked. They definitely dont.

But yes, the system is built on the design that everybody pays for everybody else. When you get sick, you get treated thanks to everybody else chipping in and paying. And you do the same for them.

A lot of Americans dont want to pay for others it seems. They want everybody to support themselfs. But if you dont help your fellow human beings when they are in need, whats the point of living together in a society in the first place?

France is at the top of the game (not specifically for health care, but for working together as a people for changing bad things). In that country, the government fear the people, not the other way around. The people regularly have demonstrations when things are wrong. They have the power to influence and change things. We are the ones who dont.


[edit on 19-9-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
You must be from Wales, as you mention that prescriptions for your Mother were free, and Wales is the only branch of the NHS that offers free prescriptions. In England, the cost £7.20, which would be about $16 USD.


I am from England actually and the NHS offers free prescriptions to those over a certain age and those with long term medical problems. If you are diagnosed with something like cancer then you are not required to pay.


Originally posted by redhatty
People who are middle aged to elderly in the US would be the ones to suffer the most, as would the entire next generation. 2-3 generations later, well maybe we would have something that would be equivalent to the quality of care we currently have here in the US, via private insurance & medicaid/medicare.


If the USA applied the NHS model it would not take 1-3 generations to get things sorted.



Originally posted by redhatty

To fix something that for the most part, isn't broken, is inviting destruction, and it is those living now, and future generations that will suffer until the "kinks" are worked out.


The USA is very broken for the poor people. Maybe a mix would suit you better with medicare and things like that being automatically extended to those who don't earn a certain amount. I believe this is what Obama's idea was is that correct?


Originally posted by TheRedneck
That brings up another question: what private work is available? If everyone is covered under NHS for 'free', then why would anyone pay for services form a private entity?


Many reasons. Firstly some people just like to go private, they perceive it as better. It's funny but when they dial 999 they end up in an NHS hospital anyway and often wait until they are stable being being shipped off to a private hospital. Also the NHS doesn't cover things like non essential cosmetic surgery. By that i mean they'll fix your face if you have an accident but if you just want your breasts enlarged then you'll need to go private


Remember that all doctors here are trained within the NHS and then some choose to go private. Maybe they just want extra money, which brings us to your next point.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
$78K sounds like a good wage at first glance, but when I think things over, that may be lower than the starting income of our doctors. Based on a 40-hour workweek, that comes to about $39 per hour. A machinist or welder can typically start out at $20 an hour. That's about half of the doctor's starting pay, but considering the difference in education requirements (4 years college + 4 years med school + minimum 2 year internship vs. around 2 years training in a trade) it sounds pretty pathetic to me.


That's only the first year. Within three years they should be earning around 100,000 dollars and if they choose a speciality that can easily rise to 200,000 dollars. If they decide they want even more then they can do some private stuff on the side, 200,000 seems rather a lot though, but each to their own



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I must agree that the US is a larger country and would therefore have more funded researchers. Can you provide me some examples of UK breakthroughs that have happened since the innovation of the NHS? Also, is the funding for this research provided directly by the NHS, or is medical research left to Capitalistic influences? I would assume there would be some connection with the NHS, since the NHS would be the singular customer domestically for any breakthroughs that occur.

My concern here is that there is enough incentive to attract the best and brightest minds into the field.


I am not up to date with what research the NHS is carrying out. The research tends to be surgical in nature, at lest thats what it seems like. The NHs i suppose is not designed for finding new medical breakthroughs, it is simply their to apply them. Most medical breakthroughs come from privately funded sources. This is simply because the NHS, generally is not designed to look for breakthroughs.

However the NHS still uses all of the new stuff and the government does fund medical research via universities. As for attracting the best and brightest, well the UK is renowned for innovation, but this does tend to be private funding. In the end though that is what private funding is for, to take risks with money on something new.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
[What percentage do you pay for this income tax? That may not be a viable option in the USA. As you mention, we have many many more taxes than just the income tax. In the first place, most states also require payment of an income tax over and above the federal tax, and even some cities have their own income tax as well. Now add in luxury taxes, use taxes, fuel taxes, excise taxes, 'sin' taxes, fees, permits for almost every activity you can imagine, mandatory requirements for insurance, waste disposal, and other services that cannot be refused and we are already taxed well beyond the 50% mark, even for those living below the poverty level.


Quite amazing really. The UK's income tax is higher than the USA's and we have many extra little taxes. However someone earning say 44,000 dollars here would not pay 50% of their income out to government. So i suppose your system would need to be shifted with a higher base of income tax but lower state taxes. Or simply to leave it as it is and the states to spend the money more efficiently. If we can do it, you can as well.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Taxation must stop at 100%. You cannot tax more than a person makes. That is self-evident. Even at 100%, that leaves nothing for people to use for food, housing, transportation, clothing, or disposable income to drive the economy. Do we have room for a tax on the level you employ for socialized health care?


Once again yes, if we can you can. It would maybe requirea few things here are two suggestions.

Cut the military funding slightly. The simple fact is that much military funding goes into secret research that won't see the light of day for 50 years. Who knows what great discoveries have been made that are kept from the public, and if they're being kept from the public then what good are they really?

End the war on drugs. The war on drugs is an utter failure. The USA doesn't seem to have learnt from the alcohol prohibition days. If you ended this stupid war, legalised some drugs and taxed them then you would easily pay for a nationwide system of healthcare.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I wonder if malpractice awards are on par with ours... I also wonder how we could compare accurately between the two systems.


Malpractice payments are easily in the hundreds of thousands of pounds and higher, a case last year paid 5.5 million pounds. Is that on par with america?


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Thank you. I have no interest or stake in denigrating the NHS. I have no connection with the NHS. Therefore it would be illogical for me to attack them without just cause, and even more illogical to attack them over rumor and innuendo.

Please note, however, that just as in our previous exchanges I am not one to sugar-coat a position I hold. Some of my questions may become pointed; do not take that as aggression, but as honest debate.

TheRedneck


That is exactly what i want and enjoy so keep at it.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You been here? WE can play my dick is bigger then your all night the fact is you countrys systems works for you. You have not proven other wise. If you want to be a socialst nation thats your buisness. Stay out of our affairs


What planet do you live on? A socialised nation, the UK? We're a democracy! Just like the USA we have some socialist elements, schools, libraries, the police, and fire service. It just so happens that we have one extra thing you don't, government run healthcare.

Please don't keep calling us a socialist nation, it is utterly wrong and quite disrespectful.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join