Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ?" When corbyn fucks the economy the NHS goes with it. ] | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ?" No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change." T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a nurse working in the NHS and a junior doctor asked me if I'd pay for health care - my reply ? I already do I pay tax and national insurance ! We should all be wary of the slow dismantling of the NHS by the current ideology - underfund it, create a supposedly independent body to scrutinise the delivery of health care at every level (the CQC who gave the maternity hospital in the North West a satidfactory rating when women and babies were suffering and dying and does anybody recall the Staffordshire hospital that also passed the CQC audit and we now know there was upwardsof 400 unnecessary deaths)and use TTIP to allow American models of health care to take over." TTIP will have no more effect on the NHS than being in EEC/EU has done or will do. It's a trade agreement to try and set up a free trade area between North America and the EU. How anyone would think that it could lead to the breakup of the EU is amazing. Maybe you should explain how TTIP would cause this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis." So just mostly preventable then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis. So just mostly preventable then?" Being slim is never necessarily a sign of good health anyway, another common myth. Diabetes isn't preventable, but it is a manageable condition. If you're genetically predisposed to get diabetes then you will get it Symptoms might be worse at an earlier time if you don't manage yourself but basically a part of your body isn't functioning properly (pancreatic cells) and you can't prevent that, you can just counteract the effects of it with diet, exercise and medication. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love the NHS there have been a lot of illnesses and breakages of my bones I have had in my life and the NhS have healed me, they are also the pioneers of finding cures for lots of illnesses.I thank god the NHS is still with us because before it was introduced into law back in the 40s it didn't matter how poor you were you still had to pay the doctor for his care and the cost of the prescription.I hope to god we don't end up like America were people can't even afford to be ill because they would have to get a second mortgage on their house to pay for the cost of treatment.Long live the NHS." Why does everyone compare the NHS to the health system in the US. There are plenty of other places to look at where they seem to have health services that are not run like a centralised soviet enterprise that deliver perfectly good health care to all. Just take a look around the rest of Europe. The reality is is that we simply don't have 'the best health care system in the world'; we don't even have the best health care system in Europe and, if you live in Scotland or Wales, you don't even have the best health care system in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis. So just mostly preventable then? Being slim is never necessarily a sign of good health anyway, another common myth. Diabetes isn't preventable, but it is a manageable condition. If you're genetically predisposed to get diabetes then you will get it Symptoms might be worse at an earlier time if you don't manage yourself but basically a part of your body isn't functioning properly (pancreatic cells) and you can't prevent that, you can just counteract the effects of it with diet, exercise and medication." I think there is a slightly stronger link between bad lifestyle choices, especially in terms of diet, and the on-set of Type 2 diabetes than your post suggest. Although I would agree that other factors, including heredity ones, are a large factor to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I love the NHS there have been a lot of illnesses and breakages of my bones I have had in my life and the NhS have healed me, they are also the pioneers of finding cures for lots of illnesses.I thank god the NHS is still with us because before it was introduced into law back in the 40s it didn't matter how poor you were you still had to pay the doctor for his care and the cost of the prescription.I hope to god we don't end up like America were people can't even afford to be ill because they would have to get a second mortgage on their house to pay for the cost of treatment.Long live the NHS. Why does everyone compare the NHS to the health system in the US. There are plenty of other places to look at where they seem to have health services that are not run like a centralised soviet enterprise that deliver perfectly good health care to all. Just take a look around the rest of Europe. The reality is is that we simply don't have 'the best health care system in the world'; we don't even have the best health care system in Europe and, if you live in Scotland or Wales, you don't even have the best health care system in the UK." exactly how are you quantifying which healthcare system is better than another? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis. So just mostly preventable then? Being slim is never necessarily a sign of good health anyway, another common myth. Diabetes isn't preventable, but it is a manageable condition. If you're genetically predisposed to get diabetes then you will get it Symptoms might be worse at an earlier time if you don't manage yourself but basically a part of your body isn't functioning properly (pancreatic cells) and you can't prevent that, you can just counteract the effects of it with diet, exercise and medication. I think there is a slightly stronger link between bad lifestyle choices, especially in terms of diet, and the on-set of Type 2 diabetes than your post suggest. Although I would agree that other factors, including heredity ones, are a large factor to." There's type 1 & 2 in my family. Weirdly the slim people in my family are the type 1 and got it at a young age, us chubbies got type 2 and all well into adulthood (i've been diagnosed as type 2 for almost 20 yrs now but didn't need medication until fairly recently). I've only studied the genetics side actually, and not everything is known there either. Idk much about prediabetes tbh, and like all things when they mention there is a 'risk' of getting something it means they're not sure what causes something but there is some correlation there. I'm too tired for this conversation also...might be back tomorrow. Gonna see what i can learn about prediabetes though. I have a biased opinion because of the genetic stuff i know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Privatise it for me. I would sooner pay for good health care when and IF I need it rather than pay every week in week out for something I've not used all my life " If you want your insurance company dictating to your health care providers what they can and can't do, go ahead. Whist you're at it, avoid all the health care providers that will over treat and prescribe because they get paid for it. In the USA the maternal and infant morbidity and mortality rate is one of the worst in the developed world. Women have no choice and doctors dictate what happens. Midwives in some states are actually illegal and most others are not covered by insurance. Countries where maternity care is led by Midwives have the lowest morbidity and mortality rates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Privatise it for me. I would sooner pay for good health care when and IF I need it rather than pay every week in week out for something I've not used all my life If you want your insurance company dictating to your health care providers what they can and can't do, go ahead. Whist you're at it, avoid all the health care providers that will over treat and prescribe because they get paid for it. If the nhs didn't exist I wouldn't pay into a health plan. I would set up a personal saving plan for which I could use for any health costs I incurred without paying a third party for that privalige In the USA the maternal and infant morbidity and mortality rate is one of the worst in the developed world. Women have no choice and doctors dictate what happens. Midwives in some states are actually illegal and most others are not covered by insurance. Countries where maternity care is led by Midwives have the lowest morbidity and mortality rates. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis. So just mostly preventable then? Being slim is never necessarily a sign of good health anyway, another common myth. Diabetes isn't preventable, but it is a manageable condition. If you're genetically predisposed to get diabetes then you will get it Symptoms might be worse at an earlier time if you don't manage yourself but basically a part of your body isn't functioning properly (pancreatic cells) and you can't prevent that, you can just counteract the effects of it with diet, exercise and medication. I think there is a slightly stronger link between bad lifestyle choices, especially in terms of diet, and the on-set of Type 2 diabetes than your post suggest. Although I would agree that other factors, including heredity ones, are a large factor to. There's type 1 & 2 in my family. Weirdly the slim people in my family are the type 1 and got it at a young age, us chubbies got type 2 and all well into adulthood (i've been diagnosed as type 2 for almost 20 yrs now but didn't need medication until fairly recently). I've only studied the genetics side actually, and not everything is known there either. Idk much about prediabetes tbh, and like all things when they mention there is a 'risk' of getting something it means they're not sure what causes something but there is some correlation there. I'm too tired for this conversation also...might be back tomorrow. Gonna see what i can learn about prediabetes though. I have a biased opinion because of the genetic stuff i know. " Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (Juvenile) is usually found in slimmer or average built people and usually occurs at a young age, it is generally genetic. The body cannot process sugar due to the lack of insulin uptake hence the need to take insulin injections. Type 2 DM is commonly found in people with a poor diet and their insulin is sluggish. Most of the time people with T2 DM are overweight or obese, but isn't always the case. It is totally reversible if there is a change in diet and exercise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? When corbyn fucks the economy the NHS goes with it. ]" It isn't corbyn who will fuck the country it is cameron and his cronies who will wreck society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Unleashed" try living in Africa were no health care exists at all and thousands die of aids through ignorance." You can't really compare a third world continent with Eurppe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the nhs was privatised people who work would have a problem because they would not be able to afford healthcare as private insurance would be introduced then many would die. Nobody has the right to make profit from peoples health,people are more important than money." As per usual you take one extreme and compare to another extreme private insurance (aka US system) is not the only alternative. A ring fenced NHS contribution might be a logical first step. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba." I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis." My ex husband was 42, slim, fit when he developed type 2 diabetes: he still is slim and fit. I was 54 when I developed it, fat and unfit. I dropped 30kg, walked and joined a gym and in six months my diabetes was reversed. My doctor said I was amongst those who could reverse diabetes through diet and exercise alone. My ex husband falls under those, who after the age of 40, their bodies just stop producing insulin, nothing to do with weight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is the NHS actually for? Until we can have a grown up debate on what it is, what it does and more importantly what it doesn't do then it is heading for failure. We all love the NHS and pay for it, problem is none of us pay enough! If we want a Rolls Royce Service that can provide everything from a boob job to heart surgery it costs. Very true...peoples expectations are unrealistic. . There are some health isssues perhaps the nhs should not deal with...that said...this government will continue to undermine it until it fails. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. " Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? No. But it will have to evolve to a point where people contribute directly as they do now for prescriptions and dental care. Type 2 diabetes is the biggest and most immediate threat to the NHS and it is an entirely preventable illness. There was a news story not that long ago that type 2 diabetes will be the disease the forces of NHS to change. T2 is NOT 'entirely preventable'. Please don't quote common media shaming. Around 20% of T2's are slim at diagnosis. So just mostly preventable then? Being slim is never necessarily a sign of good health anyway, another common myth. Diabetes isn't preventable, but it is a manageable condition. If you're genetically predisposed to get diabetes then you will get it Symptoms might be worse at an earlier time if you don't manage yourself but basically a part of your body isn't functioning properly (pancreatic cells) and you can't prevent that, you can just counteract the effects of it with diet, exercise and medication. I think there is a slightly stronger link between bad lifestyle choices, especially in terms of diet, and the on-set of Type 2 diabetes than your post suggest. Although I would agree that other factors, including heredity ones, are a large factor to. There's type 1 & 2 in my family. Weirdly the slim people in my family are the type 1 and got it at a young age, us chubbies got type 2 and all well into adulthood (i've been diagnosed as type 2 for almost 20 yrs now but didn't need medication until fairly recently). I've only studied the genetics side actually, and not everything is known there either. Idk much about prediabetes tbh, and like all things when they mention there is a 'risk' of getting something it means they're not sure what causes something but there is some correlation there. I'm too tired for this conversation also...might be back tomorrow. Gonna see what i can learn about prediabetes though. I have a biased opinion because of the genetic stuff i know. Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (Juvenile) is usually found in slimmer or average built people and usually occurs at a young age, it is generally genetic. The body cannot process sugar due to the lack of insulin uptake hence the need to take insulin injections. Type 2 DM is commonly found in people with a poor diet and their insulin is sluggish. Most of the time people with T2 DM are overweight or obese, but isn't always the case. It is totally reversible if there is a change in diet and exercise. " Not quite right. Insulin production in T2 diabetes is raised because the insulin receptors are 'broken', so more and more is needed to deal with the carbohydrates that are consumed. Insulin is a fat building hormone so if your body is flooded with insulin and it's not used. Guess what happens? The common myth is that's it's reversible. It's certainly immensely manageable with a strict change in diet, but once you have it, it's there for life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts." According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. " and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. " The nature of the sitting government is irrelevant to the structure of a healthcare system. In France, for example, patients contribute to their treatment and the last I heard, it was a requirement to have private health insurance to top up state contributions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts." Have you been to Cuba? Have you been to a hospital in Cuba? Have you been treated at a hospital in Cuba? The hospital... at one of the biggest cities in Cuba, that I was taken to was dirty, falling apart, dark ( half the light fittings weren't working), there were people laying around in the corridors sleeping, it took me 4 hours to be seen. It was nowhere near to our hospitals. If you've ever been to Cuba, and seen the poverty of the ordinary people there, seen what it's like in their cities, not in the ' tourist' areas... well, that's what their hospitals are like... irrespective of what the WHO say. And I was told by a local that it was one of the best hospitals in the country! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. The nature of the sitting government is irrelevant to the structure of a healthcare system. In France, for example, patients contribute to their treatment and the last I heard, it was a requirement to have private health insurance to top up state contributions. " then the hearsay you base your comments on are wrong .... but i think you know that already | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. " Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery." again .... you have no facts to back any of this up have you .... i haven't got a dogmatic opinion on this, you just resorting to the usual troll tactics there lets be honest | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... snipped... then the hearsay you base your comments on are wrong .... but i think you know that already" About France... "Funding of health care in France. The system is funded partially by obligatory contributions into the state health system (Sécurité Sociale), which are usually deducted from your salary. As at 2014, employees paid 7.5 percent and employers paid 13.10 percent of the salary towards health costs. The system is also partially funded by central government and the patient, too, pays a small amount.... When you see a doctor or have medical treatment a percentage of the cost – usually about 70 per cent of standard GP fees for example – will be reimbursed for most people through the state via the CMU, the state health insurance scheme, so long as you are referred by your ‘attending doctor’ (see below). In the case of some major or long-term illnesses, 100 per cent of the costs are covered. The remainder of the charge must be paid for either by the patient or through any supplementary health insurance. This is why most people also take out top-up health insurance (l'assurance complémentaire santé) often organised by a 'mutual society' (mutelle), or insurance provider. " And this is how it was in the 1990's when I lived there for a couple of years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We seem to have an almost irrational attachment to the NHS, probably because we're constantly told it's the envy of the world. So on that basis I guess it will probably be around for quite a long time. However having experienced the health services in other countries I'm personally not convinced that we have a particular good health service and it definitely is not the envy of world. " It's OK but it is comparitivly very cheap. The USA for instance spends more per head via the government on health care than we do then they still have to have expensive insurance on top of that. One thing that annoys me though is through the NHS despite years of back pain following an accident I still haven't been able to get an mri or decent physio. (They did an xray and even said the xray won't show anything as it's a soft tissue issue that needs an mri but they have to xray first) My friend with private medical care went in with a back issue on Wednesday I think had an mri yesterday :/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We seem to have an almost irrational attachment to the NHS, probably because we're constantly told it's the envy of the world. So on that basis I guess it will probably be around for quite a long time. However having experienced the health services in other countries I'm personally not convinced that we have a particular good health service and it definitely is not the envy of world. It's OK but it is comparitivly very cheap. The USA for instance spends more per head via the government on health care than we do then they still have to have expensive insurance on top of that. One thing that annoys me though is through the NHS despite years of back pain following an accident I still haven't been able to get an mri or decent physio. (They did an xray and even said the xray won't show anything as it's a soft tissue issue that needs an mri but they have to xray first) My friend with private medical care went in with a back issue on Wednesday I think had an mri yesterday :/" . It's very annoying, it's even worse as alot of the scanners belong to the NHS, the costs were raised through charity appeals in most towns and then managers then realise they can make easy money renting out the scanners to private health care.... Which is why alot of the time, NHS patients wait! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc." . And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc.. And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit "Not really, you can't blame food it's the persons choice to eat it. They're given a diet plan etc they choose to go and ignore it but then expect the tax payer to stump up the money when they have to have their foot amputated or they go blind. The cost isn't going on drugs the treatments for diabetes are relatively cheap the money is going into major surgery,life long care and support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc.. And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit "Yeah, in our Sainsbury's they even put sugar and salt in the carrots and cauliflowers; no wonder I can't eat healthy and my weight is ballooning. And don't even talk to me about our gym. They've rigged the machines so that no matter how hard I workout, I never loose more than 10 kCal Its all a consipricy to keep us obese, I tell ya. This is so we can't get out off our backsides to go out to vote Cracked it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc.. And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit
Not really, you can't blame food it's the persons choice to eat it.
They're given a diet plan etc they choose to go and ignore it but then expect the tax payer to stump up the money when they have to have their foot amputated or they go blind.
The cost isn't going on drugs the treatments for diabetes are relatively cheap the money is going into major surgery,life long care and support.". Oh well if it's just personal choice!... Why not leave cocaine in cocacola, I mean it's just personal choice you become a addict or a sugar addict and then let's replace sugar with false sugar, wheat with GMOs, milk with bovine hormone growth and we'll declare it safe with a 6 week study with mice and if God forbid we do find anything in the study... We'll just bury it, because hey that's progress | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc.. And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit
Yeah, in our Sainsbury's they even put sugar and salt in the carrots and cauliflowers; no wonder I can't eat healthy and my weight is ballooning.
And don't even talk to me about our gym. They've rigged the machines so that no matter how hard I workout, I never loose more than 10 kCal
Its all a consipricy to keep us obese, I tell ya. This is so we can't get out off our backsides to go out to vote
Cracked it". It's not a conspiracy perse, we just don't talk about it!. I'm not declaring people innocent, people are inherently lazy, it's part of your genetic evolution! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc.. And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit
Not really, you can't blame food it's the persons choice to eat it.
They're given a diet plan etc they choose to go and ignore it but then expect the tax payer to stump up the money when they have to have their foot amputated or they go blind.
The cost isn't going on drugs the treatments for diabetes are relatively cheap the money is going into major surgery,life long care and support..
Oh well if it's just personal choice!... Why not leave cocaine in cocacola, I mean it's just personal choice you become a addict or a sugar addict and then let's replace sugar with false sugar, wheat with GMOs, milk with bovine hormone growth and we'll declare it safe with a 6 week study with mice and if God forbid we do find anything in the study... We'll just bury it, because hey that's progress"What's funny is you can tell you get your information from America. You should try read the EU guidelines for agriculture some day you'll find most of the crap you spout doesn't actually happen here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery. again .... you have no facts to back any of this up have you .... i haven't got a dogmatic opinion on this, you just resorting to the usual troll tactics there lets be honest" The WHO (World Health Organisation), a division of the UN, is a fairly reliable and independent source of information but there are other sources such as the Common Wealth Fund. Go look for the facts yourself. Most rate health provision in the UK amongst the lowest in the developed world. The only health care system that consistently rates lower is the US. As for trolling... I'll let others decide who's the angry troll and who's not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery. again .... you have no facts to back any of this up have you .... i haven't got a dogmatic opinion on this, you just resorting to the usual troll tactics there lets be honest The WHO (World Health Organisation), a division of the UN, is a fairly reliable and independent source of information but there are other sources such as the Common Wealth Fund. Go look for the facts yourself. Most rate health provision in the UK amongst the lowest in the developed world. The only health care system that consistently rates lower is the US. As for trolling... I'll let others decide who's the angry troll and who's not." Is there a list that's crossreferenced with cost (government and private ) Would be interesting to see where the "sweet spot" seems to be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Within 5 years with the clown as pm." Ronald Reagan is alive!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing is though the biggest expensive the NHS has (10+billion a year) is treating diabetes and more importantly it's complications. Most of that cost is fully preventable as it's the complications caused by people not following the diet plans etc.. And when you look at diabetes, it's biggest cause is... Food made by big business, yeah it's a double whammy, they throw sugar into everything for profit reasons they create a diabetes epidemic pharmaceutical big business then make profits on the drugs to get you along!.... Never cure you, just get you along. It's the circle of life you know, well not the circle of life but definitely the circle of profit
Not really, you can't blame food it's the persons choice to eat it.
They're given a diet plan etc they choose to go and ignore it but then expect the tax payer to stump up the money when they have to have their foot amputated or they go blind.
The cost isn't going on drugs the treatments for diabetes are relatively cheap the money is going into major surgery,life long care and support..
Oh well if it's just personal choice!... Why not leave cocaine in cocacola, I mean it's just personal choice you become a addict or a sugar addict and then let's replace sugar with false sugar, wheat with GMOs, milk with bovine hormone growth and we'll declare it safe with a 6 week study with mice and if God forbid we do find anything in the study... We'll just bury it, because hey that's progress
What's funny is you can tell you get your information from America.
You should try read the EU guidelines for agriculture some day you'll find most of the crap you spout doesn't actually happen here". Look west if you wanna know what's coming in the future  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery. again .... you have no facts to back any of this up have you .... i haven't got a dogmatic opinion on this, you just resorting to the usual troll tactics there lets be honest The WHO (World Health Organisation), a division of the UN, is a fairly reliable and independent source of information but there are other sources such as the Common Wealth Fund. Go look for the facts yourself. Most rate health provision in the UK amongst the lowest in the developed world. The only health care system that consistently rates lower is the US. As for trolling... I'll let others decide who's the angry troll and who's not." there .... you're doing it again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery. again .... you have no facts to back any of this up have you .... i haven't got a dogmatic opinion on this, you just resorting to the usual troll tactics there lets be honest The WHO (World Health Organisation), a division of the UN, is a fairly reliable and independent source of information but there are other sources such as the Common Wealth Fund. Go look for the facts yourself. Most rate health provision in the UK amongst the lowest in the developed world. The only health care system that consistently rates lower is the US. As for trolling... I'll let others decide who's the angry troll and who's not. Is there a list that's crossreferenced with cost (government and private ) Would be interesting to see where the "sweet spot" seems to be" I'm not sure that that information is readily available but, anecdotally, the UK system is based on a public service free at the point of delivery and scores low in world ratings. The US system is based almost totally on private insurance with little regard to the cost at the point of delivery and also scores low on world ratings. The French system, which has a mixture of publicly funded and private insurance and concentrates on affordability at the point of delivery, is rated the best in the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. and all but about three of the european countries above the UK use a centralised public healthcare system by governments most of which have centre/left values ..... it is possible to do without the right wing extremist idea of forcing eveyone into private care and private insurance driven methods and still be considered the best in the world. Personally I think it is your sort of dogmatic approach to delivery of health care that is the real problem. The evidence would seem to suggest that a total private (as in the US) or totally public (as in the UK and Cuba) do not deliver the best outcomes for patients (although, in it's defence, the totally public method does deliver the bad service at a much lower cost). What seems to work best are the systems that use a mixture of both private and public which deliver a service which, rather than being free at the point of delivery concentrate on being affordable at the point of delivery. again .... you have no facts to back any of this up have you .... i haven't got a dogmatic opinion on this, you just resorting to the usual troll tactics there lets be honest The WHO (World Health Organisation), a division of the UN, is a fairly reliable and independent source of information but there are other sources such as the Common Wealth Fund. Go look for the facts yourself. Most rate health provision in the UK amongst the lowest in the developed world. The only health care system that consistently rates lower is the US. As for trolling... I'll let others decide who's the angry troll and who's not. there .... you're doing it again" I notice that your not seriously addressing any of the points actually being raised. If you have a serious point to make please make it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax." It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care." . Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From a layman's perspective the following are what will kill the NHS: 1) overweight related illnesses 2) smoking related illnesses 3) people who work only a strategic number of hours just so they avoid paying tax/ national insurance. 4) people who see single parenthood as a CAREER and therefore scheme to achieve single parenthood permanently. 5) alcohol related illnesses. 6) irresponsible "mass production" of kids. 7) the present system which allows certain people to dive in and out of the UK when it is dole/gyro time. 8) hard drug related illnesses. 9) people who move heaven and earth to avoid work ( this means they put nothing into the kitty) In my honest opinion, the above are what are killing the NHS." And you are absolutely correct, it is simple and obvious. Unfortunately, those who look but choose not to see, would rather blame one political party or the other - depending on who happened to be the incumbent at the time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
.
What's ruining our health service is... Private for profit business in my opinion.
I mean the government always claim that there getting more efficent from ppi but then you look at the ppi deals we've got in place and its crazy.
There's one trust paying 120 million a year rent on a ppi building that cost 500 million to build....
There paying between 7 and 20 % on ppi loans when right now government has the ability to borrow at 2% and government borrowing costs are at 300 year lows | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care.. Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy!" That's partly true but done on an ad hoc basis that would almost certainly lead to a two tier health service when what is required is a health service that is affordable and based on peoples needs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From a layman's perspective the following are what will kill the NHS: 1) overweight related illnesses 2) smoking related illnesses 3) people who work only a strategic number of hours just so they avoid paying tax/ national insurance. 4) people who see single parenthood as a CAREER and therefore scheme to achieve single parenthood permanently. 5) alcohol related illnesses. 6) irresponsible "mass production" of kids. 7) the present system which allows certain people to dive in and out of the UK when it is dole/gyro time. 8) hard drug related illnesses. 9) people who move heaven and earth to avoid work ( this means they put nothing into the kitty) In my honest opinion, the above are what are killing the NHS. And you are absolutely correct, it is simple and obvious. Unfortunately, those who look but choose not to see, would rather blame one political party or the other - depending on who happened to be the incumbent at the time." . he stated its an opinion! Smoking probably raises more tax than it costs in health! Alcohol certainly does! We could tackle illegal drugs differently by legalising them but I doubt we ever will! I don't see how being a single parent has more health costs, you just sound like a bigot! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care.. Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy! That's partly true but done on an ad hoc basis that would almost certainly lead to a two tier health service when what is required is a health service that is affordable and based on peoples needs." . But I'm very happy with our current efficent health service, I don't wish to buy private health care for the very best cancer treatment! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You see this is the bit that gets confusing.... We already have the second most efficent health service in the developed world but... Somehow by adding for profit private business into our health service we'll make it even more efficent than the health services were more efficent than already and many of whom are for profit private business funded .
What's ruining our health service is... Private for profit business in my opinion.
I mean the government always claim that there getting more efficent from ppi but then you look at the ppi deals we've got in place and its crazy.
There's one trust paying 120 million a year rent on a ppi building that cost 500 million to build....
There paying between 7 and 20 % on ppi loans when right now government has the ability to borrow at 2% and government borrowing costs are at 300 year lows"I've not gone into PPI on this thread but in short, PPI is about capital investment not on going general day to day costs, so not really relevant. I also didn't want to get into a party political discussion on it but the fact is is that PPI was a bad policy brought in by the previous Labour government, this government has been stuck with paying the bill for it. As far as making a profit from the delivery of health services, my opinion is is that that is not a relevant point. The only thing I'm interested in is the delivery of the health care and the actual outcomes achieved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care.. Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy! That's partly true but done on an ad hoc basis that would almost certainly lead to a two tier health service when what is required is a health service that is affordable and based on peoples needs.. But I'm very happy with our current efficent health service, I don't wish to buy private health care for the very best cancer treatment!" It's not a question of whether you are personally happy with the health service or not. It's about how the health service can deliver the outcomes for patients that we all want. I see no reasonable reason why, in trying to achieve this result, we should not look at other provision models which seem to result in better outcomes. The real question for you is what is important to you? Is it the method of delivery or the outcome results? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care.. Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy! That's partly true but done on an ad hoc basis that would almost certainly lead to a two tier health service when what is required is a health service that is affordable and based on peoples needs.. But I'm very happy with our current efficent health service, I don't wish to buy private health care for the very best cancer treatment! It's not a question of whether you are personally happy with the health service or not. It's about how the health service can deliver the outcomes for patients that we all want. I see no reasonable reason why, in trying to achieve this result, we should not look at other provision models which seem to result in better outcomes. The real question for you is what is important to you? Is it the method of delivery or the outcome results?" . No I'm very happy paying what I currently pay and I'd be happy paying some more if needed I don't expect the world's greatest health care system because we don't pay as much as everybody else but for what we pay we get good results as the report said! Pfi schemes are costing the NHS a fortune and they were a dreadful start of privatisation of the NHS! But there's plenty of other ways to show that running health services as "businesses" also costs us more! https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/billions-of-wasted-nhs-cash-noone-wants-to-mention | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS ? Will we see it disappear within our lifetime ? When corbyn fucks the economy the NHS goes with it. ]" Well, the city bankers fucked the economy but NHS is still here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care.. Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy! That's partly true but done on an ad hoc basis that would almost certainly lead to a two tier health service when what is required is a health service that is affordable and based on peoples needs.. But I'm very happy with our current efficent health service, I don't wish to buy private health care for the very best cancer treatment! It's not a question of whether you are personally happy with the health service or not. It's about how the health service can deliver the outcomes for patients that we all want. I see no reasonable reason why, in trying to achieve this result, we should not look at other provision models which seem to result in better outcomes. The real question for you is what is important to you? Is it the method of delivery or the outcome results?. No I'm very happy paying what I currently pay and I'd be happy paying some more if needed I don't expect the world's greatest health care system because we don't pay as much as everybody else but for what we pay we get good results as the report said! Pfi schemes are costing the NHS a fortune and they were a dreadful start of privatisation of the NHS! But there's plenty of other ways to show that running health services as "businesses" also costs us more! https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/billions-of-wasted-nhs-cash-noone-wants-to-mention" The main criticism of that report seems to be running the health service as a market. That's not the same thing as allowing a level of private insurance into an integrated health service, in affect to follow the example of most other health services throughout the developed world and which provides better outcomes than are present system. At the end of the day a health service should be about delivering health care with the best possible outcomes (which normally means people staying alive and healthier for longer). What ever way you want to present other factors such as efficiency or relative cost to GDP - both of which the NHS scores highly on - it does not score highly on actual outcomes. On outcomes the NHS, according to the Common Wealth Fund, was the second worst in the developed world with only the US being worse. 2014 figures. In my opinion there are two things the US and UK system have in common. They both have extremely poor outcomes for most patients and they both have been developed on ideas based more on political ideology rather than the needs of patients. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm always perplexed as to why my Health Insurance is taxed as a benefit when it's actually reducing my need to us the NHS and so saving it money. " Wholly agree with this other than it could be construed that the tax "loss" is part of the overall tax take and would effectively be shifting your NHS tax contribution into a private arrangement. In this case there is no benefit to the state, only to you. There should be a better way of dealing with it though, I agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143. They found the nhs to be second only to Ireland as the most efficent medical service in the developed world. The worse was the united states. Now if you want the "best" heath service in the world, I suggest you stop moaning and stump up more tax. It's not all about efficiency or, to give it it's correct term, cost effectiveness. In terms of cost effectiveness the NHS normally scores quite highly with only Cuba generally scoring higher. What that means is that for what we pay we get a pretty good service. It does not mean that we receive a good service over all (for example the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in the developed world). I would agree that if we want better health outcomes for patients then we are all probably going to have to pay more one way or another but to insist that that money should have to come from general taxation, when all the evidence from the rest of the developed world is that a mix of public and private provision actually providers the best health care outcomes, to me looks like putting politics and ideology before patients and their care.. Hang on, so in your own words, for what we pay we get a good service! (We just don't pay enough to get a world class service?) But it's not the best in the world and to do that you want to add, private health insurance to the current service.... You can do that today already, just go get yourself a policy! That's partly true but done on an ad hoc basis that would almost certainly lead to a two tier health service when what is required is a health service that is affordable and based on peoples needs.. But I'm very happy with our current efficent health service, I don't wish to buy private health care for the very best cancer treatment! It's not a question of whether you are personally happy with the health service or not. It's about how the health service can deliver the outcomes for patients that we all want. I see no reasonable reason why, in trying to achieve this result, we should not look at other provision models which seem to result in better outcomes. The real question for you is what is important to you? Is it the method of delivery or the outcome results?. No I'm very happy paying what I currently pay and I'd be happy paying some more if needed I don't expect the world's greatest health care system because we don't pay as much as everybody else but for what we pay we get good results as the report said! Pfi schemes are costing the NHS a fortune and they were a dreadful start of privatisation of the NHS! But there's plenty of other ways to show that running health services as "businesses" also costs us more! https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/billions-of-wasted-nhs-cash-noone-wants-to-mention The main criticism of that report seems to be running the health service as a market. That's not the same thing as allowing a level of private insurance into an integrated health service, in affect to follow the example of most other health services throughout the developed world and which provides better outcomes than are present system. At the end of the day a health service should be about delivering health care with the best possible outcomes (which normally means people staying alive and healthier for longer). What ever way you want to present other factors such as efficiency or relative cost to GDP - both of which the NHS scores highly on - it does not score highly on actual outcomes. On outcomes the NHS, according to the Common Wealth Fund, was the second worst in the developed world with only the US being worse. 2014 figures. In my opinion there are two things the US and UK system have in common. They both have extremely poor outcomes for most patients and they both have been developed on ideas based more on political ideology rather than the needs of patients." Problem is the NHS gets kicked around depending g on what's flavour of the month/political trend of the year with no long term planning possible. What would be best is setting up an organisation of relevantly qualified people giving them an acceptable budget that rises each year by a set amount (regardless of what they spend so there's none of that panic buying at the end of the budget like we get with local government ) and give them full autonomous control of the NHS for a fixed term say 15 years let them plan it out for a few years then impliment their plans free from political interference regardless of party in charge | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Problem is the NHS gets kicked around depending g on what's flavour of the month/political trend of the year with no long term planning possible. What would be best is setting up an organisation of relevantly qualified people giving them an acceptable budget that rises each year by a set amount (regardless of what they spend so there's none of that panic buying at the end of the budget like we get with local government ) and give them full autonomous control of the NHS for a fixed term say 15 years let them plan it out for a few years then impliment their plans free from political interference regardless of party in charge" A great and very admirable idea.... in theory. And while we're at it, why not do the same with education? And public utilities and transport? As they should all ' trump' politics. The only problem I see with that being agreed to, is what would labour then have for it to appeal to the electorate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Problem is the NHS gets kicked around depending g on what's flavour of the month/political trend of the year with no long term planning possible. What would be best is setting up an organisation of relevantly qualified people giving them an acceptable budget that rises each year by a set amount (regardless of what they spend so there's none of that panic buying at the end of the budget like we get with local government ) and give them full autonomous control of the NHS for a fixed term say 15 years let them plan it out for a few years then impliment their plans free from political interference regardless of party in charge A great and very admirable idea.... in theory. And while we're at it, why not do the same with education? And public utilities and transport? As they should all ' trump' politics. The only problem I see with that being agreed to, is what would labour then have for it to appeal to the electorate? " Not to mention how and who these new bodies would be accountable to the public. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Problem is the NHS gets kicked around depending g on what's flavour of the month/political trend of the year with no long term planning possible. What would be best is setting up an organisation of relevantly qualified people giving them an acceptable budget that rises each year by a set amount (regardless of what they spend so there's none of that panic buying at the end of the budget like we get with local government ) and give them full autonomous control of the NHS for a fixed term say 15 years let them plan it out for a few years then impliment their plans free from political interference regardless of party in charge A great and very admirable idea.... in theory. And while we're at it, why not do the same with education? And public utilities and transport? As they should all ' trump' politics. The only problem I see with that being agreed to, is what would labour then have for it to appeal to the electorate? Not to mention how and who these new bodies would be accountable to the public." Well I would day it would probably take at least 5-10 years to set up the organisations and the rules for their conduct as well as for the various schools of thought to put out their ideas and back them up before a plan is chosen. Sensible milestones would be placed (not the usual unattainable government ones) and if they have failed to reach them there could be an investigation into if it was a legitimate error or if the plan was flawed. But the big problem is always be it's going to get worse before it gets better at any point you try to massively change such a system as the NHS outcomes will fall quite badly which is why we have all these tiny measure slowly texted on over time but that doesn't really improve things The issue is no one wants to be the generations that's going to get a shirty service while it's sorted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a nurse working in the NHS and a junior doctor asked me if I'd pay for health care - my reply ? I already do I pay tax and national insurance ! We should all be wary of the slow dismantling of the NHS by the current ideology - underfund it, create a supposedly independent body to scrutinise the delivery of health care at every level (the CQC who gave the maternity hospital in the North West a satidfactory rating when women and babies were suffering and dying and does anybody recall the Staffordshire hospital that also passed the CQC audit and we now know there was upwardsof 400 unnecessary deaths)and use TTIP to allow American models of health care to take over. TTIP will have no more effect on the NHS than being in EEC/EU has done or will do. It's a trade agreement to try and set up a free trade area between North America and the EU. How anyone would think that it could lead to the breakup of the EU is amazing. Maybe you should explain how TTIP would cause this." According to the Independant the NHS is still on the negotiating table, they quote Lord Livinston the trade minister on that. Public sector can very easily be part of TTIP. As for those happy with privatisation the model most commonly quoted is USA which by their own figures spends more per head on health care for the worst outcomes overall. Endless tiers of failed clinicians influencing clinical decisions and sucking away resources will be another nail in the coffin CQC and CCG's and the bean counters on the rise while each dept has to make 7% cut year on year on year. We already pay for eye and dental care, if your old with dementia and need care you pay etc etc it's coming | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a nurse working in the NHS and a junior doctor asked me if I'd pay for health care - my reply ? I already do I pay tax and national insurance ! We should all be wary of the slow dismantling of the NHS by the current ideology - underfund it, create a supposedly independent body to scrutinise the delivery of health care at every level (the CQC who gave the maternity hospital in the North West a satidfactory rating when women and babies were suffering and dying and does anybody recall the Staffordshire hospital that also passed the CQC audit and we now know there was upwardsof 400 unnecessary deaths)and use TTIP to allow American models of health care to take over. TTIP will have no more effect on the NHS than being in EEC/EU has done or will do. It's a trade agreement to try and set up a free trade area between North America and the EU. How anyone would think that it could lead to the breakup of the EU is amazing. Maybe you should explain how TTIP would cause this. According to the Independant the NHS is still on the negotiating table, they quote Lord Livinston the trade minister on that. Public sector can very easily be part of TTIP. As for those happy with privatisation the model most commonly quoted is USA which by their own figures spends more per head on health care for the worst outcomes overall. Endless tiers of failed clinicians influencing clinical decisions and sucking away resources will be another nail in the coffin CQC and CCG's and the bean counters on the rise while each dept has to make 7% cut year on year on year. We already pay for eye and dental care, if your old with dementia and need care you pay etc etc it's coming" No one is seriously suggesting that we follow the US model which you are correct in pointing out had the highest cost but is constantly rated amongst the worst in terms of outcomes. Unfortunately the UK, while scoring well on costs and accessibility, also rates badly on final outcomes. The systems that have the best overall outcomes on the ones which integrate both public and private together, concentrating on providing affordable care at the point of delivery and on patient needs rather than a dogmatic approach to how the service is actually delivered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. " I wouldn't be against that as such but simply calling an income tax by another name I don't think would actually solve the problem. It could actually make it worse because, as your HIC tax went up and up and the service remained pretty much the same or even got worse, people would soon change their minds about paying more and more. The reality is that, in order to meet the ever growing demands for health services, a new source of finance is required. The really annoying thing about it is that that source of finance is readily available and used by most of the other health care providers in Europe. The only reason why it's not used here is because too many people are putting politics before peoples health and ultimately their lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. " Except all that happens is they raise your new feel good NHS tax, but then reduce the money the NHS got from general taxation to find other things outcome =your ringfenced tax is now basically paying for everything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. Except all that happens is they raise your new feel good NHS tax, but then reduce the money the NHS got from general taxation to find other things outcome =your ringfenced tax is now basically paying for everything" What? 
HIC would be only for health spending, the NHS budget would come from HIC alone.
It means that when times are tough NHS income can be guaranteed in real terms if needs be whereas other expenditure, which comes from general taxation, can take the hit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. Except all that happens is they raise your new feel good NHS tax, but then reduce the money the NHS got from general taxation to find other things outcome =your ringfenced tax is now basically paying for everything What?
HIC would be only for health spending, the NHS budget would come from HIC alone.
It means that when times are tough NHS income can be guaranteed in real terms if needs be whereas other expenditure, which comes from general taxation, can take the hit. "NHS spending had always been protected in real terms by both Labour & Conservative governments since 1975. The problem is is that health costs rise a lot faster than normal costs and the health service needs a rise bigger than just a rise equal to the rate of normal inflation just to stay still. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. Except all that happens is they raise your new feel good NHS tax, but then reduce the money the NHS got from general taxation to find other things outcome =your ringfenced tax is now basically paying for everything What?
HIC would be only for health spending, the NHS budget would come from HIC alone.
It means that when times are tough NHS income can be guaranteed in real terms if needs be whereas other expenditure, which comes from general taxation, can take the hit.
NHS spending had always been protected in real terms by both Labour & Conservative governments since 1975. The problem is is that health costs rise a lot faster than normal costs and the health service needs a rise bigger than just a rise equal to the rate of normal inflation just to stay still."Why does my phone keep auto correcting 'has' to 'had'. grrrr | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. Except all that happens is they raise your new feel good NHS tax, but then reduce the money the NHS got from general taxation to find other things outcome =your ringfenced tax is now basically paying for everything What?
HIC would be only for health spending, the NHS budget would come from HIC alone.
It means that when times are tough NHS income can be guaranteed in real terms if needs be whereas other expenditure, which comes from general taxation, can take the hit.
NHS spending had always been protected in real terms by both Labour & Conservative governments since 1975. The problem is is that health costs rise a lot faster than normal costs and the health service needs a rise bigger than just a rise equal to the rate of normal inflation just to stay still."That's why I thought it was a good idea to separate it's funding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS will go under because more than most people in this country will not go to a healthy lifestyle that has the right intensity of exercise to actually make your body inside stronger. You are causing this massive strain on the NHS. Why? because people are extremely lazy and they blame this myth "i am too busy" "oh i have no time for that" people want easy when it comes to healthy" . It's genetically implanted to be lazy! It's genetically implanted to gorge while having food abundance! We've known this for years! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. " The NHS is currently funded through general taxation and that includes income tax. Those paid less than £10,000 a year currently do not pay income tax. Would your proposed new HIC tax be a flat rate across the board or would you still have the low paid not paying it and higher earners paying a higher rate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has to change before it collapses. They should only treat british passport holders and residents, all others must pay, just like they do in any other country.." Incorrect. The Spanish are having the same debate about elderly (retired) Brits draining the Spanish Health Service despite never having contributed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's why I thought it was a good idea to separate it's funding. " It is a good idea that many crucial public services get ring fenced funding as it stops an incumbent government playing with the budget. Better not to create an entirely new tax though as it just gives the next Chancellor another tax from which to increase whilst reducing an entirely different tax in the name of a particular political philosophy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism isn't gonna die. Not while there are more poorer than excessively wealthy people. I think everything is going to end back in the hands of the people, or the poor are just gonna create their own system. We are at that point now. The poor are taking a lot of shit at the moment, and the more they're pushed the more they will fight it...all they need to do is stop fighting it, realise they are the wealth creators and they might just create something outside of the system for themselves." Anarchist! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism isn't gonna die. Not while there are more poorer than excessively wealthy people. I think everything is going to end back in the hands of the people, or the poor are just gonna create their own system. We are at that point now. The poor are taking a lot of shit at the moment, and the more they're pushed the more they will fight it...all they need to do is stop fighting it, realise they are the wealth creators and they might just create something outside of the system for themselves. Anarchist!" . Actually what's dying is middle ground politics? The left and the right are expanding fast everywhere, just look at Sweden | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd quite like to see a new tax levied. I'd like to see HIC (health insurance contributions) in the way that NIC are made. The HIC tax money is ringfenced solely for the NHS. The NHS would no longer be funded from general taxation - that would mean HIC could be increased and people would know that the money was specifically for health. Given the polls that have been done, which say most people are willing to pay more tax if they know it will go to the NHS - I think a HIC is a good way to single out NHS revenues. Income tax, dividend tax etc would be lowered to take this into account. Except all that happens is they raise your new feel good NHS tax, but then reduce the money the NHS got from general taxation to find other things outcome =your ringfenced tax is now basically paying for everything What?
HIC would be only for health spending, the NHS budget would come from HIC alone.
It means that when times are tough NHS income can be guaranteed in real terms if needs be whereas other expenditure, which comes from general taxation, can take the hit.
NHS spending had always been protected in real terms by both Labour & Conservative governments since 1975. The problem is is that health costs rise a lot faster than normal costs and the health service needs a rise bigger than just a rise equal to the rate of normal inflation just to stay still.
That's why I thought it was a good idea to separate it's funding. "But it's basically just income tax, however you dress it up, so not really a new source of finance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Socialism isn't gonna die. Not while there are more poorer than excessively wealthy people. I think everything is going to end back in the hands of the people, or the poor are just gonna create their own system. We are at that point now. The poor are taking a lot of shit at the moment, and the more they're pushed the more they will fight it...all they need to do is stop fighting it, realise they are the wealth creators and they might just create something outside of the system for themselves. Anarchist!. Actually what's dying is middle ground politics? The left and the right are expanding fast everywhere, just look at Sweden" I wouldn't dismiss the middle ground too quickly. We only have to convince the reasonable people on the centre edge of each side. The ones already firmly to the right or left can't be convinced and don't need to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has to change before it collapses. They should only treat british passport holders and residents, all others must pay, just like they do in any other country.. Incorrect. The Spanish are having the same debate about elderly (retired) Brits draining the Spanish Health Service despite never having contributed." In Spain, you get free health care if you are registered as a resident, work, and pay tax. If you are retired or don't work and under 65, most regions where brits emigrate to run a 'pay in' system, this is about €800 a year. If you're over 65, it's about €1,900 a year. Prescription medicines are full price. The other difference is that if you do have to go to hospital, unless it's life or death, the first thing they ask for is proof of residency, if you aren't resident they then ask for your EHIC, if you haven't got that they ask for your health insurance, and if you haven't got that they take your credit card and passport. You get your passport back when they've sorted out how you're going to pay. Oh, and the Spanish health system is superb. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has to change before it collapses. They should only treat british passport holders and residents, all others must pay, just like they do in any other country.. Incorrect. The Spanish are having the same debate about elderly (retired) Brits draining the Spanish Health Service despite never having contributed. In Spain, you get free health care if you are registered as a resident, work, and pay tax. If you are retired or don't work and under 65, most regions where brits emigrate to run a 'pay in' system, this is about €800 a year. If you're over 65, it's about €1,900 a year. Prescription medicines are full price. The other difference is that if you do have to go to hospital, unless it's life or death, the first thing they ask for is proof of residency, if you aren't resident they then ask for your EHIC, if you haven't got that they ask for your health insurance, and if you haven't got that they take your credit card and passport. You get your passport back when they've sorted out how you're going to pay. Oh, and the Spanish health system is superb." But what you have to realise is that the price you pay is not the real full price of the treatment. What you are being asked to pay is an affordable contribution towards your treatment, which may be covered by insurance. In reality it is the public/private financing of the health system which delivers effect care at an affordable price at the point of delivery. Similar to most of the other health services in the developed world with the noticeable exceptions of the UK and the US. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has to change before it collapses. They should only treat british passport holders and residents, all others must pay, just like they do in any other country.." I bet all the nurses, doctors, cleaners, doormen, bus drivers, bin men, cleaners, teachers, care assistants in the homes, traffic wardens and soldiers have BRITSH PASSPORTS. When their tax / nat insurance is taken, it does not end up in Jamaica, India, Gambia, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Fiji or Najirifuckingstan so while the cow's milk is good for breakfast in the morning, its piss is too smelly to be entertained, right!?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. " It is you who needs to check your facts, the figures you give are 15 years out of date and are figures from 2000. Other surveys by WHO and other organisations give completely different results. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. It is you who needs to check your facts, the figures you give are 15 years out of date and are figures from 2000. Other surveys by WHO and other organisations give completely different results." The positions is still pretty much the same according to more recent figures from the Commonwealth Fund but if you evidence to show otherwise please feel free to point me their direction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has to change before it collapses. They should only treat british passport holders and residents, all others must pay, just like they do in any other country.. I bet all the nurses, doctors, cleaners, doormen, bus drivers, bin men, cleaners, teachers, care assistants in the homes, traffic wardens and soldiers have BRITSH PASSPORTS. When their tax / nat insurance is taken, it does not end up in Jamaica, India, Gambia, Nepal, Pakistan, Poland, Fiji or Najirifuckingstan so while the cow's milk is good for breakfast in the morning, its piss is too smelly to be entertained, right!? "Foreigners do not currently receive free treatment on the NHS funded out of UK taxes. Foreigners, especially EU citizens, are currently treated on the same bases in the UK as UK nationals are treated when abroad (again especially if it's EU). That is they are treated on the same bases as citizens of the country (in the UK that means free at the point of delivery) and the cost of their treatment is then claimed back from their own country. This system works well throughout most of the developed world but, because the NHS has such poor accounting procedures in place, it is estimated that the it claims back less than 25% of money it is entitled to from foreign governments. Before we start insisting that everyone bring their passport along to the hospital if they want to receive any treatment maybe we should just put in place fairly simple measures and procedures which would allow the NHS to claim back from foreign governments the money it is actually owed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The best health care systems in europe are in public ownership, as for the best in the world that honour goes to cuba. I don't know you've ever been to Cuba. I have. And I've had the ' pleasure' of having to go to hospital in Cuba. Let me tell you, from experience, the Cuban health care system is certainly NOT the best in the world. Maybe you were unlucky unfortunately but it is a fact that Cuba's health system is the best along with Swedens. Check with the world health organisation if you have doubts. According the WHO the best Health Services in the world are in fact: 1. France 2. Italy 3. San Marino . . . . . . 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland . . 23 Sweden . . 37 United States . . 39 Cuba . Always a good idea to check your facts against some real independent sources before you start making your points. It is you who needs to check your facts, the figures you give are 15 years out of date and are figures from 2000. Other surveys by WHO and other organisations give completely different results." The positions are still pretty much the same according to more recent figures from the Commonwealth Fund but if you have evidence to show otherwise please feel free to point me in their direction. Wasn't really awake before... !!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
